Archives animated png

[pokeant]

not all users are able to view animated png. therefore, the image that appears to users not viewing animated png should show something "useful". for example, the leftover weather effects images at this page does not help at all. most of the images are just black blanks and shows nothing. another example is the kakuna evolution. it does not help much. it could at least show the frame which contains beedrill emerging from the cocoon

 

[Werdnae]

Since it keeps coming up, I'll have to say it again. The first frame of any animated png MUST be an acceptable still image. No exceptions. The 'static' sprite for sprites, mid-move for moves, highlighted for maps, etc. People with Firefox saying "But I can't tell", the images in the file history do not animate. I use firefox and it's easy to tell whether it has been done properly.

 

[Jo The Marten]

I'll just put this here if anyone decides to fix these:

Palkia's BW sprite doesn't start on the right frame. It's mid-animation.

 

[MAGNEDETH]

Since it keeps coming up, I'll have to say it again. The first frame of any animated png MUST be an acceptable still image. No exceptions. The 'static' sprite for sprites, mid-move for moves, highlighted for maps, etc. People with Firefox saying "But I can't tell", the images in the file history do not animate. I use firefox and it's easy to tell whether it has been done properly.

i thought we decided on this a long long time ago? it should definitely be a written rule.

 

[Noivern]

Since it keeps coming up, I'll have to say it again. The first frame of any animated png MUST be an acceptable still image. No exceptions. The 'static' sprite for sprites, mid-move for moves, highlighted for maps, etc. People with Firefox saying "But I can't tell", the images in the file history do not animate. I use firefox and it's easy to tell whether it has been done properly.

I understand what's going on with the entire thing, but for sprites, can't we just use GIFs? It's not like we'll hit the colour palette limitation if we use a good GIF converter/processor that does per-frame palettes.

 

[AlexTheRose]

I have to agree with Twiggy on this one. What's so freaking scary and harmful about the Graphics Interchange format? It's not like its possible to make 32-bit APNGs without really expensive software anyway, all of our sprites are (or at least should be) 8-bit able as well, and who the hell animates photographs? If it is possible to do per-frame palettes, then I see much less problems with GIFs than with AniPNGs.

The problem is the APNG format is to underdeveloped for converting tens of thousands of files to save some editor an extra click of the preview button, put simply. Don't we heavily encourage users to click that button as much as possible already?

 

[Adil]

I have to agree with Twiggy on this one. What's so freaking scary and harmful about the Graphics Interchange format? It's not like its possible to make 32-bit APNGs without really expensive software anyway, all of our sprites are (or at least should be) 8-bit able as well, and who the hell animates photographs? If it is possible to do per-frame palettes, then I see much less problems with GIFs than with AniPNGs.

The problem is the APNG format is to underdeveloped for converting tens of thousands of files to save some editor an extra click of the preview button, put simply. Don't we heavily encourage users to click that button as much as possible already?

I beg to differ. GIFs quality sucks and leaves a really bad impression on the site overall, especially when we are talking about sprites, one the widely used images like them should never be in gif. Also, it is not just about the "extra click" otherwise we would have never implemented that NO JPG, only PNG rule. The quality does matter when it comes to the images and plays a vital role on Bulba.

 

[AlexTheRose]

I have to agree with Twiggy on this one. What's so freaking scary and harmful about the Graphics Interchange format? It's not like its possible to make 32-bit APNGs without really expensive software anyway, all of our sprites are (or at least should be) 8-bit able as well, and who the hell animates photographs? If it is possible to do per-frame palettes, then I see much less problems with GIFs than with AniPNGs.

The problem is the APNG format is to underdeveloped for converting tens of thousands of files to save some editor an extra click of the preview button, put simply. Don't we heavily encourage users to click that button as much as possible already?

I beg to differ. GIFs quality sucks and leaves a really bad impression on the site overall, especially when we are talking about sprites, one the widely used images like them should never be in gif. Also, it is not just about the "extra click" otherwise we would have never implemented that NO JPG, only PNG rule. The quality does matter when it comes to the images and plays a vital role on Bulba.

What you don't understand is that GBA and DS game sprites use 16 color palettes, so it really doesn't matter because 8-bit encompasses a 256-color palette with PNG and GIF. Original GB sprites use four colors, so do we really need to waste all of this extra work?

