Animated webp is commonly supported at least on he web these days.
Of course, it too is a horrible video format, which is impressive considering it is based on a not nearly as horrible video format. If only browsers would support silent looping video in <img> and CSS image contexts...
> Animated webp is commonly supported at least on he web these days.
Sure-- if it's a) a website that b) you're making. Tons of websites that allow user uploads only allow common static image formats-- jpg, gif... maybe png, maybe bmp, etc. I can't imagine anywhere that allows users to upload profile pictures, for example, would allow them to upload a webp, but I could imagine users wanting an animated profile picture. I've done it myself.
The whole point is that there are instances where using an animated gif is the only option if you want an animated image, and people want to convert videos to animated gif because of that. That's why FFmpeg does it. I'm not really sure why people find this so weird.
Of course, it too is a horrible video format, which is impressive considering it is based on a not nearly as horrible video format. If only browsers would support silent looping video in <img> and CSS image contexts...