GIF Uploads are broken again.
-
![0_1462798565695_Headdesk (3).gif](Uploading 100%)
-_-
Paging @ben_lubar to the operating room. @ben_lubar to the operating room please
-
Did that start working at some point?
-
@Jaloopa I'm assuming that @ben_lubar is updating plugins via the admin control panel and therefore not getting a version that includes fixes he's submitted as PRs.
-
@Jaloopa Yah, I thought they've been consistently been broken for a week now.
-
The old topic was deleted by @RaceProUK at 2016-05-04T13:22:08.782Z. The bug was not fixed before then.
@RaceProUK, do I have permission to undelete the topic?
-
@ben_lubar said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
@RaceProUK, do I have permission to undelete the topic?
You mean the topic that was 5% bug report, 95% Blakeyrat crying like a baby? No.
-
Well here's the important post:
@ben_lubar said in GIF me baby one more time:
@RaceProUK it's this:
@barisusakli any chance you could add that logic to the function that gets replaced by the hook? The imagemagick plugin fix already has that logic:
/cc @barisusakli
-
@RaceProUK said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
You mean the topic that was 5% bug report, 95% Blakeyrat crying like a baby? No.
Only 95%? I gotta try harder.
Remind me to delete your posts in the future. As long as NodeBB lets me delete other people's shit, why not. I can pretend I'm a Wikipedia admin.
-
@blakeyrat dude, take it out of a valid bug report, please.
let's at least try to keep the bug reports on topic.
-
@ben_lubar Opening this link in a new tab goes to
/post/null
which obviously doesn't work. Clicking it normally works.
-
@loopback0 my initial diagnosis is that /api/post/:pid is implemented but /post/:pid is wrong. I'll investigate.
-
https://what.thedailywtf.com/topic/19900/open-in-new-tab-broken
thank you for keeping this bug report on topic.
-
@ben_lubar said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
my initial diagnosis is that /api/post/:pid is implemented but /post/:pid is wrong.
How does that break opening in a new tab? Is this another case of someone trying to reinvent browser functionality?
edit: Oops. NodeBB should make cross-topic replies easier.
-
I'd like to thank @barisusakli for being a reverse Jeff and reducing the number of duplicate uploads we have.
-
@accalia said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
@blakeyrat dude, take it out of a valid bug report, please.
let's at least try to keep the bug reports on topic.
ironic
-
Why are GIFs enlarged?
https://what.thedailywtf.com/topic/12685/the-official-funny-stuff-thread/8121
https://what.thedailywtf.com/topic/12685/the-official-funny-stuff-thread/8120
They display at 2x (or more) of original size.
-
@El_Heffe neither of those are gifs
-
@ben_lubar said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
@El_Heffe neither of those are gifs
OK. Fair enough. I miss-remembered them as being animated GIFs.
Still doesn't explain why they don't display at original size.
-
@ben_lubar said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
@El_Heffe neither of those are gifs
Both of them are gifs, but the oneboxer is replacing them with the video version. Which is also not displaying at its original size, but that's just because the video onebox is always displayed at
max-width: 600px
andwidth: 100%
, regardless of the size of the actual video.
-
@anotherusername said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
Both of them are gifs, but the oneboxer is replacing them with the video version
This is literally the most fucking stupid thing any web developer has ever done.
"I don't want to show a video. They're large, cumbersome, require various codec and plugins, not all browsers support them, and even if they did this wouldn't be cross-browser compatible. Besides, it's just a 4 second long, 10 frame loop. I'll use an animated gif, which will just be size_of_gif x frames + a bit of overhead. Now every browser in the world (fuck off lynx) can display it!"
PROBLEM SOLVED!
Along comes an asshole. "Hey, look, a solved problem. I bet I can solve it!"
- Install extra software on server to do gif-to-video conversion
- Take up extra CPU cycles
- Turn 5k animated gif into 2.5MB video file (with no sound)
- Serve 700k of javascript needed to playback video
- Only works in small portion of browsers
- Doesn't obey "disable gif animation" settings
Fuck you.
-
@Lorne-Kates said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
@anotherusername said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
Both of them are gifs, but the oneboxer is replacing them with the video version
This is literally the most fucking stupid thing any web developer has ever done.
"I don't want to show a video. They're large, cumbersome, require various codec and plugins, not all browsers support them, and even if they did this wouldn't be cross-browser compatible. Besides, it's just a 4 second long, 10 frame loop. I'll use an animated gif, which will just be size_of_gif x frames + a bit of overhead. Now every browser in the world (fuck off lynx) can display it!"
PROBLEM SOLVED!
Along comes an asshole. "Hey, look, a solved problem. I bet I can solve it!"
- Install extra software on server to do gif-to-video conversion
- Take up extra CPU cycles
- Turn 5k animated gif into 2.5MB video file (with no sound)
- Serve 700k of javascript needed to playback video
- Only works in small portion of browsers
- Doesn't obey "disable gif animation" settings
Fuck you.
