File: morning remaster.swf-(5.48 MB, 500x288, Loop)
[_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)14:59:52 No.

  now does this look better than >>3094846?

Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)15:15:08 No.

  Looks nice, I like it OP!

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)15:17:21 No.

  >>3094898
  well, it's not mine OC

  also I don't know how to reduce that ear scratching guitar at some points

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)15:19:55 No.

  there's barely any difference

  all you accomplished was a bigger filesize.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)15:23:04 No.

  >>3094904
  that's because of the song
  without it the flash is just 123KB

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)15:26:20 No.

  >>3094904
  it's cleaner, that other one looks like compressed as jpeg which makes this little distortion in
  pictures

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)15:47:16 No.

  >>3094904
  In addition to >>3094910, the audio also has twice the bitrate of the original; if you extract
  the audio and compare them side by side the difference is huge.

  >>3094902
  I'm not 100% sure of what parts you're referring to, but it looks like it's due to the song
  clipping a bit at points.
  The audio on youtube's unfortunately clipped the same way.
  I found a "remastered" version at https://soundcloud.com/pdis_inpartmaint/no-9-good-morning-good-
  morning
  which fixes the clipping issues, but for some reason the drums are lower in quality and a lot
  quieter.
  I'll give a go at trying to mix in the old drums and if I make any progress I'll post a link here
  or something.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)15:58:58 No.

  >>3094892
  What exactly did you do?

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)16:03:24 No.

  >>3094917
  I used your dl link >>3094875
  but adobe flash was being a dick about it and didn't want to accept that mp3 so I converted it to
  wav which I have compressed in adobe to mp3
  the part I was talking about starts at 0:24 and it can be heard a little in the original mp3 as
  well

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)16:04:29 No.

  >>3094929
  I meant with the animation

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)16:04:43 No.

  >>3094926
  just open them in separate tabs and switch between them
  if you can't see the differences than I guess I'm just special

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)16:20:12 No.

  it visually looks cleaner and that is all I noticed but other than that this seems to be better.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)16:32:15 No.

  >>3094929
  Alright, I was able to merge the drums a bit and find a nice balance for their volume, and I was
  also able to clean up the clipping and increase the quality a bit.
  I posted a 320kb/s quality mp3 at https //volafile io/r/2_0Oh6 , as well as a 128kb/s in case
  flash doesn't like the bitrate or something.
  It does sound a bit different when compared side-by-side to the original, so it's up to you
  whether or not you want to use this, the original, or the soundcloud one.

  Sorry for weird url formatting, 4chan thinks its spam.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)16:40:29 No.

  >>3094943
  yeah thanks but I only wanted to show you the visual difference
  I guess I could have just posted it without the audio tho

  but I have to get to the bottom of this, you see the difference, right?

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)16:49:46 No.

  >>3094949
  The visual difference?
  Totally, this one looks way better.

  I guess some people didn't notice because when you embed the original it looks fine since it's
  displaying at the intended resolution; it's only when you try to open it in a new tab that it
  gets poorly upscaled by flash.
  I have no idea how somebody could fail to see the difference when comparing the two in separate
  tabs.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)16:56:59 No.

  >>3094952
  >embedded flash
  holy fuck I totally forgot about this /f/'s feature
  I always just open them in a new tab so it's in full web browser's screen

  but what I forgot to add when I said I wanted to get to the bottom of this is if you have
  compressed it in the flash? as in selected all the pictures went to properties and compress as
  jpeg or something else? or did you use anything other than adobe flash? if so which version?

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)17:12:14 No.

  >>3094954
  If you're talking about making the original flash, I had nothing to do with it.

  Looking at the comments on the original and decompiling it, it looks like the gif was converted
  to a video file before being embedded, which would explain why upscaling looks so bad.
  Embedding the gif directly like you did is definitely what solved the problem.

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)17:55:48 No.

  >filesize.swf
  You couldn't have made it any smaller?

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)17:59:54 No.

  >>3094983
  what size do you want to have it?

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)18:02:18 No.

  >>3094983
  Better audio and video quality's more important than filesize, IMO

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)18:03:40 No.

  >>3094931
  then*

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)18:18:42 No.

  >haven't seen the original
  I like it, I suppose it's improved!

>> [_] Anonymous 06/07/16(Tue)19:08:20 No.

  >>3094986
  1 bit