The only real-time software I've seen is the AniPNG Group's GIF to APNG converter, which converts 8-bit GIFs to 8-bit PNGs, so you're getting the same exact quality as with any GIF. Does what you're saying really make sense to sacrifice all of this browser compatibility for (really) a more universal file extension? I think its just editors making others do the dirty work in the archives so they can be lazy in my opinion.

 

[Bikini Miltank]

I think its just editors making others do the dirty work in the archives so they can be lazy in my opinion.

See, I agree with your overall argument and have been making a similar case for a long time. But tossing around accusations like this isn't going to win people over to your side.

Realistically, at this point the decision regarding animated PNGs has been in place for too long for it to be reversed. It sucks, but we now have so many of the things that going back would be impractical.

 

[AlexTheRose]

I think its just editors making others do the dirty work in the archives so they can be lazy in my opinion.

See, I agree with your overall argument and have been making a similar case for a long time. But tossing around accusations like this isn't going to win people over to your side.

Realistically, at this point the decision regarding animated PNGs has been in place for too long for it to be reversed. It sucks, but we now have so many of the things that going back would be impractical.

I have to agree with you on that – We're buried too deep to really dig ourselves out. Hopefully other independent wikis will learn from our mistake…

I have a speculative idea: To keep it uniform, why not do all game sprites in Graphics Interchange? It's brilliant! I think it would work out neater than only the animated sprites having their own format on the file archives, instead incorporating all sprites into it. Most sprites are under the color limit and hardly ever use partial transparency, so I think it might be a win-win.

 

[Noivern]

If it's anything, you DON'T have to do it all at once. Do it, in a staggered way. It's not like we're in a rush or anything, but anything to make the Bulbapedia experience better for everyone. Even doing just a dozen of sprites every day can be a bit helpful.

Maybe doing it starting with the most important stuff - front normal battle sprites - will help.

I do NOT suggest converting APNGs for battle animations, though. Everything else, though? It's fair game.

Making all future sprite uploads GIF-only will also go a long way towards making BP more accessible to everyone. The end result should be transparent to everyone.

Last time I checked, Trident + WebKit combined is the majority of the browser market.

I have to agree with Twiggy on this one. What's so freaking scary and harmful about the Graphics Interchange format? It's not like its possible to make 32-bit APNGs without really expensive software anyway, all of our sprites are (or at least should be) 8-bit able as well, and who the hell animates photographs? If it is possible to do per-frame palettes, then I see much less problems with GIFs than with AniPNGs.

The problem is the APNG format is to underdeveloped for converting tens of thousands of files to save some editor an extra click of the preview button, put simply. Don't we heavily encourage users to click that button as much as possible already?

I beg to differ. GIFs quality sucks and leaves a really bad impression on the site overall, especially when we are talking about sprites, one the widely used images like them should never be in gif. Also, it is not just about the "extra click" otherwise we would have never implemented that NO JPG, only PNG rule. The quality does matter when it comes to the images and plays a vital role on Bulba.

This statement has a problem with sprites: GIF by itself is a lossless format. It's just that it can only handle up to 8-bit colour palettes. However, it's precisely that this is of no concern to sprites... well, you get the idea.

TL;DR version: APNGs make no sense for sprites.

Past decisions can be, and sometimes, should be reversed... Even if it might mean work, one should be able to spread it. Heck, I could volunteer

 

[Werdnae]

If it's anything, you DON'T have to do it all at once.

Actually, the way templates work, they do all have to be done at once. It has to be the same extension for every species so that we don't have to put every sprite on every species page manually.

 

[Noivern]

If it's anything, you DON'T have to do it all at once.

Actually, the way templates work, they do all have to be done at once. It has to be the same extension for every species so that we don't have to put every sprite on every species page manually.

Pretty interesting to hear that. Is it possible to grab a list of all APNGs in use right now?

 

[SnorlaxMonster]

Honestly, I do agree that we should use GIF over APNG in sprites, since there is no quality loss. IIRC, TTE's reasoning for using APNGs was to help it become standard. That's not how we should operate. And besides that argument, the only other one was the one that was mentioned here, the "we're in too deep to go back now". If we do actually put in the effort, we can, generation-by-generation, upload them all as GIFs. Likewise, I really think area highlighted maps should be GIF, unless there are ones that do lose quality due to being in that format.

If it's anything, you DON'T have to do it all at once.

Actually, the way templates work, they do all have to be done at once. It has to be the same extension for every species so that we don't have to put every sprite on every species page manually.

