Allow users to additionally upload thumbnails for flash uploads and automatically put a flash logo in a corner of the thumbnail.
The way it is now sucks, search for Jasonafex and you know what I mean.
Updated by Foobaria
Posted under General
Allow users to additionally upload thumbnails for flash uploads and automatically put a flash logo in a corner of the thumbnail.
The way it is now sucks, search for Jasonafex and you know what I mean.
Updated by Foobaria
I agree; shouldn't be mandatory though.
Updated by anonymous
While it'd be nice to have some sort of thumbnails, there's no way to do it automatically and we don't like the idea of users being able to use any image as a thumbnail since it may not represent the actual contents of the flash, and could be (maybe intentionally) misleading.
Updated by anonymous
tony311 said:
there's no way to do it automatically
Swfchan seems to be able to do it somehow. I'll agree that it doesn't look perfect but it's better than no thumbnails at all.
Updated by anonymous
MaShCr said:
Swfchan seems to be able to do it somehow. I'll agree that it doesn't look perfect but it's better than no thumbnails at all.
That ends up pretty useless very often:
http://images1.swfchan.com/25/120430b.jpg
I never talked about an automatic thumbnail system, but the possibility of an additional manual thumbnail would be nice.
Updated by anonymous
tony311 said:
While it'd be nice to have some sort of thumbnails, there's no way to do it automatically and we don't like the idea of users being able to use any image as a thumbnail since it may not represent the actual contents of the flash, and could be (maybe intentionally) misleading.
We already have misleading thumbnails like this: post #130815 and if there would be punishment for bad thumbs, than maybe it wouldn't be more often misused than intentionally tagging picture with wrong tags.
People are generally good-willed, and won't intentionally screw up things. Especially when there's gun pointed to their head.
Also, no matter of that, there could be some visual distinction between animated things, and others. Now animated gifs thumbnails look like ordinary pic thumbs, not animated. Sometimes it's annoying.
Updated by anonymous
Akkira said:
That ends up pretty useless very often:
http://images1.swfchan.com/25/120430b.jpg
From what I can tell, their implementation generates thumbnails from the .swf file's individual decompiled assets. What we really need is something that captures the ultimate output of the file (the same thing the human viewer will see).
After some digging around, it looks like this can be done using something called the Gnash player. It's a cross-platform Flash player that can be run from the command line (no GUI libraries needed). What makes it so unique is that it has a dump feature which captures the player's output in the form of a raw video file. Once that's done, something like ImageMagick can be used to convert one of that video's frames to a .jpg (or several to an animated .gif!. You can find a more detailed walkthrough here.
So there, it can be done automatically.
Updated by anonymous
tony311 said:
we don't like the idea of users being able to use any image as a thumbnail since it may not represent the actual contents of the flash, and could be (maybe intentionally) misleading.
If people abuse it, ban them. I don't understand why people always have so much trouble with this concept.
Updated by anonymous
RenaKunisaki said:
If people abuse it, ban them. I don't understand why people always have so much trouble with this concept.
But it can also be done unintentional by the server. Some images have the wrong/corrupt thumbnails some times.
Updated by anonymous
Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
...and if their would be punishment for bad thumbs...
there
Which is especially sad because you got it right like 5 other times in that post :P
Updated by anonymous
Hammie said:
thereWhich is especially sad because you got it right like 5 other times in that post :P
it's called a mistake, and is a part of learning.
trust me I study this stuff :P although reminding the learner is helpful, calling simple mistakes sad is not.
and if we're going grammar nazi then we would want to use punctuation. just saying. and I'm on a phone ATM so I don't qualify in either the nazi or the bad grammar category. :P autocorrect is not my friend.
Updated by anonymous
Kimpumomo said:
it's called a mistake, and is a part of learning.
trust me I study this stuff :P although reminding the learner is helpful, calling simple mistakes sad is not.and if we're going grammar nazi then we would want to use punctuation. just saying. and I'm on a phone ATM so I don't qualify in either the nazi or the bad grammar category. :P autocorrect is not my friend.
Give auto correct a cookie. May behave then.
Updated by anonymous
Corrected it. I hate those kind of things that go through past spell-checker.
BTW, is their there any better spell-checker for Firefox? Like this in GDocs which corrects things like "I'm hear". (Ironically it doesn't see anything wrong with sentence where I've made mistake.)
Updated by anonymous
Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
Corrected it. I hate those kind of things that go through past spell-checker.
BTW, istheirthere any better spell-checker for Firefox? Like this in GDocs which corrects things like "I'm hear". (Ironically it doesn't see anything wrong with sentence where I've made mistake.)
Sounds like you want grammar-correct and auto-correct? At the same time? Omgz.
