I don't mean to necrobump, but I think this thread is appropriate.
I get that you don't want to "train the user what to do".
But maybe you can allow uploading of WebM ?
This format is designed for the web (lightweight and well supported).
Plus, if you limit the size to the same as other images, on can post really good quality clips for a small weight (and WebM support transparency).
And if you want, you can limit webm's to VP8 and no sound (that would improve compatibility, even if it wouldn't allow the highest compression rates).
As an example, the image posted by DanyEU goes from 14Mb in gif to 150kb in VP9 (and even 53kb if you really crunch the quality out of it).
- Code: Select all
ffmpeg -i "ezgif-6-f720d66a3c85.gif" -an -threads 4 -crf 63 "ezgif-6-f720d66a3c85.webm" <-- 150kb
ffmpeg -i "ezgif-6-f720d66a3c85.gif" -an -threads 4 -crf 4 "ezgif-6-f720d66a3c85.webm" <-- 53kb
That would drastically reduce the storage and bandwidth for a comparable or better quality (especially when converting from a video and not converting from gif).
Also, video is easier than gif to thumbnail, and with this size, you would probably only need a thumbnail and the original image (no med resolution image unlike gif).
I don't say "let's batch convert all your gif to webm!", but maybe allow the upload of webm?
Now, if I were to argument against WebM, I would say that it's an other format for you to manage.
It may also add new tools to your backend (but maybe you already use ffmpeg for gif?)
And if you choose not to limit codec, VP9 may not display on Apple devices.
As for "training the users", I do believe that people who don't want to change can still use gif, but users that understand the benefits will undoubtedly love the opportunity to use a better format.
If you do allow it, just add a line to precise the exacts limitations (size, weight, sound, duration and codec) for the power users to make the best of it!
