The Future Of Gifs Will Destroy Our Bandwidth

The Future Of Gifs Will Destroy Our Bandwidth

Reader ghostlolol dropped a 50fps, 36mb gif (not this one up top) into Kirk’s Xbox One post from earlier today. It’s the Spruce Goose of Titanfall gifs. It is amazing, so amazing we figured we’d put it here for everyone who missed it, but be warned, if you’re on a phone or have bandwidth concerns, you might want to move along.

The Future Of Gifs Will Destroy Our Bandwidth


  • How am I suppose to comment without loading up the article?

    Also, I highly suggest avoiding large gifs like that. Until the people in charge of Australias internet infrastructure realise they’re old and out of touch with the rest of the world, we can’t really afford to waste so much bandwidth on simple stuff like that.

  • I fucking knew it. The gif didn’t seem right to me, so I loaded it up in Photoshop so I can look at the individual frames. The shot actually misses. Only a LITTLE part of the wide reticule remotely touches the object, yet it’s an instant kill.

    And this, ladies and gentlemen, is why CS1.6 is still the premium FPS.

    • Eh, ever since Reach came out I always though aim-assitance was no issue when bloom or spread was used to reduce the accuracy and have less chance of auto hitting.

      But then again, without heavy aim assist how can I perform a sick, 720 jumping crouching MLG n00b no-scope?

  • Goddamn freaking gifs everywhere.
    Dont get me wrong i love Gifs, but not where they serve NO purpose.

    Also an article about a 36mb gif…..ugh

  • So how big would the equivalent video file be?

    The GIF file is 285 frames long, or 5.7 seconds, so we’re talking about 45 Mbit/s. That is similar to what is used to encode 1080p video, yet this is with a frame size 9 times smaller.

  • A little annoying that you can’t read/load the comments without the crazy GIF loading as well…

    edit; ninja’d by Neo Kaiser… 90 mins ago… does that still count as a ninja’ing? 😉

    • And it could probably even reproduce more than 256 colours without much change in file size …

  • Even with all the gif’s, even with this HUGE gif….
    Its still better than the average Patricia Hernandez “article”

  • Plus side: They actually told us they were going to abuse our quota and bandwidth *before* we click on the article.
    Minus side: For the size of an average digital album, we get a 5 second animation in 256 colours of a game that’s designed to run in HD with millions of colours.

    I heard they’re working on a new technology to solve that problem though. FLV I think it’s name is, or even MP4 and H.260. They also figured out a way to make it stream on demand too so you don’t have to waste your quota loading the whole thing, just the parts you want to watch. I can’t wait for the future. /snark

  • Hmmmm, complaints.

    Yeah I dunno. This article is a 5 second long, 36mb gif. That’s all it is. Neat, I suppose. Certainly something you don’t see everyday (for good reason).
    But really, there’s nothing to write home about here.
    Maybe actual discussion on the future of gifs would’ve been nice. Do they have a future? .webm is the newest animated contender that I’ve seen, capable of high frame rates, high resolution and (compared to .gifs of the same res and frame rate) dramatically lower filesize. They can even support sound. The catch is .gifs are wildly more supported.
    Remember .apng? Animated .pngs, they never caught on for some reason. Will .webm catch on? I hope so, that shit is so cash.

    But yeah, someone made a stupidly large gif. I guess because it was of a recent game, maybe that’s why someone thought it was worth posting?
    Maybe I’m just a big grump! I dunno.

  • Flood all Gawker sites and articles with 50MB gifs as a MINIMUM! The quicker the we change from fttn the better.

  • -shrug- I have no issue with gifs. As long as its not the entire article. I do appreciate them when I’m at work and cant view the videos, so a gif snippet is welcomed.

Show more comments

Log in to comment on this story!