File: AMV - Futuristic Lover.swf-(9.82 MB, 1280x520, Anime)
[_] Anonymous 11/24/15(Tue)21:56:00 No.2960370
>> [_] Anonymous 11/24/15(Tue)23:24:49 No.2960428
was pleasantly surprised by the quality of the editing in this one
>> [_] BigBlue 11/24/15(Tue)23:31:04 No.2960433
What anime did they pull from? I didn't quite catch any names...
>> [_] Anonymous 11/24/15(Tue)23:32:14 No.2960436
>>2960433
Boku no Pico
>> [_] BigBlue 11/24/15(Tue)23:42:50 No.2960443
>>2960436
...how 'bout no?
>> [_] Anonymous 11/24/15(Tue)23:48:26 No.2960450
>>2960443
YOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
>> [_] Anonymous 11/24/15(Tue)23:51:59 No.2960454
>>2960436
Fuck you
>> [_] Anonymous 11/24/15(Tue)23:57:08 No.2960457
>>2960443
how 'bout you take your sorry ass back to Piccolo for another reaming?
Why is it that every machine I've viewd these awful swfH264 wrapped videos plays it like it's
completely missing all the I-frames? I'mbeginning to think this is a datamosh conspiracy, I never
see folk comment on the broken-ness of the flashes.
Not just *my* machine, EVERY. FUCKING. ONE.
They never work. Stick to ON2-VP6, and fuck the hipster codecs, Flash was never intended to
harbor such cancer.
>> [_] Anonymous 11/24/15(Tue)23:58:18 No.2960459
>>2960433
*Monogatari
>> [_] BigBlue 11/25/15(Wed)00:10:25 No.2960470
>>2960459
MAH MAN!
>>2960457
...dude. Quit yer bitchin'. If you don't like it, go someplace else.
>> [_] Anonymous 11/25/15(Wed)00:11:59 No.2960476
>>2960457
It's not that all the I-frames are stripped out insomuch as the player just doesn't bother using
them for reference. Swf2H264 uses some kind of java SWF builder library to put everything
together and I'm surprised it even does as good a job as it does at all.
>h264 is a hipster codec
kek. To be fair on loonix systems with an archaic version of flash where the video codec is using
high profile h264 there is sometimes a delay at the start, but it is not so with newer versions
of flash.
In fact, because flash on linux is so broken I went so far as to install that shitty pipelight
wrapper to fix a bunch of other broken shit and that issue went away all on its own.
>I never see folk comment on the broken-ness of the flashes
Still looks better than 320x240 potato encodes relying on the older codec and its god awful
scaling algorithms. Usually. Unless you're one of those fags that tries to pack 20 minutes in at
1 frame per minute.
>> [_] Anonymous 11/25/15(Wed)00:16:09 No.2960482
>>2960476
To be more precise I mean to say if you use the seek feature to go up and down the video I don't
think the player uses the I-Frames for reference.
>> [_] Anonymous 11/25/15(Wed)00:22:38 No.2960485
>>2960476
hehe
I wasn't implying that H264 was hipster, per se... it's an excellent codec (though x264
surpasses); I just mean the use of that fucking webtool on swfchan that the neophytes use.
If you into *real* flash, you notice that you can't actually use H264 to encode your .flv, you're
limited to VP6. the 264 family are basically for just about any container other than .flv or .f4v
(and Flash will only accept .flv anyway). If you encode H/x 264 in a .flv or f4v, Flash Player
(or the plugins) won't like it much, and refuse to play nice. Further proof that the webtool is
utter shit, beyond the fact that it breeds and attracts non-Flash-savvy "authors".
>320x240 potato encodes
hah, this is because people have no idea how to adjust their bitrates and render depths in Media
Encoder before wrapping them in a .swf.
I do it often, and get awesome results. Of course, there are tradeoffs like overall run time of
the video, but what in life ISN'T a tradeoff? :^)
>> [_] Anonymous 11/25/15(Wed)00:29:29 No.2960490
>>2960370
>>2960428
Objectively better AMV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGd3zPy9PCg
>> [_] Anonymous 11/25/15(Wed)00:29:50 No.2960491
I hate this song so much... This is great though
>> [_] Anonymous 11/25/15(Wed)00:43:26 No.2960499
not being familiar with the h/x 264 subtleties, I do appreciate that this is pretty smooth and
has good quality. Thank you op.
>> [_] Anonymous 11/25/15(Wed)00:47:00 No.2960503
>>2960485
Say what you want, but H.264 has had native support in Flash since 2007, whereas VP6 is merely
the more popular for SWF conversions because it is the only video codec that ffmpeg supports
direct conversions to and has GUI presence in Adobe Flash
What flash does support is loading an FLV as an object and then playing out the contents. It also
supports streaming of those same FLV's and H.264 encoded video streams as part of an MP4. I don't
even think you could leverage the support flash offers for HE-AAC without using an FLV or MP4
container, either.
>People have no idea how to adjust their bitrates and render depths
Even so, a render and conversion of your flash to video in this matter if you were working from
the Flash WYSIWYG could have some tangible benefits depending on what you're doing. And for
straight video conversions, It's better than screwing with ffmpeg. Which is what most of the
content here is anymore, as you already noted.
In the end, not everyone is working out of the WYSIWYG and just because the treatment of FLV's is
different doesn't make it any less valid for this purpose.
>> [_] Anonymous 11/25/15(Wed)00:49:25 No.2960505
>>2960503
>better than screwing with ffmpeg
I should proof-read before posting. I mean better than struggling with VP6 with ffmpeg.
>> [_] BIIIIIIIIIG FAGGOT 11/25/15(Wed)01:07:53 No.2960518
>>2960457
maybe you should stop running things on a toaster at 320x200
>> [_] Anonymous 11/25/15(Wed)01:08:08 No.2960519
>namefags being as gay as they are
why am I surprised
