/g/ talks 4chan

From memory moot did co-lo for his servers.

If you want less bandwidth you will up cpu time compressing files. Hosting overseas might be cheaper, but you won't have physical access.

>4MB gif
You will never do anything substantial and you will forever remain a clueless dumb faggot.

File: Personal_Andrewscity_Original_Nyan_Cat.gif (50KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 160x160px

>>61185889
Suck my poptart.

>>61185765
You would recode it in C. Then use bittorrent for file hosting.

>Create a natural filter culture for each board, like /tg/, where people simply feel discouraged and uncomfortable around people they don't belong with.
>Create a blue /b/ and depart red /b/ and other dumb boards to a different service provider so the CIA stops knocking on my door.
>Fix fast boards by splitting them automatically into smaller boards.
>Implement crossboarding catalogs. If you want to browse /out/ and /vr/ at the same time within 1 catalog.

>:rename the site luckychan, call it a ban belt, make sage actively bring down a thread faster to page 15. Bring back pages 11-15.
>different types of CSS/site layouts for people who enjoy the forum layout and are sick of imageboard layouts.
>put data mining to good use to ban retards without murdering the ISP. Implement trial mode posting and full registration to allow mods to keep a close eye on the new influx of users/cancer and make bans more potent. While still allowing anonymous posting between users.
>Finally get rid of the bot filter/captcha which doesn't work anyway.

>small chatroom boxes at the bottom of each threads, to allow for simple fast chatting without endless paragraphs of drivel.
>Your posts and threads storage and your favourite threads tab, in case they get deleted.
>bulkier looking buttons for scrolling, for clicking on boards and resizing your post box.
>Automatically detect mobile posters and subtly tell them to use a PC.

File: fuckyou.webm (9KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 160x160px

>>61185967
Suck my superior video format.

>>61186561
>Using lossy compression for something that can be perfectly saved in a small manner in a lossless format

File: 64c5c2b6d9d57168f6cdc2d6aebfc4304a92161528c26dd65870dce06905fec1.webm (2MB, 1920x800px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x800px

>>61186612
>something that can be perfectly saved in a small manner
What the fuck does that even mean, you imbecile. Do you know what you're saying? I can't wait for the day when the retarded .gif format withers and dies. Webm is superior in every way.

>>61186523
>Automatically detect mobile posters and subtly tell them to use a PC.
Just make it as painful to use as possible. Some CSS stuff renders extremely poorly on mobile, overuse that, then make all the elements have random names so you can't write an app, also make mobile IP ranges have a 30% chance of getting a random error and speed capped to 50kbit.

Use different servers instead of kicking boards off entirely. For example, main server is in germany, but /pol/ is in the US, /t/ is in Romania/China, and so on.

Also, allow .onion posting.

>>61186671
Why go through all that trouble? Just block certain combinations of screen resolution, platform, and browser. This will get rid of vast majority of phone posters.

>>61186671
>Just make it as painful to use as possible.
Pretty sure gookmoot already has this implemented. Ads up the wazoo, buggy captcha, also it's just slow in general. Doesn't matter if you have the latest from the smartphone market.

>>61186701
Hard blocking is easier to circumvent.

File: USAiceNotice1.png (55KB, 768x1104px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 768x1104px

>>61186523
>>61186671
>>61186701
Phone poster here, been posting on here by phone for the last 9 years (this site is a pain in the ass with a BlackBerry track pad, just saying, much better on a touch screen). Why do you hate phone posting with such passion? It's no different than posting from my PC at home.

Buy a bunch of Mac minis

>>61186840
Because a lot of phoneposters are normie trash, and the good posters can just post on their computer instead. I've made 6000-7000 posts on my phone, but it should still be blocked for the greater good.

>>61186893
But my computer is at home. And I'm rarely at home. Work takes me far away from there, and much of it is "hurry up and wait" work, this place keeps me entertained while sipping on the data unlike every other website that chews through the data plan in no time.

>>61186922
Yes, there are some good phone posters, but a lot of them are pure trash. It's also a boogeyman, but a soft block should be sufficient.

>>61186671
>>61186840
It's already painful as hell to post from android or even a microsoft nokia phone.

The rational decision for "mobile" posting is to use a laptop. Large screen, a real keyboard, no more auto correction and it's optimized for internet browsing.

