WIN

Jakerty said:
WIN

This

Instant Favorite and Wonderfully Done!

very well done, reminds me of some of those game CG movement posts on the site this site is modeled after

This is made of win and cake.

Again -- Washa doesn't post them as .GIFs, why the fuck do you convert them to .GIFs? All it does is lower the quality, make them use up more system resources, and make them several times as large. WHERE IS THE POINT?

Those who want SWFs can get them on FA. There's also link to HD 1080p version there. Just click the "source" link.

This picture in particular doesn't lose much quality after conversion, because its palette is very limited. I made it for those who asked for a GIF version. Yes, there're people who prefer GIFs.

make them use up more system resources

Playing GIF requires three times less resources actually. SWF player unpacks JPEGs inside SWF into uncompressed 24 bit true-color bitmaps, while GIF can be represented by 8-bit paletted bitmaps.

i'd pay to be the male in this o.o awesome animation!

reyrey said:
i'd pay to be the male in this o.o awesome animation!

id pay to be the female receiving cause its so HOT.

By system resources I meant the fact that .GIFs are comparatively processor-intensive due to not having any real hardware acceleration support (as far as I know anyways), unlike video streams embedded in .SWF.

I mean, just as an example this computer has a rather poor processor and this thing won't run at more than like 50% the proper framerate, with some stuttering, whereas the .SWF on FA runs just fine.

The only point to the .GIF I could see would be if you were using something like an iPhone that has no Flash support, and, eh... Either way, it seems illogical and inconvenient to upload a lower-quality version of something to e621 but not the original. *Shrug*

acct0283476 said:
By system resources I meant the fact that .GIFs are comparatively processor-intensive due to not having any real hardware acceleration support (as far as I know anyways), unlike video streams embedded in .SWF.

I mean, just as an example this computer has a rather poor processor and this thing won't run at more than like 50% the proper framerate, with some stuttering, whereas the .SWF on FA runs just fine.

The only point to the .GIF I could see would be if you were using something like an iPhone that has no Flash support, and, eh... Either way, it seems illogical and inconvenient to upload a lower-quality version of something to e621 but not the original. *Shrug*

It's definitely not a hardware issue, GIFs actually give me smoother performance. I think IE does something weird to GIFs to slow them down, try viewing it in FF or Chrome.

Also, SWF isn't as good for simple video loops like this because it's designed to be able to execute complex code in addition to playing videos. GIFs are simpler, and are both smaller and a bit higher quality than Flash (because JPG sucks for drawings). The only real advantage of Flash is that you can load the whole thing before starting, where GIFs stream by default.

asdfzxc said:
It's definitely not a hardware issue, GIFs actually give me smoother performance. I think IE does something weird to GIFs to slow them down, try viewing it in FF or Chrome.

Yeah, Internet Exploder fucks up .GIFs, but I am using Firefox. *Shrug*

GIFs are simpler, and are both smaller and a bit higher quality than Flash (because JPG sucks for drawings).

... What. What is with the assumption that it's a string of JPEGs, and not MPEG or something? Also, explain again how an 8-bit palettized format is somehow 'higher quality' than, uh. Well, than anything really?

Not going to argue against Flash being inefficient; that's spot-on.

acct0283476 said:
Yeah, Internet Exploder fucks up .GIFs, but I am using Firefox. *Shrug*

I have never seen this problem caused by anything but IE, and I've used some pretty terrible computers. Your machine is probably an outlier.

... What. What is with the assumption that it's a string of JPEGs, and not MPEG or something?

AFAIK an MPEG video is functionally identical to a string of JPGs, and almost every format these days is a variation of MPEG.

Also, explain again how an 8-bit palettized format is somehow 'higher quality' than, uh. Well, than anything really?

Not going to argue against Flash being inefficient; that's spot-on.

Most video formats are lossy, GIF is lossless. Lossy formats tend to get a lot of artifacts when rendering drawings, GIF doesn't. Pretty much the only downside to GIF is that it can't render colorful images, and this is not a colorful image.

asdfzxc said:
I have never seen this problem caused by anything but IE, and I've used some pretty terrible computers. Your machine is probably an outlier.

Actually, 's not a matter of it being handled/displayed at a slower rate like IE does so much as failing to even process at full rate. This is a rather terrible computer, so yeah.

AFAIK an MPEG video is functionally identical to a string of JPGs, and almost every format these days is a variation of MPEG.

Um. No. Only keyframes are equivalent to a JPEG or such. The rest (anywhere from 90% to 99.9%) are delta frames -- that is, they record change from the previous frame (instead of being complete images in and of themselves), including motion-based data and such (not just the same type of data contained in a JPEG). Last I remembered an MPEG video stream was generally expected to get anywhere from five to ten times the space efficiency compared to a string of JPEGs for the same average visual quality. :/

Most video formats are lossy, GIF is lossless. Lossy formats tend to get a lot of artifacts when rendering drawings, GIF doesn't. Pretty much the only downside to GIF is that it can't render colorful images, and this is not a colorful image.

