/ > /fap/ > Thread 8864
Age: 36.67d Health: 0% Posters: 10 Posts: 17 Replies: 15 Files: 1+3
>> Anonymous 31mar2016(th)04:16 No.31049 OP P1
Creator is Latenightsexycomics
[IMG] Peach mini.swf (14.34 MiB)
1280x720, Compressed. 2 frames, 24 fps (00:00).
Ver15, AS3. Network access: No. Text: No.
Bitmaps: Yes. Audio: Yes. Video: No. <METADATA>
[find in archive]
>> Anonymous 31mar2016(th)04:32 No.31051 OP P2
I just noticed i posted this alongside somebody else's peach flash,that was purely coincidental.
>> Anonymous 31mar2016(th)04:48 No.31052 A P3R1
ive seen this person art and its pretty good before but why is this like 14 megs when its a loop?
>> Anonymous 31mar2016(th)05:21 No.31054 B P4R2
not bad but why the fuck aren't people using vector graphics anymore? it's superior, period.
>> Anonymous 1apr2016(fr)00:25 No.31087 OP P5R3
>>31054
What are vector graphics?
Been hearing people throw that around a lot lately.
>> Anonymous 1apr2016(fr)11:41 No.31107 C P6R4
>>31087
There is, basically, 2 types of graphics. Pixel-based (sprites, most images). And then there's
vector-based, which is basically defined by vertices ("points"), edges ("lines") and faces
("surfaces"). Flash was originally designed for vector graphics.
>> Anonymous 1apr2016(fr)11:51 No.31109 D P7R5
>>31087
Look at it like this. Zoom into the flash by holding ctrl+mousewheel, does the quality get worse?
If yes, they aren't using Vector. If it just increases the size of the image without decreasing
quality, they're probably using vector.
>> Anonymous 1apr2016(fr)12:38 No.31111 E P8R6
>mini
>14 MB
>> Anonymous 1apr2016(fr)14:13 No.31112 B P9R7
>>31087
Basically pixel graphics (actually "raster graphics") has a set resolution while vector graphics
does not (looks the same at infinite resolutions).
Vector is most suitable for toons, which is what drawn porn usually falls over. Too many points
need to be declared for photos for it to look good and be suitable file-size-wise.
This flash would have looked flawless at infinite resolutions and it would have been around 100 KiB
in size if vector graphics had been used (plus maybe 300 KiB of audio, depending on compression).
A nice thing about flash is that it can be compressed, so even if it has a million points defined
in its vector graphics it will often compress very well.
One "point" in vector graphics usually have two other anchor points defined for it as well, these
are used to curve smoothly between the points. That's why there isn't just straight lines between
two points, the line could be S shaped for example. If the points are defined in loops a
color/gradient can be set as fill. Line width and color is also defined between points and the
lines could have different styles (dashes, dots etc).
>> Anonymous 2apr2016(sa)00:12 No.31127 OP P10R8
>>31112
It sounds like there are literally no benefits to using pixel over vector then.
>> Anonymous 2apr2016(sa)01:24 No.31130 F P11R9
>koopa dick
can someone edit a piranha plant dick over this filth?
>> Anonymous 2apr2016(sa)04:27 No.31132 G P12R10
>>31127
Raster files are openable by basically anything because they came first, that's their big advantage.
Oh also they are good at making people mad by making flash files fucking huge.
>> Anonymous 2apr2016(sa)04:45 No.31133 B P13R11
>>31127
It's in the second paragraph, vector graphics aren't suitable for photos (a ton of details).
Say a 1 MiB raster photo shows a picture of IRL water from a distance, if the same amount of
details of every single wave and every single variation of the color blue is to be displayed by
vector the same photo might take 500 MiB as vectors.
However if the water is a drawing (cartoon) the raster photo might be 250 KiB while the vector
version would be 1 KiB.
What >>31132 said is also true. JPG/PNG/GIF is readable basically everywhere, SVG/SWF not very much
so.
>> Anonymous 2apr2016(sa)06:55 No.31144 OP P14R12
>>31133
Well i mean,in general usage for porn flashes,not fancy photos,it seems obviously superior.
>> Anonymous 2apr2016(sa)14:32 No.31152 B P15R13
>>31144
Yeah, for porn flashes it is obviously superior.
>> Not Ryan Gosling 2apr2016(sa)19:21 No.31153 H P16R14
>>31112
>A nice thing about flash is that it can be compressed, so even if it has a million points defined
in its vector graphics it will often compress very well
How the fuck does that work? I really don't get how making files smaller is achieved, ever. I mean
sure if you have a certain medium in which certain patterns occur repeatedly you can compress that
pattern into far fewer bits for a program to unravel I suppose, but there are too many possible
combinations in either flash or files in general (for .zip or .rar) for that to make a significant
difference, I'd think.
>> Anonymous 3apr2016(su)11:42 No.31209 I P17R15
>>31153
But there isn't as many differences as you think.
Video formats are already compressed, raw image data is fucking enormous.
For example take any software that records your own screen. A 1080p raw dump of that data could be
a GB a minute. Not an exaggeration. Playing a game or even browsing you would "assume" things are
largely to different to compress.
However just assume your recording typing in this very input box. A compression algorithm can look
frame by frame and say "What stayed the same, and what changed?".
For this example you can see the entire window barely changes. Just this single white text box that
you are typing in. So why not just show the changes? If it takes 5 minutes to type this reply, you
can literally tell the program to store the first frame, and overlay the changes. In this case it'd
display your whole screen, then cut this text box and overlay it's frames. This would reduce at a
minimum to 80% of what is actually recorded.
Movies do this already. "Hey this large section stays a single colour for roughly 2 seconds, no
reason to store 60 frames, just say "Define X,Y to X,Y, display 60 frames at X,Y position" then you
just store a piece of a frame and display it. Movies are broken up into blocks, some large, some
small, some odd shapes etc etc etc.
Now if you were displaying a completely randomized movie that changes entirely frame per frame,
then it can not be compressed. Say for example white noise.
The point is: You can always find patterns. Even with millions of seemingly random points, some
will stay static. Some can be grouped together.
For example: Say I have 1,000 triangles on screen of equal size defined by points. Instead of
defining all points, I can define a single object, then store it, and call that object with a
position. Even if sizes are different. A1 = X,Y;50%, A2 = X,Y;200% etc etc etc.
So when seeing a porn video just look around. You'll notice patterns, static sections, static parts
of bodies, etc etc etc.
It can always be compressed. Some compression is better then others, and also sometimes if you make
something incorrectly you can make the compression not work as well as it could of, without
sacrificing quality.
