GIF and PNG (APNG) were never designed around being video like, and so are not good at being video like. You aren't going to save much space if any with APNG unless it's an animation. Instead it just uses better Intra compression over GIF's. It produces animated GIFs that use thousands of colors per frame and up to 50 FPS (useful for showing off design work on Dribbble).

APNG on the other hand does not have this ability (that I know of), instead each frame is Intra and so can't use previous frames to reduce the size. This is a macOS app for the gifski encoder, which converts videos to GIF animations using pngquant s fancy features for efficient cross-frame palettes and temporal dithering. There are ways to reduce the size of GIF if the GIF is mostly stagnant, allowing frames to just copy information from previous frames. WEBM) as a GIF alternative, and just embed it in the HTML.Īnyway, the filesize is going to grow by 10x or more if you want a 1:1 copy of a video converted to GIF. These days websites are switching to just using H.264 video in a. But eitherway, expect a considerable increase in filesize over the input video Forget about animated 'image' formats.īut if you 'needed' an animated 'image' format - lossless animated webp in rgb configuration is usually smaller than apng (both larger than gif) and in lossy configuration ~Q96-Q99, it looks substantially better than 'high quality' gifs at much smaller filesizes. Winner: typical mp4, or webm video with temporal compression the real winner. Typical usage scenario might be a lossy scenario, where filesize can be reduced compared to lossless, but retaining more colors and quality than GIF (256 colors). higher playback overhead (cpu usage) compared to gif or apng *like apng,gif - no temporal compression comparable to video - thus large filesizes compared to typical video supported by many modern browsers (firefox, chrome, edge, opera, safari added recently) lossless, lossy and alpha channel options

Quality gif to webm converter download