GIF dosen't support alpha transparency, it dosen't support high color, it dosen't support a ton of things, and I think you should add APNG support to your png library.
I know how to creat animated GIF files in PS without issue. Is there anyway to create an Animated PNG in Photoshop? (including using 3rd party plugins)
I find most Of the browsers I have installed do not animate animated PNG Firefox does though. Try this link there is a list of programs you can use to create animated png and an example animated png on the web page. http://www.truekolor.net/learn-how-to-create-an-animated-png/
For a work around, you can use javascript and create a loader/player that loads an image sequence and view the animation. It requires that you learn the basics of javascript, but it can be done. Also the speed may not be as fast as a swf/avi/mov file, but speed will depend on if you preload all images or play as you load. and obviously the latter will be dependant on your connection speed.
The upside is that will play on all browsers that have javascript enabled. (or it should)...
I really wish browsers would jump on this, you have animation like GIF with much better resolutions => Thanks for the info all of you!
Not better resolution just better color that comes with a price tag file sizes will be much larger then animated gifs. With a high speed internet connection page load time will be OK. Users with dial up connections large animated png files on your web site may drive users away.
Thats true but according to a 2009 study by the FCC only 6% of Americans (my target audience for my site) still use dial-up so I am not worried about isolating some users but with that said until APNG is supported natively by more browsers other than just Firefox or Opera (I do not count Chrome because most users will not have that add-on) I will not be using them unless there is a rare circumstance to which I do not foresee.
Regardless of the client connection speed, filesize will always be a concern for the server. Do not expect animated PNG to gain more adoption. It is much more efficient to use an actual video codec.
Has support for video formats progressed to the point where you can have a small, high-quality animated element right inline on a page without a play button? And is there (partial) transparency in any video format?
One does see such things in Flash, and I've certainly still got to go educate myself better on what can be done with HTML5.
As far as having animated PNGs, it's not hard to think of applications where elements appear to hover over other elements on the page, perhaps drop shadows on the background, and move smoothly. As a primitive example, bring up this page with a PNG, resize it, and (assuming the movement animates quickly for you, as it does in IE9) note how it catches your interest because it's doing something uncommon... We've had GPUs that can easily facilitate real-time multilayer combinational rendering for a while now. Granted, it might not be good to have EVERYTHING moving around and jockeying for position in the Z-order all at once. That could end up as a good ol' fashioned mess. But imagine the above ball rolling onto the page, and the pieces animating to show the prospective buyer how the puzzle works.
With any data on the net, it's always a given that "less is better", but data size is not the only concern. The job is being done in the first place to create value -- if no one thought that actually putting rich, eye-catching elements on web pages was valuable then all we'd have is black text on gray backgrounds.
...One does see such things in Flash, and I've certainly still got to go educate myself better on what can be done with HTML5...
This is precisely why no browser is rushing to support animated PNG.
We can take a step back from web design and consider that not even video artists (who have much less concern for bandwidth) have need for APNG. They may work with stacks of individual PNG files in projects but they will render them as a video format for output.
Well... That's a bit of a circular argument. It seems likely that if animated PNGs were available web designers would be using them.
It's hard to use the term "need" with emerging technology. Not long ago no one knew they "needed" much of the technology we take for granted today. Did you know you "needed" a portable internet browser?
And keep in mind most of the current decisions and designs of things were developed before you could anticipate huge rendering power on virtually every display device. Not that long ago it was barely possible to see something even move on a computer screen.
This is not emerging technology. It is just a minor variant of something else. The emerging technology that has surpassed animated GIF and PNG because of their inherent limitations is HTML5(ie: canvas)/CSS/SWF/JS/...and video codecs.
Heh heh heh, I was speaking of animations on the web in general, not just about animated PNGs, but I guess I'm just thinking like an Old Codger. What's considered "new" by you young whippersnappers in the web arena nowadays? Stuff announced last week?
The past, modern, and future web is semantic and interactive. An animated GIF or PNG file is neither. That is why web designers are prone to use something else (HTML5(ie: canvas)/CSS/SWF/JS/...and video codecs).
The past, modern, and future web is semantic and interactive. An animated GIF or PNG file is neither.
Well, since you seem to want to be argumentative, neither is a video format. These are just components used in making web content seem rich and interactive to the user.
But your point that modern standards are expanding in other directions to accomplish these things is well-taken. I wonder what the web will look like in 10 years... Will we see voice activated personal sales assistants to walk you through the virtual store and describe the merchandise in enticing ways?
The bottom line of this all is that there are places where APNGs would be useful. It may not be as interactive as HTML 5 or Flash yet there are uses.
One case in point is I am working on an animated postcard. It looks okay in GIF BUT I would prefer the much higher quality I would get out of the postcard. I cannot create this using flash as this will be sent via e-mail and if APNG was supported like GIF files then the user could open the e-mail and see the animation. Flash would require the user to go to the page itself.
Aha. I'm understanding the 'dispute' now. I'm not arguing that APNG is not useful. I'm simply pointing out why it is not gaining faster adoption.
Beware that even animated GIF support is spotty with HTML email clients. Not all email clients support animated GIF. Many will simply see a static GIF image, if they have their mail client set to display images at all.
I believe Apple's Mail did not initially support animated GIF but now it does. On the contrary Microsoft's Outlook used to support animated GIF and now it does not. Go figure.
Yeah, That's the catch 22, if you don't add it because it's not supported, it won't be supported because they're a pain to make. and yes, I was referring to Animated PNG.
Hi, I am a year 3 computer science student at the National University of Singapore. I am currently doing a study on animated image sequence. The most popular format for animated image sequence is GIF. However, there are many people who feel that there are better formats available. One of the such format is the animated PNG (APNG). Despite its advantages over GIF, APNG has been rarely heard by content creators. One postulation is the lack of authoring tools and browser support, hence the lack of accessibility in creating such animations. I would like to ask if the future version of Photoshop will ever allow the creation of APNG files. If no, why not? Will the key reason be due to the lack of browser support?
72
Replies
AdChoices