File: evenmoreframes.swf-(3.21 MB, 1280x720, Loop)
[_] From the experiment archives! AMM !AMM.FiWTOc 07/02/16(Sat)18:35:31 No.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.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/02/16(Sat)18:39:24 No.3108290
filtered
>> [_] Anonymous 07/02/16(Sat)18:39:25 No.3108291
>>3108287
ok, calm down, breathe
and repeat what you just said because I didn't catch any of that
>> [_] AMM !AMM.FiWTOc 07/02/16(Sat)18:47:48 No.3108294
>>3108291
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
>> [_] Anonymous 07/02/16(Sat)18:59:46 No.3108299
>>3108290
>muh nonimous imageboards
lel newfag.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/02/16(Sat)19:07:11 No.3108303
>>3108294
Smaller file sizes? Keep up the good work OP
>> [_] AMM !AMM.FiWTOc 07/02/16(Sat)19:42:33 No.3108325
>>3108303
No, this is never going to happen, none of the pros can win over the cons.
>> [_] Anonymous 07/02/16(Sat)21:33:34 No.3108369
>>3108325
Fuck you nigger smaller sizes means more porn per ssd
>> [_] Anonymous 07/02/16(Sat)22:19:05 No.3108383
>>3108294
I love you for doing useless stuff, but still doing it nonetheless.
FOR SCIENCE!