You have to be masochistic to post from your phone.

>>61186840
Phone posters are predisposed to make shitty low-effort posts because of the limitations behind using a phone.
Example: Average WPM using a phones keyboard for me is 40, whereas on a desktop I can reach 100.

>>61186943
>>61186981
>>61186991
Is there a way for the MODS / Admin to ban phones by SIM card number? Or is that not part of the ID data that 4chan servers would receive?

Delete gif boards.
Thats it, now it does not take 10k a week to keep the servers up.

>>61185765
4chan gets ~250 page loads per second (https://www.4chan.org/advertise), so you need to generate a page in <4ms on average (after caching)
It gets 11 posts per second, so you need to write them into the database in <91ms
The asm32 board takes 50ms to generate a page (don't know which hardware), but that's without caching and it's not heavily optimized. But you can go much faster than that. Opentracker for example can serve requests fast enough that it's bottlenecked by the kernel.
>>61187050
No.
>>61187095
The bandwidth is very expensive, yes. But you could in theory serve the files via torrent (webtorrent). This would definitely BTFO phoneposters, since they can't cope with the data required.

>>61187050
You should be banned, not the phoneposters, for asking such a retarded question.

>>61186523
>>Finally get rid of the bot filter/captcha which doesn't work anyway.
It may not be perfect, but I guarantee that the amount of spam would be unreal if you got rid of the captcha.

File: chocolate-cake.jpg (93KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 1024x768px

>>61185765
Private messaging/whispering in threads would be a very nice feature. That way anons can stealthily tell each other kill themselves without ruining the thread for others.
Especially for anons who just want to carry a private conversation and share intimate details and information without everyone else and their dog knowing.

File: 1473333204406.jpg (366KB, 1366x910px) Image search: [Google]

366KB, 1366x910px

why would you ever want to bring ownership of a place like this on yourself?
also chan's are an extremely simple format for a website, you really don't need much at all. I think most out there run on a LAMP stack.

It's all text and Images. I'd just store the text in NoSQL tables according to boards, Images in a clustered Object Store. Write some wsgi or go app to serve it behind nginx.
if I'm paying for hosting I'm host all of this out of s3. Probably don't need anything more than a few Lambdas manage it. you can do file uploads direct from browser to it so you don't even really need to think about your file-chunking methods etc.

>>61187239
2+2+2+2 chan has almost removed it, works fine, you can even post from a .onion url. You need to enter it once every 24 hours or 5 posts.
>>61187277
Yes, but it requires JS. And you would get spam issues. And it would be bad for posterity, you wouldn't be able to read old threads. Better to run a separate irc server where you have one channel for each thread (i.e. join #g61185765 as anon<random number>) where you mask out the usernames unless requested by the client. Then integrate webchat in each thread.
>>61187420
Simple, but still easy to fuck up, just look at 2+2+2+2chan and the issues they have.

File: chris.gif (4MB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 480x480px

>>61187488
I've never actually really looked at 2chan. Worth going to? I already feel bad enough coming here I figured if they had a /g/ it'd just be a laser focused version of here which sounds terrible. Are they using a non-relational data tier?

That's actually pretty cool that they have tor capabilities that's huge. I think some form of the 4chan pass functionality with a really strict expiration policy on it would be a good way to get rid of captcha's

I follow a few git projects and the various nyaa's on rizon isn't there a /g/ irc already?

>>61187488
>>61187606
err sorry, i mean that other chan

>>61187620
>hachan

>>61186523
Autism: The Post

>>61187606
>Are they using a non-relational data tier?
What?
>isn't there a /g/ irc already?
There is, but this would basically just be a case of "use the existing goddamn protocol instead of implementing a new shitty copy of it", or in other words, using an existing IRC server for in-thread chat without having to completely fuck up the existing code.

>>61187620
8ćhan

But the issue which needs to be solved is the image/bandwidth one. It could be done via webtorrent, that's probably the best. Recompress image losslessly on upload, then make a single-file torrent so you can canonically map image -> infohash. If other sites like gelbooru uses the same system you can get significant savings.

Use ipfs for image hosting, and give users who serve a lot of files a captcha pass.

You could also use the h@h system, but that would require retooling.

>>61187874
/b/reddit the post, always fearing originality and obsessed with downvoting.

