|>>||Anonymous 29jun2018(fr)22:28 No.60648 OP |P1
|>>||Anonymous 30jun2018(sa)16:28 No.60687 A |P2R1
|>Still shit quality version|
Nope. Post when someone gets the proper version.
|>>||Anonymous 1jul2018(su)17:20 No.60702 B |P3R2
|>>||???? ???? 1jul2018(su)21:04 No.60712 C |P4R3
|How many flashes have Oolay Tiger as a voice!?|
Not that it's wrong, but it is overwhelming to me.
|>>||Anonymous 2jul2018(mo)16:21 No.60722 A |P5R4
Compare the video to the swf of this.
|>>||Anonymous 2jul2018(mo)21:45 No.60726 B |P6R5
still don't get it
OP posted the swf and a link to the swf
where is there any other version of this flash?
|>>||Anonymous 3jul2018(tu)12:33 No.60741 D |P7R6
Oh how cute, he's running this on a toaster. Kill yourself, pleb.
|>>||Anonymous 3jul2018(tu)15:45 No.60742 A |P8R7
Nope. Compare the .swf to the video of it. Video is much higher quality. I've ran many .swf and they look fine. But .swf of this looks poor.
So you, kys. Dog-shit shit-poster. A shame even swfchan even gets the typical 4chan retards like you.
|>>||Anonymous 3jul2018(tu)17:19 No.60746 B |P9R8
What do you mean?
A video can only ever be displayed that well, mostly 1080p.
But a swf has theoretically infinite quality.
You could scale it to an entire theatre screen and it would still show no pixelation.
You lose quality when you pour it into a video, that's how it works.
The only real problem you could have is like >>60741 said, when your PC struggles to display the swf, because of weak processing power.
But then again, how would you display a 1080p video with no problems? Most likely the video is even lower quality like 720p.
In this case, it's your PC that makes the difference.
Because you can only view quality as good as 720p but not a limitless scaling swf.
Imagine - how does the video of this get created? You basically just capture the swf running from your screen.
So the person making the video had the swf running as flawlessly as seen in that video.
Yet, I still don't even know which video you're talking about, Anon A.
|>>||Anonymous 7jul2018(sa)03:23 No.60824 E |P10R9
In most cases you'd be correct, but this piece isn't vectored for some reason, so it isn't actually infinitely scaling as you mentioned.
I think derpixon might've done it to save file size? I'm not sure though, I've seen this type of thing before with other flashes.
|>>||Anonymous 7jul2018(sa)12:05 No.60830 F |P11R10
A lot of drawing programs, can output as swf animation, but are too shitty to do vector graphics. I assume that is the reason for this. Most flashes with vector graphics are done in flash. I personally recommend a old flash version. Macromedia Flash MX also has better vector drawing (the lines are much smoother and 100% accurate). Flash CS3 is the fastest and most bug free because adobe had less influence on it.
Flash CS3 can use expansion scripts for automated tasks which is extremly useful. It's sad you can't have flash MX vector drawing and CS3s expansion scripts.
|>>||Anonymous 7jul2018(sa)22:16 No.60841 G |P12R11
It's a shame they're trying so feverishly to kill off the format. Web use aside, the vectored animation is going to be missed.
2020 will suck.
|>>||Anonymous 8jul2018(su)22:03 No.60879 H |P13R12
Don't despair, just because official support ends it doesn't mean we have to abandon the technology. I'd bet Firefox would even extend support of it if enough people were to ask. Or probably even better, if enough people refuse to update to later versions since it looks bad in their statistics.
|>>||Anonymous 9jul2018(mo)00:31 No.60886 B |P14R13
True, but I doubt a handfull of people could build enough opposition to the entire fucking internet conglomerate, especially google.
Then again, I'm posting this from my Windows XP pc and that shit had its "official support ended" years ago.
|>>||Anonymous 10jul2018(tu)02:54 No.60914 A |P15R14
|Anyone know why this looks crisp when played on a web browser, but has obvious jaggy lines when I save the swf and play it on a standalone player? The standalone player is up to date, yet it has clear quality loss.|
|>>||Anonymous 10jul2018(tu)03:31 No.60916 A |P16
Samefag here, apologies for double-post.
Playing the swf on https://www.hentai-foundry.com/pictures/user/Derp ixon/567785/Fresh-Start is good quality, however, playing it via swfchan, or saving it and playing it locally (either saving it from swfchan or hentai-foundry) is shit quality. All are using adobe flash player 30 and the settings across them seem to be the same (high quality, etc)
How is it that the one on HF is of high quality, and the one on swfchan is not, however, either one I save to play locally is again shit quality? This shit is doing my head in.
Shit quality (everywhere non-HF): https://vgy.me/JojwHm.png
Good quality (only HF): https://vgy.me/1yv5Vv.png
This is across all scenes, and is constant. Is this the case for anybody else? I just don't get how playing the swf on both swfchan and HF look different, yet are supposedly using the same player, and when I save both of them and play locally (flash projector), they are both shit quality.
|>>||Anonymous 10jul2018(tu)20:50 No.60930 B |P17R15
Sry, I don't know how that can come to be. It says image not found on both your upload links, you can attach images right here in the thread via the "Include an attachment..." button under the post field.
|>>||Anonymous 10jul2018(tu)22:44 No.60937 A |P18R16
Judging by the image, it may be a zoom issue. Which is surprising as I wouldn't think embedded swf would not default to different zoom values. And when I try to zoom in to swfchan's swf, it zooms it back out again to default. Scratching my head as to how and why only HF has a different zoom value, where as saving and opening locally, and everywhere else (swf chan, even other sites that have the swf that I've seen)
Image: Left = everywhere else (shit quality); right = HF (good quality)
|>>||Anonymous 11jul2018(we)16:35 No.60951 B |P19R17
Hmm, very strange indeed. The screenshot here on swfchan looks like it also had good quality when opened.
I first thought it to be a scaling issue, so I tried all settings with or without the html wrapper, but no luck.
Also, I noticed that the quality setting makes no difference whatsoever.
Funnily enough I tried the HF link, both embed and opened directly on their site, and it looks exactly the same (bad) there for me too.