>gifs
>in 2017
there is literally no reason for you to use .gifs in the year of our lord 2017
>>61235320
I agree. Gifs are ridiculously inefficient at compression, and the quality is always awful. I hope to see its death within a few years.
>>61235320
I've got a reason. I've got lots of gifs saved.
>>61235358
i meant for videos, anon
>GIF Limit: 4MB
>WEBM Limit: 3MB (it's been 2MB before)
What is the retarded logic behind this? Also, give us audio already (screamers are so 2002, audio is muted by default and only mongoloids still think they're funny).
Hiro should make us able to upload APNG now that Chrom* finally added support for it. Yes, there's WEBM but it's technically a video container and not a format for animated images so it has media player controls.
>>61235489
we should be able to get .webp too desu
>>61235480
>only mongoloids still think they're funny
scrubs_reference.avi
>>61235320
>>61235320
Yes there is. Some animated images have worse quality and larger filesize when made into a webm, pic related for example.
Most are better off as a webm though.
>>61235427
Also, I post gifs in lots of places, and of those places, only 4chan accepts webms.
And webms are not supported in all browsers, while gifs are friendly and welcoming and inclusive.
WebM is objectively better than GIF in every way possible, but the jews are the reason why it isn't adopted as much
Also because normies don't know what a WebM is
When making web sites, I find that, for small images like buttons and such, gif compresses better than png.
Animated gifs beat other formats in that they can loop smoothly.
>>61236731
you're supposed to use svg for interface graphics you subhuman
and what's not smooth about 'autoplay' and 'loop' attributes
>posts jpg
Because one of the most popular browsers on the planet doesn't support webm?
>>61236869
>one of the most popular browsers on the planet
Explain.
>>61236833
not my fault it was in .jpg when i got it