Pictus, a lightweight image viewer w/ PSD thumbnail support

[NickR]

Geco with conjunctivitis ?

[Specular]

It's a gecko. Assumed it was based on some existing logo for an open source library or something.

Actually drew it as a head a while ago while experimenting with an icon shape. Geckos are adorable.

[smaragdus]

@NickR, @Specular
Thanks for the explanation, I wouldn't have guessed it was a gecko.

[Midas]

To me, it's a somewhat awkwardly framed detail of a red eyed gecko/salamander type creature's head facing the top left corner...

[Specular]

Just on the recent-ish description tweak, my thoughts were that including 'animated GIF' in the supported filetypes was useful for those coming across the program or searching for animated GIF viewers online, as Windows Photo Viewer for example supports GIFs but not animated GIFs (only displays the first frame) and one can find many results online where people are looking for non-browser alternatives to it that can view animated GIFs.

That said I can understand why the original 'GIF/Animated GIF' may have been awkward. Perhaps 'GIF (static/animated)' would have been better received or some other phrasing. Any thoughts on this?

Somewhat related: found that while Pictus supports static WEBP images it doesn't support animated WEBP images (at all, not even the first frame), curiously.

[webfork]

That said I can understand why the original 'GIF/Animated GIF' may have been awkward. Perhaps 'GIF (static/animated)' would have been better received or some other phrasing. Any thoughts on this?

I spend a lot of time and thought on the entries and welcome discussion on how to get the wording right. This is far from a rule of any sort, just my rationale.

I usually hesitate getting into format specifics, as I expect visitors are usually just looking for "graphics viewer" with "rotate, filter, black and white" etc. Also, I want to avoid getting into the position of chasing the latest format updates. That said, for shorter entries (like Pictus), listing out more format information makes more sense, but for animation I'd probably just say "animated GIF" as almost every viewer that supports animated also supports static. That said I'm not sure how I'd write up WEBP as you discuss below...

Somewhat related: found that while Pictus supports static WEBP images it doesn't support animated WEBP images (at all, not even the first frame), curiously.

Very interesting. I always just assumed that the format would by default auto-read the first frame as a still image, but maybe that's not how WEBP works? It's either image or animation, not both?

[Specular]

for animation I'd probably just say "animated GIF" as almost every viewer that supports animated also supports static.

Looks like billion noticed already and made a tweak which seems fine. Appreciate it!

That said I'm not sure how I'd write up WEBP as you discuss below...

It's either image or animation, not both?

WEBP is based on some of the code from VP8 (the open source video codec) but made into an image format with support for animation. Ordinarily I think both static image and multiple frames (animated) are supported by viewers but apparently that's not the case for Pictus' handling of WEBP (at least in my tests of the animated WEBP files I have). See the Vivaldi browser for an example of support for both.

Would file a bug report but Pictus' dev has stated they're taking a break from development for the time being. I think the new edit is probably enough to indicate how it stands.

[webfork]

an image format with support for animation.

That's the thing that throws me about WEBP: is it a video that just doesn't have sound or is it an animation like GIF? I know it sounds like splitting hairs, but GIF has individual frames, while video tools are more complex and can't be easily disassembled. It's also one of the reasons I've advocated for the animated PNG format.

Looks like billion noticed already and made a tweak which seems fine. Appreciate it!

Yeah he's very on top of it.

[Midas]

I know it sounds like splitting hairs, but GIF has individual frames, while video tools are more complex and can't be easily disassembled. It's also one of the reasons I've advocated for the animated PNG format

A stance I fully support -- there's a difference between machine efficiency and human friendliness and ultimately puny humans are the real end users...

[Specular]

That's the thing that throws me about WEBP: is it a video that just doesn't have sound or is it an animation like GIF? I know it sounds like splitting hairs, but GIF has individual frames, while video tools are more complex and can't be easily disassembled. It's also one of the reasons I've advocated for the animated PNG format.

My guess is it utilizes some optimizations learned from VP8 but not fully like the actual VP8 codec, since in my encoding tests for longer clips WebP produces output still much larger than VP8 would for the same resolution and quality, suggesting it's not using the same range of inter-frame compression techniques a video format would (ie: suggesting it's closer to how GIF and APNG work with frames).

For various of my tests WebP and APNG were comparable with filesize but WebP had some benefits for longer animated clips that contain more motion (that said one has to reduce the quality so much for longer clips to keep the filesize lower that it can end up looking garbage ). APNG seems better suited to short length animation with less overall movement. Both support alpha transparency. Would be nice if Pictus supported APNG.

[webfork]

For various of my tests WebP and APNG were comparable with filesize but WebP had some benefits for longer animated clips

Good to know -- thanks for the the analysis.