If we were going to do it though, we would just slowly upload GIFs and not put them in use until all the GIFs of its type were uploaded.

Also, I'm interested on what @APNG_Fan 's opinion on the matter is.

 

[Kogoro]

We have 4,206 categorized APNG images, replacing them all would take an extremely long time & then require multiple templates to be re-coded. Something I'd like to avoid, to be honest. Support for the format is growing, and there are ways to make them work on IE, Safari, and Chrome. I think it would be a quicker & more viable option to look into the script that we've been supplied here by @♪Twiggy♪

 

[Noivern]

We have 4,206 categorized APNG images, replacing them all would take an extremely long time & then require multiple templates to be re-coded. Something I'd like to avoid, to be honest. Support for the format is growing, and there are ways to make them work on IE, Safari, and Chrome. I think it would be a quicker & more viable option to look into the script that we've been supplied here by @♪Twiggy♪

Canvas as stopgap, GIF as the long term solution for sprites. Is this OK?

Each page in the category shows 200 by default of them. Calculating for this, we should maybe, just do it in split groups. Even with just two people working on the entire thing, just doing one page should mean 400 sprites are processed at most even if by hand. It shouldn't be a chore for most people on broadband connections (battle move animations are skipped).

*Is it possible to filter out all battle move animations in that category view?

Notes:
Generation I-II everything non home console: 3/4 colours + transparency depending on whether it's an actual sprite or cut out from background tiles

Generation III+ sprites, main series: Up to 15 colours + transparency per frame
Some spin-off titles might use more than 15 colours for stuff like this, but shouldn't still exceed 255

Generation III/IV maps: Up to 16 colours per tile; Colours should stay within 256 for all Generation III maps
Generation V maps: 8-bit per frame (never exceeds 256 colours) (disable transparency to use that extra colour)

Battle animations:
Generation I/II: It should never exceed 56 colours per frame in any circumstance (I think 256 colours is safely met even with a bad GIF converter)
Generation III: It rarely exceeds 256 colours per frame, barring complex alpha/average/addition/subtraction blending
Generation IV+: Renders at 18-bit colour if no framebuffer effects are used, if so then 15-bit (I don't think there's any battle animations as of Gen V that uses that, but battle transitions? All of them in Generation V do.) (we need APNGs)

Oh, and one thing you may not already know is that non-supporting browsers keep downloading the entire picture file... Let's just say that I was able to save the entirety of APNG files in IE just fine. IN fact, the ENTIRE thing has to be downloaded before the file even displays. A 1.5 MB download just to display a single frame from an APNG for a battle animation? I'm not sure that's the smartest move. I don't recommend the usage of GIFs in them, though - I think it might be a better idea to stash it away as an alternate version. For sprites and maps, though? There's no excuse. Not one.

In fact, I have just started downloading them all.

 

[Kogoro]

Canvas as stopgap, GIF as the long term solution for sprites. Is this OK?

I don't really like that idea at all. There's no point in adding a script that will just be dominantly phased out. Like I already said, there's a mass of templates that would require massive changes, many of them used on hundreds of pages. Editing these templates almost always causes the server to experience major downtime. IMO, I'd rather see a static image on a page rather than no page at all.

Each page in the category shows 200 by default of them. Calculating for this, we should maybe, just do it in split groups. Even with just two people working on the entire thing, just doing one page should mean 400 sprites are processed at most even if by hand. It shouldn't be a chore for most people on broadband connections (battle move animations are skipped).

*Is it possible to filter out all battle move animations in that category view?

Going through all of them would take a multitude of hours, regardless if we have one person doing it all or a group of thirty people. Additionally, the efforts of many contributors (many who specifically have dedicated their time to the uploading of APNGs) over the last three years would be entirely voided. I really don't like making people's time feel wasted.

As far as I know, it is not possible to filter out the contents of a category. You get the entire category, that's how MediaWiki works.

Oh, and one thing you may not already know is that non-supporting browsers keep downloading the entire picture file... Let's just say that I was able to save the entirety of APNG files in IE just fine. IN fact, the ENTIRE thing has to be downloaded before the file even displays. A 1.5 MB download just to display a single frame from an APNG for a battle animation? I'm not sure that's the smartest move. I don't recommend the usage of GIFs in them, though - I think it might be a better idea to stash it away as an alternate version. For sprites and maps, though? There's no excuse. Not one.