I swear to god, are you my id come to life? It is like you are channeling me o_0
-
@Lorne-Kates said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
Turn 5k animated gif into 2.5MB video file (with no sound)
Hardly. You do realize that GIFs have relatively horrible compression compared to actual video formats, right?
Actual .gif: 3.4 MB
The .webm it downloaded instead: 387 KB, and even with the entire page that's required to display it, still only a total of 417 KB.
-
@anotherusername Lorne Kates is a codger. He's still bitter that he can't use Windows 3.11 anymore.
-
@anotherusername said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
webm
That's comparing uncompressed apples to apple juice.
-
@Lorne-Kates wait, are you using the video equivalent of WAV as a replacement for GIF?
-
@Lorne-Kates it's comparing what you get one way with what you get the other way. And GIF isn't a lossless format; it's lossless compression, yes, but in the domain of 256 colors; compressing a true-color video to 256 colors is lossy.
And yes, it supports IE; the same URL then results in a .mp4 file instead of a .webm file (well, it's the .mp4 URL either way; it apparently decides which format to actually send based on which browser you're using). A 302 KB .mp4 file, in case you wondered.
-
@anotherusername Guyz, he likes GIF because it's really old, not because he thinks it's good.
-
@Vaire said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
I swear to god, are you my id come to life? It is like you are channeling me o_0
This....
Explains everything.
And to clarify
@blakeyrat said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
Lorne Kates is a codger
-
@Lorne-Kates said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
I'll use an animated gif, which will just be size_of_gif x frames + a bit of overhead. Now every browser in the world (fuck off lynx) can display it!"
And a video is 1 frame + the delta of each frame.
GIF is an old format...
Much better off having javascript rotate PNGs... which also support transparency.
-
@xaade Even better would be APNG, right?
-
-
@blakeyrat said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
@anotherusername Guyz, he likes GIF because it's really old, not because he thinks it's good.
I honestly believe animated gifs can go die in a pile of flaming needles. I don't care.
My point is it's absolutely complicatedly-tarded to take a simple, established and working format like agif, that has no issues, and engineer a "full stack solution" around it-- especially since that "full stack solution" is just (poorly) undoing what the agif was solving in the first place.
-
@Lorne-Kates Yeah; it's retarded to take a 5 MB file and convert it into a 200k file with the same quality. That is the dumbest thing possible.
-
@blakeyrat said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
@Lorne-Kates Yeah; it's retarded to take a 5 MB file and convert it into a 200k file with the same quality. That is the dumbest thing possible.
So the imaginary animated gif just went from 2mb to 5mb? Your shoulder aliens have awful compression.
-
@Lorne-Kates said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
So the imaginary animated gif just went from 2mb to 5mb?
What are you talking about?
@Lorne-Kates said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
Your shoulder aliens have awful compression.
You're the one creating an imaginary GIF in your brain, then complaining that I got the size of your imaginary GIF wrong.
Oh; right. This is just another case of me not having telepathy like every other human does. Stupid me.
Hey what number am I thinking of? You're wrong!!!!!
-
@blakeyrat said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
Hey what number am I thinking of? You're wrong!!!!!
How do you know I'm wrong? DO YOU HAVE TELEPATHY??!?!?
-
@xaade said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
@Vaire said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
I swear to god, are you my id come to life? It is like you are channeling me o_0
This....
Explains everything.
And to clarify
@blakeyrat said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
Lorne Kates is a codger
-
@Lorne-Kates said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
My point is it's absolutely complicatedly-tarded to take a simple, established and working format like agif, that has no issues, and engineer a "full stack solution" around it-- especially since that "full stack solution" is just (poorly) undoing what the agif was solving in the first place.
I've heard "don't reinvent the wheel"
But this falls under "don't improve the wheel"
in a "rip off your rubber inflated tires and put stone wheels back on"
I agree, with myself apparently, that animated PNGs are better than videos though.
-
@xaade said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
@Lorne-Kates said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
My point is it's absolutely complicatedly-tarded to take a simple, established and working format like agif, that has no issues, and engineer a "full stack solution" around it-- especially since that "full stack solution" is just (poorly) undoing what the agif was solving in the first place.
I've heard "don't reinvent the wheel"
But this falls under "don't improve the wheel"
in a "rip off your rubber inflated tires and put stone wheels back on"
I agree, with myself apparently, that animated PNGs are better than videos though.
Well, okay, but to be fair. I think the main point Blakey is getting at, is that almost everything that touches images, has native support for GIF and Animated GIF files. You can literally just drop the file in to whatever, and it will display properly.
I think what Blakey is arguing, is that EVEN IF the file itself may be smaller if converted to video. Because it goes through the conversion, and requires JavaScript and a CDN to serve it, that is inherently more complicated, and MUCH more overhead, than simply putting a GIF file somewhere. More complicated means more points of failure, and also less people able to consume the content.
