>>311406>>311113Not transparent, it has a white background.
>What is your point?Webm and gif are designed for different uses, and while much of their use overlaps, there are situations in which GIF can be superior to webm:
>Lossless EncodingWhen encoded from another source, digital media can be either preserve all the data when encoded, or filter out some data to meet a certain standard of quality. GIF and PNG are lossless, while JPEG and almost all video codecs (including webm) are lossy. The advantage of lossless media is more consistent reproduction and implementation, and maintaining quality if the data is altered again. You can go [Lossless -> Lossless] or [Lossless -> Lossy], but there is little to be gained by going [Lossy -> Lossless].
For example, PNG is the superior choice if you have a few colors and a relatively simple image, as it will retain all image detail from creation as long as the file is not modified. If the image is very complex, however, the file size will inflate beyond a convenient level, like over 3MB for 4chan. In this case, you can use JPEG compression to reduce the file size, but some of details of the original image will be permanently lost.
In this manner, GIF is superior to Webm if you have a short, but very intense animation like pic related. To convert it to webm at similar quality, you will have to use encoder settings which will inflate the size of the webm above the size of the GIF, negating its benefit. Furthermore, once it is converted to webm, modifying or employing the webm becomes much more difficult. Instead of being able to alter the animation in GIMP or photoshop, you now will have to feed it through a video editor. Pixel-perfect modifications also become impossible once the GIF is converted to a webm, as the frames of animation are now lossy.
>TransparencyLike PNG, GIFs support true transparency. This is not possible with lossy webms.