>>61185765
> pure SPA/ajax based website with a super sleek custom compressed protocol non-json API (protobuf?) that minimizes bandwith usage
> further reduce thumbnail fidelity
> reduce jpg quality of full size images
> optimize lossless .png compression
> speed up thread death

>>61187488
Do those other forum websites with the chat box at the bottom also require javascript?

>>61188311
IPFS is a very good idea. Are IPs revealed in a direct relation to the file like bittorrent?
What's the H@H system?
>>61188621
But then you'll need js up the wazoo. And all the compression stuff will take lots and lots of cpu.
>>61188774
Yes, or manually refreshing the page. The optimal solution is IRC.

>>61185765
make it accessible via ssh (or telnet, but that has no encryption)
make catchpas not shit
force https

>>61188831
>IPFS is a very good idea. Are IPs revealed in a direct relation to the file like bittorrent?
They aren't, if the machine they're coming from isn't a gateway. In such a case, the gateway would know.
Everyone knows the IP of the gateway, because it's a regular web server.

>What's the H@H system?
hentai@home. It's the hosting system that sadpanda uses.
The server itself is called Glados, it's written in java.

>>61186658
>webm looks like shit
>"but I saved 30KB!"

>>61188983
H@H is easy to log IPs and everyone doesn't participate. IPFS or webtorrent would be much smarter.

>>61185765
The low hanging fruit first: use Http2.
Then use flif for images, vp9 for video, convert gif to video.

Then if you want to save more bandwidth, you can remove thumbnails and load flif images partially as the thumbnail. For the whole image, just keep downloading.

You guys are missing optimization opportunities, which I'm sure are already being utilized.

Let's assume we're not going to use cloud flare for simplicity sake.

>All pages served as static content.
>write changes to database but don't update pages yet
>regenerate all changed pages every 10 seconds (you can tell this is already happening)

>>61188831
IPs are revealed, just like BitTorrent. But all it means is they have a chunk of data with the same hash as the chunk of data you want. Not necessarily the whole file.

Two computers can have two files with similar chunks of data inside, for example image headers.

>>61189107
It would be even smaller if you served just one template once, cache it using a manifest, then serve only protobuff files (smaller than json) as the static content cached every 10 seconds. And let the client apply the contents to the template.

>>61185765
why are you bragging about have 50 bucks?

>>61185765
>Why not just own the servers themselves instead of buying server power?
Server power is cheaper and easier to scale.

>>61189097
You are stupid, have bad eyes, or a bad monitor if you don't see the difference between >>61185967 and >>61186561

>>61189107
>>61189230
Applying a template is cheap if done correctly, only a few cycles. The problem is database access, if all threads are kept in ram it's very easy to code something where the kernel is the bottleneck.
>>61189166
And it's not like bittorrent where if you have file X you must have requested it, it can just "end up" there, no?

>>61189025
>webm looks like shit
I thought I'd given up on this board before, but I've somehow given up even more.

>>61189283
You just request requests hashes for chunks so all you can know about the other IP is that they have that chunk. Not necessarily as part of the same file.

>>61189230
Nice I like that idea

>>61189271
Well no shit, fucktard. I tried to compress it as much as possible. A gif can handle 256 colours, a webm can handle 4,294,967,296 colours.

>>61188621
>optimize lossless png compression
I've been thinking about this one. The problem is, optipng can't detect if an image is already optimized. A very large number of images on 4chan are reposted images from 4chan, so if you could mark an image as already optimized using metadata, you could save huge amounts of bandwidth at the cost of optimizing an image only once.

>>61185765
As I remember 4chan archives about 2TB of data so you only need fast servers, not much user db since most don't pay

>>61186886
this

File: shitpostingtwitterminecraftman.jpg (23KB, 580x422px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 580x422px

>>61185765
>Let's say I have the money to buy 4chan from Hiro

You don't. And I honestly don't think anyone browsing this site has that kind of money. Or if they do they wouldn't want to spend it.

Pic related is prolly the only person who could afford to buy this site just for his own amusement.

>>61189586
You could send a hash of the image before attempting to upload it. If the same hash already exist, reuse the image.

Use reference counting to check which images are not in any thread and delete them. You can do this in a bloom filter for maximum space optimization.

>>61189940
Store he hash of both optimized and unoptimized images, that way you deal with users posting images they downloaded from the site as well as new unoptimized images.

