File: morning remaster.swf-(5.48 MB, 500x288, Loop)
[_] Anon 3094892 now does this look better than >>#? Marked for deletion (old).
>> [_] Anon 3094898 Looks nice, I like it OP!
>> [_] Anon 3094902 >># well, it's not mine OC also I don't know how to reduce that ear scratching guitar at some points
>> [_] Anon 3094904 there's barely any difference all you accomplished was a bigger filesize.
>> [_] Anon 3094909 >># that's because of the song without it the flash is just 123KB
>> [_] Anon 3094910 >># it's cleaner, that other one looks like compressed as jpeg which makes this little distortion in pictures
>> [_] Anon 3094917 >># In addition to >>#, 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. >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 3094926 >># What exactly did you do?
>> [_] Anon 3094929 >># I used your dl link >># 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
>> [_] Anon 3094930 >># I meant with the animation
>> [_] Anon 3094931 >># just open them in separate tabs and switch between them if you can't see the differences than I guess I'm just special
>> [_] Anon 3094939 it visually looks cleaner and that is all I noticed but other than that this seems to be better.
>> [_] Anon 3094943 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 3094949 >># 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?
>> [_] Anon 3094952 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 3094954 >># >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?
>> [_] Anon 3094958 >># 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.
>> [_] Anon 3094983 >filesize.swf You couldn't have made it any smaller?
>> [_] Anon 3094986 >># what size do you want to have it?
>> [_] Anon 3094990 >># Better audio and video quality's more important than filesize, IMO
>> [_] Anon 3094992 >># then*
>> [_] Anon 3094997 >haven't seen the original I like it, I suppose it's improved!
>> [_] Anon 3095019 >># 1 bit