File: evenmoreframes.swf-(3.21 MB, 1280x720, Loop)
[_] Anon 3160640
>> [_] Anon 3160698 >># Right click
>> [_] Anon 3160714 >># Does nothing.
>> [_] Anon 3160857 >first eight frames are empty

File: evenmoreframes.swf-(3.21 MB, 1280x720, Loop)
[_] From the experiment archives! AMM !AMM.FiWTOc 3108287 This is a fun prototype from the depths of my dropbox. I'm using single-frame h264 encoded video to compress images better than PNG (obvs) and JPEG - with the added bonus of bringing even the most powerful machines to their knees. Loading 32 videos in chunks of like 4? isn't... really... all that good. But hey, it's a neat thing, though. The images/music are from yy.swf by Pyure.
>> [_] Anon 3108290 filtered
>> [_] Anon 3108291 >># ok, calm down, breathe and repeat what you just said because I didn't catch any of that
>> [_] AMM !AMM.FiWTOc 3108294 >># H.264, a video compressing codec, generates better results than the ages-old JPEG. In this Flash all the frames of the loop are encoded into separate videos. I can't use a single video, as seeking video in Flash is not accurate nor fast. Even though there literally are 32 videos in the flash, they take up less space than 32 JPEGs, with better quality, even. However, this is not efficient as Flash isn't made to load 32 videos and take a bitmap image of each one; we lose time&performance, even if we do scrape off like 24% of the size. tldr AMM tries something ridiculous and turns out flash sucks
>> [_] Anon 3108299 >># >muh nonimous imageboards lel newfag.
>> [_] Anon 3108303 >># Smaller file sizes? Keep up the good work OP
>> [_] AMM !AMM.FiWTOc 3108325 >># No, this is never going to happen, none of the pros can win over the cons.
>> [_] Anon 3108369 >># Fuck you nigger smaller sizes means more porn per ssd
>> [_] Anon 3108383 >># I love you for doing useless stuff, but still doing it nonetheless. FOR SCIENCE!