>>61189940
>>61189964
>send a hash of the image before attempting to upload it
That seems kinda unsecure, as users could send fake hashes and cause all sorts of problems.
I think the best solution would be storing the hashes after optimization of all the images that have ever been optimized on the server in a table. It wouldn't take up that much space, and searching wouldn't take much time either. When a user uploads an image, and its hash (computed on the server, shouldn't take much time) matches one of the hashes in the database, the image won't be optimized, otherwise it will be optimized. Plus you could still do the thing you mentioned about saving space through only storing duplicate images once, although saving space isn't really important, as the images on 4chan take up roughly a constant amount of space.

>>61190209
I also looked into PNG metadata and read the optipng manual in the meantime, it seems possible to store the optimization level of optimized images in the utf-8 text field, and it looks like the development of optipng has stalled, as there is a list of features that are not yet implemented (such as detecting images with 1-bit colour).

>>61188499
Butthurt: the post

>>61186523
>rename the site luckychan
wew
>make sage actively bring down a thread faster
What, like a downvote?
>Implement trial mode posting and full registration
"no"
>Finally get rid of the bot filter/captcha which doesn't work anyway.
>he doesn't remember /pol/harbor

Your whole post reeks of leddit.

>>61189586
>>61189940
>>61190209
Hash the raw image.

>>61191230
Here's how it should be done:

On image uploaded:
Do sanity checks (size etc)
Hash raw image
Check if imagesUploaded[rawImageHash] > 0
If so, put filename[rawImageHash] in URL field
If not, store image in database

Store image in database:
Strip all metadata
Optimize image (at the lowest level, just the one that gets rid of the most bloat)
imagesUploaded[rawImageHash]++
Generate a torrent where piece size = image size
Upload to ipfs
Store hashes of raw and optimized image in most common hash formats

Fuck, I really want to write a C imageboard engine now.

>>61185765
hook about 10 hard drives to a bananapi
4chinz is now free money, you only need enough ad bucks to pay electricity and replace failing drives

>>61186561
>no sound
lol

>>61191763
No sound enabled on /g/.

>>61191795
So why use a video format with no sound.

Hello, my name is Hiroyuki Ni- err, Nichijou. I also wish to know how to optimize an imageboard for less bandwidth consumption. I will be monitoring this thread.

>>61191859
Billions of more colors, larger resolution, much longer clip duration, and all for a smaller file size. Gif is a highly inefficient "video" format.

>>61186671
I think this is already the case for iOS. I tried posting from my iPad and it's basically broken... the quick reply window doesn't close so you have to wait/keep updating to see when your post went through, then refresh to be able to post another.

>>61185765
Use amazon aws and you're good to go. If you keep the entire userbase, note that it would be expensive. About as much as your rent.

>>61187420
>nosql
Fuck me, why on earth would you want to do a thing like that?

>>61192008
Solution: Require a pass to post anywhere.

>>61192038
Commit suicide. The solution is to use external free hosting, including for example using ipfs/retroshare/gnushare/whatever.

>>61192064
tor, ipfs, and all the other anonymous network shit are 99% child porn and drug deals. Nobody's gonna install that shady shit just to shitpost.

>>61191959
This wasn't a video that was posted though, it was a simple image that looped for a couple of frames. gif is better for that.

>>61192122
At least google things before proving you have no clue what you're talking about.

>>61192008
>AWS
kekd
>>61192064
It's not very expensive to run, hiro is lying. You need 9gbit connection running at 100% 24/7 to serve all the images, that's not a whole lot. CPU is very cheap, could probably run 4chan off of hardware for $500-1000. Cloudflare is the expensive part.

>>61192291
Expensive part is bandwidth and redundancy, not hardware. Cloudflare should be avoided like the plague.

>>61192246
>This wasn't a video
Look at the file extension. Is it a video extension? Yes? Then it's a fucking video.

>>61192269
I know what they are and what they were made for, and I'm telling you 1) what they are used for in reality and 2) why nobody normal is interested in using them

>>61192316
It was a .gif though.

>>61192327
Look again. Take some time before you post stupid replies like this.

File: 1467702519638.png (2KB, 187x39px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 187x39px

>>61192334
?

>>61192347
...Did you miss the post literally two posts below it? That's not mine.