Also, you cannot call something that requires flat-out reduction of the image's colorspace 'lossless'. I don't care if the image is undamaged after you down-convert it to an 8-bit palette, you still have to butcher it by palettization before it can become a GIF. GIF is a functionally lossy format if you were not working with a palettized image in the first place. Technically there are no such things as 'GIF artifacts', sure -- but the artifacts of dithering certainly fill the role.

Of course, APNG is far superior to either option, but nobody actually supports it...

That'd be because people don't like good, logical choices. :(

Also, as an addendum -- saying "almost every (video) format these days is a variation of MPEG" is like saying "almost every (audio) format these days is a variation of MP3". From a... Can't think of the term. Basically they're developed from the same basic ideas, but that doesn't mean they're equivalent (or even comparable) in efficiency.

acct0283476 said:
Um. No. Only keyframes are equivalent to a JPEG or such. The rest (anywhere from 90% to 99.9%) are delta frames -- that is, they record change from the previous frame (instead of being complete images in and of themselves), including motion-based data and such (not just the same type of data contained in a JPEG). Last I remembered an MPEG video stream was generally expected to get anywhere from five to ten times the space efficiency compared to a string of JPEGs for the same average visual quality. :/

Yeah, I fucked up with the research.

Also, you cannot call something that requires flat-out reduction of the image's colorspace 'lossless'. I don't care if the image is undamaged after you down-convert it to an 8-bit palette, you still have to butcher it by palettization before it can become a GIF. GIF is a functionally lossy format if you were not working with a palettized image in the first place. Technically there are no such things as 'GIF artifacts', sure -- but the artifacts of dithering certainly fill the role.

For this particular image the difference between the PNG and the GIF is actually not as big as normal due to the small color palette. But yeah, I'll admit it's not very good for images with a larger palette.

acct0283476 said:
Also, as an addendum -- saying "almost every (video) format these days is a variation of MPEG" is like saying "almost every (audio) format these days is a variation of MP3". From a... Can't think of the term. Basically they're developed from the same basic ideas, but that doesn't mean they're equivalent (or even comparable) in efficiency.

Wasn't trying to say that they're equivalent in efficiency. Also, see my above statement on my failure at research.

we need a different perspective on this, needs to see more

No way! Surprisingly good work, chaps.

By system resources I meant the fact that .GIFs are comparatively processor-intensive due to not having any real hardware acceleration support (as far as I know anyways), unlike video streams embedded in .SWF.

WRONG. If by hardware performance you mean viewing on overlay, it depends on the player. If you mean decoding in the video card, it depends on the player too, but most likely you'll get both decoded on the processor.

And the problem is, SWF version doesn't have video stream inside, it contains just a dozen of JPEGs.

Also, SWF isn't as good for simple video loops like this because it's designed to be able to execute complex code in addition to playing videos.

WRONG. SWF is designed to play video or play animation without any code no less than it is designed to process complex scripts. All of these things are highly optimized.

GIFs are simpler, and are both smaller and a bit higher quality than Flash (because JPG sucks for drawings).

WRONG. JPEG quality depends on the the quality setting you choose. GIF is not suited for pictures with complex palettes. JPEG version of the animation is higher quality.

AFAIK an MPEG video is functionally identical to a string of JPGs, and almost every format these days is a variation of MPEG.

WRONG and WRONG. MJPEG is identical to series of JPEG, but MPEG contains delta frames you won't encounter in any JPEG, because they are useful only for animation.

Almost all video codecs use the same idea, but saying MPEG and H264 are the same is like saying coffeemaker and spacecraft are the same.

Of course, APNG is far superior to either option, but nobody actually supports it...

WRONG. APNG would be ridiculously HUGE, just like PNG for colorful pictures, but multiplied by animation.

Guys, do you ever think before commenting? Using brain is quite useful when arguing.

FeralBeast said:
things

You know, it IS possible to recite facts without being a pretentious asshole.

ippiki_ookami said:
You know, it IS possible to recite facts without being a pretentious asshole.

I AM pretentious asshole. So what?

GEEK Overload!!!! STOP TALKING!!!!!!

RZV11 said:
GEEK Overload!!!! STOP TALKING!!!!!!

Duuuude, they did about a year ago....
Still, it was an interesting lesson in geekdom.

RZV11 said:
GEEK Overload!!!! STOP TALKING!!!!!!

Experience shows that about a half of furry fandom are programmers or other IT-related geeks, so deal with it

I found out this was an animation when I opened my Dropbox account on a computer. I usually use my iPod for surfing... Love this!

By the way, IE is just fine with GIF's. Chrome makes them fast and choppy for some reason. It might just be my computer, but everything else works fine

acct0283476 said:
Again -- Washa doesn't post them as .GIFs, why the fuck do you convert them to .GIFs? All it does is lower the quality, make them use up more system resources, and make them several times as large. WHERE IS THE POINT?

Because....and here is the special part...it makes them....MOVE! (Gasp!)

I’ve seen these comments bitching about washu and gifs and movement that in 2021 have not aged well AT ALL and I just have to say it’s 2021 and this is still one of my favorite pictures on e6 both versions.