+- Gimp-Forum.net (https://www.gimp-forum.net)
+-- Forum: GIMP (https://www.gimp-forum.net/Forum-GIMP)
+--- Forum: General questions (https://www.gimp-forum.net/Forum-General-questions)
+--- Thread: A question on animated webp images (/Thread-A-question-on-animated-webp-images)
A question on animated webp images - carmen - 10-28-2019
Hello!
I would dearly wish to know if webp, as image format, has any issue with animations over tansparent background when the frames overlap, or the trouble comes from Gimp.
Here I append two gif animations:
[attachment=3322], on transparent background, and
[attachment=3323] with the alpha channel removed from each frame
Well, I can get the second one, exported from the same xcf file, in webp--but the first one comes out a mess--some frames merged toghether, and bits of black where there should be transparency...
Thanks!
RE: A question on animated webp images - Ofnuts - 10-28-2019
They all work for me (see attached, since the second looked "optimized", I also made a webp from the unoptimized version).
Can you attach your Webp?
RE: A question on animated webp images - rich2005 - 10-28-2019
They both work for me as well. The only snag I came across was playing as a webp file in my web browser, transparency rendered black.
Cast your eye over this: https://youtu.be/W6dEz2q6o4c 3 and a half minutes showing both variants.
RE: A question on animated webp images - carmen - 10-28-2019
(10-28-2019, 08:12 PM)Ofnuts Wrote: They all work for me (see attached, since the second looked "optimized", I also made a webp from the unoptimized version).
Can you attach your Webp?
Well:
* [attachment=3328] is my result with almost default values--just increased time between frames to 500ms (too swift animations make me giddy, especially when there are so very few frames)
* [attachment=3327] is the result for
- not optimized
- distance between main frames lowered to '1 = all frames are main frames'
This one is what I was looking for: but look at the size!
* I made more, sundry trials -- all in the recycle bin, as all without exception looked like the first one...
RE: A question on animated webp images - Ofnuts - 10-28-2019
The Webp's look OK to me. Size is not unexpected if you disable the main optimization method. But why do so? If you are using lossless compression it can't harm.
RE: A question on animated webp images - carmen - 10-28-2019
(10-28-2019, 08:39 PM)rich2005 Wrote: They both work for me as well. The only snag I came across was playing as a webp file in my web browser, transparency rendered black.
Cast your eye over this: https://youtu.be/W6dEz2q6o4c 3 and a half minutes showing both variants.
After seeing (not hearing--my english is only 'read and write') your trials, I repeated them, and--lo and behold!--in chrome everything worked... barring the black background, which appears from nowhere (see addenda below).
So, the trouble is neither with Gimp or webp, but with irfanview, which is my default picture viewer...
Well, sorry to have troubled you all, and many thanks for your help...
(I may add that the only other time I had trouble with irfanview was when wmf was 'the' vector format for users--ps being strictly printers' concern--and the issue was some mess-up with bounding-boxes in 'some' wmf files...)
Addenda: re the 'black background' in chrome.
It seems the browser's way to put a background behind a solitary picture file--same happens opening, i.e., a png.
Put the picture in a skeleton htm
Code:
<html>
<body>
<p><img src="file.webp" alt=""/></p>
</body>
</htmlI missed it because the only images I ever sent to browser by themselves were svg ones--treated as html fragments, maybe?