Talk:Multiple-image Network Graphics
|WikiProject Computing||(Rated Start-class, Low-importance)|
I have heard that Internet Explorer 7 will (and betas already do) support MNG. Is this true? If so, the article needs to updated to reflect this.
- This is not true. Futurix 14:00, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Using SVG to animate
The question remains: Is it lossless?
- The frames are either PNG (lossless) or JNG (lossy) images. Wipe 08:22, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I have yet to find out which tools will actually create such a file?
Is it still true that FF will not display MNG files?
--Mjjohansen 18:41, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
We need an actual example image
Looking at the APNG article, there is a bouncing ball in apng format inline right at the top of the page. This makes it obvious whether the browser you are using supports the format. Surely this pages deserves no less than a working example in the top corner? Preferably the same actual image. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 16:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I have created from the original animated SVG a bouncing ball MNG counterpart with imagemagick with transparent background and white background (These examples are compressed with bzip2). With a PNG (or maybe any other raster graphic that is supported by Imagemagick) file series, one can create a MNG file:
convert -delay 15 -loop 0 -transparent white -dispose previous fubar*.png fubar.mng
Animation not much used?
The web was pretty much full of animated GIFs in those days. The specification justifies the exclusion on the basis of consistency of support; one would know a PNG file was an image and a PNG viewer would view it rather than not knowing whether it was animated and whether a viewer might not support that. This same principle of consistency of support is borne out through the mechanism used for extensions in the spec. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I can't even find sample images for it on the web, also I can't find official news since 4 years ago, this format is death, hope png drops it and choose APNG instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 17:24, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
Sony Ericsson phone references in the article
Would anyone care to take them out besides me? Sony Ericsson has been taken over and dissolved by its parent company Sony, becoming Sony Mobile. Ericsson now exists seperately
Besides http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Xperia_S is the first Sony (no Ericsson) phone to be released in March 2012 and Sony has stated that they are only going to be working on smartphones and leaving those poor bricks behind :P
Also, having difficulty proving that those generic "recent Sony Ericsson phones" supported .mng format through online citations. Most searches reveal copies of this Wikipedia page as the only online source to claim this.
If nobody responds I'll be back to clean it up
Alternatives, as of Feb 2013
I've just edited the "Alternatives" section. Current text:
- The most common alternatives are Animated GIF and Adobe Flash. Animated GIF images are restricted to 256 colors and are used in simple scenarios but are supported in all web browsers. Adobe Flash is a common alternative for creating complex and/or interactive animations and is natively supported by Internet Explorer 10 and Google Chrome.
- In the third para, the ref tells you which browsers support APNG and/or SVG animations.
- APNG is not a viable alternative. (It is supported only in Firefox, which uses it internally, and Opera.)
- SVG with declarative animation might catch on if Microsoft enhance IE to support SVG animation.
- Browser vendors are planning to support CSS3 animations and CSS3 transitions, which allow some really cool effects with a few lines of CSS. Moreover, it is much easier for web developers to learn a few new CSS properties than SVG or Canvas 2D or whatever. So I predict that CSS3 animations will take off in a big way.
- See WP:CRYSTAL.
We could delete some of this section. We probably should delete the sentence about APNG. IIRC, I'm the editor who first mentioned SVG as an alternative, but I'd now be happy to see that sentence deleted. What do other editors think? Cheers, CWC 13:05, 5 February 2013 (UTC)
There's no mention of Safari, or Chrome (which is REALLY surprising) and there's no reference to Photoshop's support for this format either, I'd test it on all three apps, but I can't find an example image on google (Google doesn't recognize filetype:mng) and this article doesn't even have any example images. Bumblebritches57 (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2013 (UTC)
The notability of the JPEG Network Graphics (JNG) stub is apparently mostly based on Wikipedia, if Googlebot doesn't lie—of course this premise is already wrong and therefore "proving" anything including its opposite. Merging JNG into MNG might help to rescue the JNG stub. –Be..anyone (talk) 03:03, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
What's the stumbling block? Is MNG not as efficient as GIF in its niche? Is the reference library unsecure? The article seems to be full of conditionally true assertions that the format has been widely adopted, and short on analysis.
MNG is straight up da bomb and owns gif and apng. It's making a huge come back and use will be at an all time high in 2015.