/meta/ - meta

<related:
>animated WEBPs which don't work here ( >>>/mecha/1043 ).

elephant.png
[Hide] (370.1KB, 480x400)

test

Webp doesn't work because graphicsmagick doesn't seem to even support this format:
identify: ImproperImageHeader `/tmp/magick-p2LwUFNkQKtJIPxVp7bG5A3AugcjofDI' @ error/pnm.c/ReadPNMImage/354.
Besides, is there a single program besides webbrowsers, which support apng viewing? Last time I checked ffmpeg still didn't support it.

>>1646
Hmm, looks like ffmpeg now supports apng. Converting that elephant from apng to apng with ffmpeg results in a 2x filesize. Even that gif which practically has no compression is smaller than the converted apng. How can ffmpeg be this crap?

Intredasting. Who knows what you can figure out here, @Admin. Good luck.

534220f36372f55f80c0e84776fe76502e11fafa76a0ca9a06f1f039149cc998.png
[Hide] (24.1KB, 636x125)

apng_support.png
[Hide] (317.3KB, 895x2028)

>>1646
I know the image viewers sxiv and its successor nsxiv support apng because I've used both programs, and now that I've tested the latter, I can confirm that it supports animated webp images as well. ImageMagick has supported apng since late 2020, according to pics related ( https://web.archive.org/web/20211205042057/https://imagemagick.org/script/changelog.php ).
As for apng filesizes in >>1647, some of that like has to do with whatever compression ffmpeg is (or isn't) doing. apngopt, for example, offers to compress the format with either zlib, 7z, or zopfli. The last option produces the smallest files, but takes long enough that it's definitely a bad fit for compressing post thumbnails.
Really, if animated apng thumbnails end up being too big of a headache, you don't have to bother. It's likely that no imageboard has offered that yet for a reason.

>>1649
tested the latter for it*

>>1649
>sxiv
Intarasting, I have sxiv, and it definitely doesn't play apngs (or animated webp or gif for that matter).
>imagemagick
Yes, but jschan uses graphicsmagick, which is a fork of some ancient version of imagemagick, and it doesn't seem to support apng. (And even imagemagick needs the user to explicitly specify the filename as apng:filename which kinda defeats the purpose)
>ffmpeg
From a quick look it looks like they don't use libpng but built their own png encoder which sucks. There's a -compression_level flag, but setting it to 9 (the supposed maximum) just makes encoding way slower with minimal filesize changes. apngopt with -z0 (to use zlib, not the slow 7z) seems like the best compromise, but even that's hovering on the being too slow for thumbnail generation.

>>1651
Huh. I must be misremembering that detail about sxiv then, as I only used it years ago when it was actively maintained-
>or gif for that matter
Okay, I know for a fact sxiv had them, as its github page says so. It just doesn't autoplay gifs: you have to hit control-space.
>From a quick look it looks like they don't use libpng but built their own png encoder
Classic ffmpeg.