>>61192351
No, but that's not the original which was what the discussion was about. It's the content that you put in your video. The original wasn't a video, so why put it in a video format? It doesn't benefit from any of the video format's benefits.

>>61192380
Because I was making the point that webm can produce a much smaller file size, which it did. I can make it look better for a bigger file size, but it would still be smaller than than the gif.

>>61192410
>Because I was making the point that webm can produce a much smaller file size, which it did.
It also looks worse.

>I can make it look better for a bigger file size, but it would still be smaller than than the gif.
I honestly doubt that, considering you'd always be using a lossy compression instead of just using lossless from gif.

>>61187120
>since they cant cope with
Jokes on you nigger, I have unlimited data and 90% of the time a connection greater than 50Mbps

>sent from my htc u11 via firefox mobile beta

>>61189881
How much can this garbage sewer site be worth? Without /v/ /b/ /pol/ which supply most of the traffic.

File: output.webm (28KB, 160x160px) Image search: [Google]

28KB, 160x160px

>>61192425
This is at 1MB bitrate.

>>61192497
Also looks worse, looks about the same as the other webm.

>>61192517
At this point the quality difference is so minimal that any difference you do see is a trick of your mind.

>>61192425
You are doing some sort of 4D mental gymnastics there son.
Gotta calm down.

>>61192540
I'm just using tools to point out the differences. Any differences between the webm and the original means it's worse. There's no reason to use a lossy format when the lossless format works well and is small enough.
>>61192543
Man, that's some pretty simple logic mate. Don't use lossy when lossless is an option. In this case, gif is lossless (though obviously not always because it has severe limitations).

>>61192584
>There's no reason to use a lossy format when the lossless format works well and is small enough.
Except no it doesn't, I already told you all the reasons, so why are you still posting you fucking troglodyte.

>>61192584
Yeah, you're actually trying.
That's pretty funny.

>gif
>lossless
Fucking dying. Thanks for that, you got rid of my headache.

>>61191384
do it u bitch

>>61192639
>Except no it doesn't
This isn't gramatically correct.

>I already told you all the reasons
Which don't apply to this situation.
>>61192640
Yes, gif is lossless if you can work within the colour limitations and such.

>>61192682
>This isn't gramatically correct.
I don't care, that's not the argument right now. Don't avoid the subject.
>Which don't apply to this situation.
Tell me how they don't apply to the situation then you donkey.

>people hate phone posters
all major US phone carriers IP's have been banned.
How in the fuck is phone posters a problem when many of them can't even post in the first place.

>>61192682
and webm is lossless if you can work within the limitations.

>>61185765
>ctrl+f
>webp
>0 results
Shit, everyone is jumping on the webp bandwagon. Even the clickbait ads on this fucking site are webp and we still are still in the dark ages of JPG. If you want to cut the costs of hosting a site like this, enable a few new file formats with better storage methods and lower the file size limits.

>>61193656
I actually wanted to recommend webp in my reply to the guy suggesting image optimization, but then I looked it up, and apparently it's only supported by chrome and its derivatives at the moment.

>>61185765
Ban everybody who posts with a referal link from Reddit.

>>61186981
The only annoying part on phone for me is after completing Captcha it scrolls down for no reason.

>>61193894
Webp works in webkit, blink, gecko, and even fucking presto. Presto hasn't seen an update in over half a decade anon. If a browser doesn't support webp by now it's intentional.

File: file.png (53KB, 1257x485px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 1257x485px

>>61194820
Firefox and other major browsers still don't support it, according to caniuse.com, and I haven't found any articles confirming webp support in firefox, for example.

>>61192323
>>61192269

>>61186135
>>61185765
Have a machine learning filter that piles through banned imagery as well as non-related to board topics.
Change from a OS-based model to a raw compute WSGI model that calls pictures posted into a file sharing web rather than a full server solution.

The details of the WSGI are on presentation here:
https://htmlpreview.github.io/?https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Miserlou/Talks/master/serverless-sf/big.quickstart.html#85

>>61194913
Technically, the only major browser to not support it is Safari.

The rest are not major browsers.

>>61195792
Technically you should kill yourself, because one quarter of all users use a browser that doesn't support webp. Besides, the number of firefox users on /g/ is higher, since more people here are worried about their privacy.
I'm not even a butthurt firefox user, as I use chrome, you're just simply retarded.