In fact, I have just started downloading them all.

Yes, I know that is how it works. That would be the entire reason why I'd like to try and get the canvas script working. APNG format can offer the same or higher quality image as GIF, while actually producing a smaller file in terms of bytes. I entirely feel that it would be more ideal to use the smaller sized APNG format with the canvas scripting rather than even larger GIF format images. Additionally, major projects such as this require approval from myself, or Bulbapedia's Editor-in-Chief @MAGNEDETH, which has not been given.

For now, I do not approve switching the APNGs back to GIFs. Let us explore the option of the canvas tag. If it works, we can continue to use a smaller file format that will offer quality at the same or higher level than the extremely outdated GIF format.

 

[Noivern]

(OK, the quoting can get weird)

OK. I hear your arguments.

I don't really like that idea at all. There's no point in adding a script that will just be dominantly phased out. Like I already said, there's a mass of templates that would require massive changes, many of them used on hundreds of pages. Editing these templates almost always causes the server to experience major downtime. IMO, I'd rather see a static image on a page rather than no page at all.

Hmm...

Since I'm downloading them pretty fast, I think we might not need a Canvas-based workaround for now.

Going through all of them would take a multitude of hours, regardless if we have one person doing it all or a group of thirty people. Additionally, the efforts of many contributors (many who specifically have dedicated their time to the uploading of APNGs) over the last three years would be entirely voided. I really don't like making people's time feel wasted.

I know, but I do know that it IS doable even with only me. I just need to find a way to batch-upload the converted GIFs, and then it's a matter of template updates.

As for the work, would you like to do it now, or would you like to do it later? In the end, the end result is the same. Were the animated files all APNGs to begin with? I do remember some of them not being animated PNGs from the beginning. We might be undoing hard work, but we're also working hard to be pragmatic. Sometimes, you just can't have everything. Might as well... We don't have to delete the APNGs, though, if it's any consolation. They can be kept for browsers that can view it.

(Battle animations should default to APNGs, while every other animation should default to GIFs. Is that feasible?)

Yes, I know that is how it works. That would be the entire reason why I'd like to try and get the canvas script working. APNG format can offer the same or higher quality image as GIF, while actually producing a smaller file in terms of bytes. I entirely feel that it would be more ideal to use the smaller sized APNG format with the canvas scripting rather than even larger GIF format images. Additionally, major projects such as this require approval from myself, or Bulbapedia's Editor-in-Chief @MAGNEDETH , which has not been given.

For same quality images, a APNG certainly has its advantages. For higher quality images, APNGs are the one that can overcome the limitation of GIFs. However, due to the palette-based nature of GIFs, there exists the possibility that the resulting GIF is lighter than the APNG if the original APNG was not optimized properly. While one can certainly try to optimize the APNGs themselves to further reduce file size, converting them to GIFs from unoptimized APNGs should still result in the reduction of file size, as well as ensuring compatibility for every single thing that can browse the Internet (pretty much).

As for approval, I think we need to have everyone see each other's side... All the arguments should be told. There should be no predicament on everything. Let the voices of everyone be heard. (I do also like to point to worldwide browser statistics on any of the Internet stats sites: no, Gecko and Presto are not majority. Stop. And WebKit and Trident both have their own merits (featureset for former, graphical performance for latter).)

For now, I do not approve switching the APNGs back to GIFs. Let us explore the option of the canvas tag. If it works, we can continue to use a smaller file format that will offer quality at the same or higher level than the extremely outdated GIF format.

Canvas tag, real GIFs, whatever, the only thing that matters is that the end result is transparent to end-users in the end. That's what I believe in - making the web work for everyone. I have had the arguments against the use of APNGs over a year ago - we have turned it down. Are we sure that we want to do it again?

 

[MAGNEDETH]

if we were starting fro scratch, then i would have preferred to stick with gif. but TTE insisted on going apng, so we did.
im actually not against going back to gif, but at this point, it isnt something that we could fix in a day, or even a week. it would require a lot of planning.

 

[Noivern]

if we were starting fro scratch, then i would have preferred to stick with gif. but TTE insisted on going apng, so we did.
im actually not against going back to gif, but at this point, it isnt something that we could fix in a day, or even a week. it would require a lot of planning.

Bad decisions can be rolled back with enough planning, so now... Well, it's a matter of timing to do all the work. Just have to do it before the release of BW2 with a good amount of time for server downtime.