Animated jpgs, what is the point of them?

Besides for all of those trippy images created with them is there really a good enough reason to create animated jpgs?

Is this an April Fool type question?

Well that wasn't an intention.

there is no point to them. They don't actually exist.

There were these images which you can't see any animation but if you look closely they almost appear to shake or wobble somewhat, I somehow came to the conclusion that it was somehow a kind of animated hack sort of thing applied to a jpg since the particular image was named the jpg extension.

http://i.imgur.com/sFpcETi.jpg

Linguica said:

http://i.imgur.com/sFpcETi.jpg

(o_o)'

Linguica said:

http://i.imgur.com/sFpcETi.jpg

http://i.imgur.com/sFpcETi.gif

nice try. But you can change the file name from .gif to .jpg, the browser will recognize it anyway.

darknation said:

http://i.imgur.com/sFpcETi.gif

nice try. But you can change the file name from .gif to .jpg, the browser will recognize it anyway.

Yes, but the giant ... (O_O)'

please, as if you've never had a cock in the face before.

Apparently, there's quite a point to them (hint hint nudge nudge).

Avoozl said:

There were these images which you can't see any animation but if you look closely they almost appear to shake or wobble somewhat

I've occasionally had pixel pairs flashing bright blue on a dark background when displaying very large images, which appears to have been the fault of the DVI lead I was using at the time.

GreyGhost said:

I've occasionally had pixel pairs flashing bright blue on a dark background when displaying very large images, which appears to have been the fault of the DVI lead I was using at the time.

I can also see pixel noise on some displays -mainly older TFT panels with a noisy/poor VGA ADC section, but also some purely digital ones exhibit visible pixel noise/snow on grey backgrounds, if I look closely.

darknation said:

please, as if you've never had a cock in the face before.

actually, no, my face never touched a cock.

Avoozl said:

There were these images which you can't see any animation but if you look closely they almost appear to shake or wobble somewhat, I somehow came to the conclusion that it was somehow a kind of animated hack sort of thing applied to a jpg since the particular image was named the jpg extension.

Optical illusions. one of those "stare at it" images ?

FireFish said:

Optical illusions. one of those "stare at it" images ?

Yeah I guess but only a virtual kind, there was a round pattern like image which almost seemed to turn slowly.

There is, however, a point to animated PNG, and that point is trolling people who don't use Firefox 32-bit RGBA animations.

darknation said:

there is no point to them. They don't actually exist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_JPEG

AndrewB said:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_JPEG

fuck me andrewB was right. I should have known it.

darknation said:

fuck me

Maes said:

Apparently, there's quite a point to them (hint hint nudge nudge).

Should call this thread "Discover the Cock.GIF" ..

darknation said:

nice try. But you can change the file name from .gif to .jpg, the browser will recognize it anyway.

https://soulsphere.org/img/really-a-jpg.html
https://soulsphere.org/img/really-an-html.jpg

I feel like Darknation would fit right in on Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Linkrulezall said:

I feel like Darknation would fit right in on Encyclopedia Dramatica.

Yes, I'm sure he'd feel right at home somewhere where the average I.Q is that of a cabbage.

darknation said:

nice try. But you can change the file name from .gif to .jpg, the browser will recognize it anyway.

fraggle said:

https://soulsphere.org/img/really-a-jpg.html
https://soulsphere.org/img/really-an-html.jpg

It's more to do with the Content-Type that the web server reports a document as than the browser's determining anything based on file name or content at all.

Mostly. Internet Explorer 6 attempted to render content based on file name and lots of headaches ensued.

Obsidian said:

Yes, I'm sure he'd feel right at home somewhere where the average I.Q is that of a cabbage.

dropping dox on this fgt. Flame on.

And since you asked, no, I'm not responsible for ED's article on doom. If I was then it would actually be, y'know, funny. Or possibly even relevant.

Darknation already has the perfect title. Stay golden bra.

Avoozl said:

Besides for all of those trippy images created with them is there really a good enough reason to create animated jpgs?

Why are you asking, What is the point of your question ? =P

^Animated gifs are better suited for informative/demonstrative animations. There's no quality loss in gifs, which is their advantage over jpgs. That's a good enough reason to make them, and that's the point.

scifista42 said:

There's no quality loss in gifs

Depends of how many unique colors your original images had.