And, aside from mobile, whether the file is 1MB or 300KB is frankly irrelevant to the users.
-
@Vaire said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
I think what Blakey is arguing,
You are wrong.
@Vaire said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
Because it goes through the conversion, and requires JavaScript and a CDN to serve it, that is inherently more complicated, and MUCH more overhead, than simply putting a GIF file somewhere.
More complicated for like 3 software developers. Less complicated for like 3,000,000 users.
@Vaire said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
More complicated means more points of failure, and also less people able to consume the content.
The only people who can't view HTML5
VIDEO
tags are people who are purposefully using old software to be annoying; fuck 'em.
-
@blakeyrat said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
@Vaire said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
I think what Blakey is arguing,
You are wrong.
@Vaire said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
Because it goes through the conversion, and requires JavaScript and a CDN to serve it, that is inherently more complicated, and MUCH more overhead, than simply putting a GIF file somewhere.
More complicated for like 3 software developers. Less complicated for like 3,000,000 users.
@Vaire said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
More complicated means more points of failure, and also less people able to consume the content.
The only people who can't view HTML5
VIDEO
tags are people who are purposefully using old software to be annoying; fuck 'em.Oops, my bad, Lorne was arguing that. Clearly I need more coffee today =_=
-
@Vaire said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
I think the main point
BlakeyLorne is getting at, is that almost everything that touches images, has native support for GIF and Animated GIF files. You can literally just drop the file in to whatever, and it will display properly.Same goes for videos, with the minor caveat that most devices support either .webm or .mp4, and not necessarily both. So you have to do some sniffing. But that's just two files, and they're smaller than the equivalent GIF even when you add their sizes together.
it goes through the conversion
This much is true. It's not something that inconveniences the users, though.
requires JavaScript and a CDN to serve it
Not any more than the equivalent GIF does.
inherently more complicated, and MUCH more overhead, than simply putting a GIF file somewhere
Not really.
-
@anotherusername said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
inherently more complicated, and MUCH more overhead, than simply putting a GIF file somewhere
Not really.
Yes, really. GIFs will display in the browser natively. If JavaScript or a CDN are required to show a video, then, yes. Really.
-
@Vaire said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
GIFs will display in the browser natively
So will a video. You just put it in a
<video>
tag. No javascript required.CDN
I already said no. Needing a CDN has more to do with having to manage millions of different files and serve millions of unique users, not with whether the files are .gif or .webm or .mp4.
-
@blakeyrat said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
The only people who can't view HTML5 VIDEO tags are people who are purposefully using old software to be annoying;
That's me.
fuck 'em.
Give me money.
-
@anotherusername said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
@Vaire said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
GIFs will display in the browser natively
So will a video. You just put it in a
<video>
tag. No javascript required.CDN
I already said no. Needing a CDN has more to do with having to manage millions of different files and serve millions of unique users, not with whether the files are .gif or .webm or .mp4.
I will agree with you that what you are saying is not wrong. But I still don't see any reason to do it when animated GIF files work fine. :P
-
@Vaire if you're a site's owner and you're paying for the bandwidth, you might see reason to do it.
-
@anotherusername said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
@Vaire if you're a site's owner and you're paying for the bandwidth, you might see reason to do it.
That is only true in extraordinary cases where the site has a LARGE amoung of traffic. Most consumer-grade hosting comes with "free"* and "unlimited"** bandwidth. But, for MOST sites, they never run into that problem.
*So long as you don't use too much
**Unlimited until the host decides you are using too much, or they change their mind
Additionally, if the site has THAT much traffic, I would question the tradeoff between the bandwidth and the CPU overhead for converting the GIF files to video. Would it even out?
-
@Vaire said in GIF Uploads are broken again.:
That is only true in extraordinary cases where the site has a LARGE amoung of traffic.
Like imgur.
Anyway, since imgur has builtin "Video to GIF" conversion, the video has potentially better quality than the gif because it's not downsampled to 256 colors like the gif is. If the gif wasn't converted from a video (or was converted externally to a gif before it was uploaded), then imgur will convert the gif to a video; then it'll be no better quality, but it'll still have better compression than the gif.
So on the one hand you have a smaller file with better quality, and the other you have a smaller file with no difference in quality. So either way it makes sense to use the video version.
For example, using the "Video to GIF" option on this video:
You can see the noticeable loss in quality that resulted from downsampling it to 256 colors. The video version has noticeably better quality because it's not downsampled:
http://i.imgur.com/2Dhy4o5.mp4
Since there's no way for the onebox plugin to determine whether the video form has better quality or simply equal quality to the gif version, it's reasonable for it to use the video version, especially since that one is going to be significantly smaller to download.
-
On iPad/Safari, the top is animated, the bottom is not.