>what would be an optimized imageboard for less bandwith consumption
4chan is an imageboard, and it already uses incredibly little bandwidth (max image sizes of 4mb is incredibly small for a modern-day website) and virtually no storage because it doesnt retain data indefinitely like Imgur or Reddit.

Basically Hiro is blowing smoke up our asses about the "IT SO EXPENSIVE!!!!" shit.

>>61195898
>one quarter of all users use a browser that doesn't support webp

So if it became a standard used in major sites (say: YouTube, Google, Gmail), then non-Chrome browsers would have major pressure on them because they wouldn't be able to display those popular sites correctly. This would either push more users to use Chrome, or put enough pressure on the other browsers so they implement the feature.

Worrying about your privacy means nothing, you should've worried about it ten years ago, then maybe we wouldn't have every single site tracking users in real time.

I'll be honest I would be perfectly okay to limit the filesize of uploaded files to anywhere from 2MB to 1MB save for boards like gif and wsg if it were to speed up this place.

>>61185765
>What servers would I need and what would be an optimized imageboard for less bandwith consumption?
>Why not just own the servers themselves instead of buying server power?

If you have to ask this question, your probably not in a good position to do this. You better get a damn good GROUP (not just one) of sysadmins to manage the shit otherwise it'll be a cluster-fuck of downtime.

The reason why people don't own servers and out-source it to AWS or whatever is they don't want to deal with the labor/time involved. So it's just dependent on your business plan. However, do not think your just going to cut-corners colocating servers somewhere. The labor to manage the userbase that is 4chan is going to require some serious salaries for those involved. Your "cousin's friend does some IT stuff for me 2 hours a week" is not going to suffice.

>>61195921
>4chan is an imageboard, and it already uses incredibly little bandwidth (max image sizes of 4mb is incredibly small for a modern-day website)

4chan currently has 201000 users online, viewing and posting images. That's a fuck ton of bandwidth.

>and virtually no storage because it doesnt retain data indefinitely like Imgur or Reddit.

Current active content is 1299 GB according to the frontpage. And no, you can't just host it all on a WD Green drive, since that 1.3tb of content is viewed by 200k users right now.

Hiro is a liar and an asshole who doesn't give a shit about 4chan, but that doesn't mean the site does not require a shit ton of server power and bandwidth to run. Honestly, I'm surprised that it's pretty fast and responsive most of the time too. I've been here for 10 years and there were times when the site was running like if I used a 56k modem.

>>61196174
>and there were times when the site was running like if I used a 56k modem.
That's happened more often under hiroshima than in the entire prior history of 4chan desu senpai.

>>61185765
Please do it and bring back the programming board. You'll need a stack of Mac Minis.

>>61192640
>>61192584
>>61186612
I have read at least 800 pages of textbook on the subject of image, motion, and video compression and I work with major customers doing video work and I cannot figure out why you're clinging to gif or what you think is so great about it. It's and RLE encoded image with lzw compression. That's an extremely basic image compression algorithm followed by a general data compression algorithm. I think there might be some small optimizations on this but dunno.

Fun fact: Most video compression algorithms support lossless or can be abused to work losslessly.

The lossy jpeg compression standard you hate so much has a lossless mode but i don't think it gets used much.

>>61196126
Your hypothetical example is irrelevant, because 4chan has orders of magnitude less traffic than those top 10 websites, and because the owners of those sites would never introduce changes that break compatibility for 25% of users anyway. If 4chan did it, it would lead to a few people abandoning it, a number of people downloading a different browser, and many people on /g/ freaking out, but it would barely put any pressure on the browser developers.
>Worrying about your privacy means nothing, you should've worried about it ten years ago, then maybe we wouldn't have every single site tracking users in real time.
That's a shit argument used by dumb people. The people worried about privacy can at least forego willingly giving their data to Google by using Chrome. That's a lot better than nothing at the price of using a different browser.

>>61196445
Using something designed for lossy ops in lossless mode just results in crap compression.

>>61196445
To be fair, the original poster provided a really shitty example by turning a gif into a webm. He took something that already has a reduced color palette, and fucked its quality up even more by adding video artifacts on top of it to save some space. I agree that webm is the way to go in 99%+ of all cases.

>>61196521
Forgot to add "though" at the end of the last sentence.