There's actually an extension for that on Google Chrome, but not sure about Firefox.
Updated by anonymous
Keats said:
Sounds like you want grammar-correct and auto-correct? At the same time?
No, I don't auto-correct. I have bad experience with it.
Just something to mark errors with efficiency of GDocs correction, so I can manually check them, but without copy-pasting text to GDocs. Built-in dictionary just checks if words exists, and in e.g. "I'm hear" all words are valid.
Or maybe I'm just mumbling nonsense because it's 2 AM. I should go sleep.
Updated by anonymous
You're sleepy. Go to bed. =z.z=
Updated by anonymous
furballs_dc said:
You're sleepy. Go to bed. =z.z=
Shush.
Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
No, I don't auto-correct. I have bad experience with it.Just something to mark errors with efficiency of GDocs correction, so I can manually check them, but without copy-pasting text to GDocs. Built-in dictionary just checks if words exists, and in e.g. "I'm hear" all words are valid.
Or maybe I'm just mumbling nonsense because it's 2 AM. I should go sleep.
Ah, so, it's like Microsoft Word (or GDocs, I guess), but with more, let's say, portability?
If so, then Firefox don't have those plug-ins yet, I think.
Only Google Chrome for now. Sorry, if I didn't help you, or possibly didn't understand what you just said, lol.
Updated by anonymous
Akkira said:
Allow users to additionally upload thumbnails for flash uploads and automatically put a flash logo in a corner of the thumbnail.
The way it is now sucks, search for Jasonafex and you know what I mean.
Just like YouTube?
Updated by anonymous
Gilda_The_Gryphon said:
post #130815
That's interesting, it appears that the intended effect works best on Firefox, then Chrome, and Internet Explorer and some mobile browsers don't show it as at all as intended. I don't think this is an animation trick, I think it's some kind of masking trick.
Maybe if the image has a bKGD and tRNS sections (ancillary, non-critical sections of the PNG format), then many art programs and image viewers and thumbnail generation utilities could be discarding the data when displaying the image? Whereas Firefox and Chrome may be constantly being rebuilt with the latest libpng and displaying the sections correctly? That's a guess, and not guaranteed to be a good one.
Updated by anonymous
ikdind said:
That's interesting, it appears that the intended effect works best on Firefox, then Chrome, and Internet Explorer and some mobile browsers don't show it as at all as intended. I don't think this is an animation trick, I think it's some kind of masking trick.Maybe if the image has a bKGD and tRNS sections (ancillary, non-critical sections of the PNG format), then many art programs and image viewers and thumbnail generation utilities could be discarding the data when displaying the image? Whereas Firefox and Chrome may be constantly being rebuilt with the latest libpng and displaying the sections correctly? That's a guess, and not guaranteed to be a good one.
I'm farily confident that you're right on the money.
Updated by anonymous
ikdind said:
That's interesting, it appears that the intended effect works best on Firefox, then Chrome, and Internet Explorer and some mobile browsers don't show it as at all as intended. I don't think this is an animation trick, I think it's some kind of masking trick.Maybe if the image has a bKGD and tRNS sections (ancillary, non-critical sections of the PNG format), then many art programs and image viewers and thumbnail generation utilities could be discarding the data when displaying the image? Whereas Firefox and Chrome may be constantly being rebuilt with the latest libpng and displaying the sections correctly? That's a guess, and not guaranteed to be a good one.
You're half way on the road. While there are tags present, they're not exactly bKGD and tRNS, they're acTL, fcTL and fdAT. In this case, the image is a 2-frame, non-looping animated png . The first frame is set to be discarded, and the second has no duration, making it to appear forever.
Most programs don't support these tags and they only display the first frame (contained in the IDAT chunk) the other is considered unimportant because is in a fdAT chunk.
And trying to be on topic, I think it should be allowed for the uploader to upload a screenshot of the swf, I'm pretty sure most uploaders expect a second page asking for a thumbmail. Or try what MaShCr said...
Updated by anonymous
tony311 said:
While it'd be nice to have some sort of thumbnails, there's no way to do it automatically and we don't like the idea of users being able to use any image as a thumbnail since it may not represent the actual contents of the flash, and could be (maybe intentionally) misleading.
If users are trusted with tagging, why not thumbnails? Misleading tagging can result in much worse than a misleading thumbnail.
Updated by anonymous
The future looks extremely bright indeed, with lots of possibilities ahead -- big possibilities. Like the song says, 'We've just begun.'
Updated by anonymous
OH THREAD THAT LIES STILL IN PAGE 5, I COMMAND YOU TO RISE TO PAGE 1 WITH BOLD STRENGTH AND ATTRACT THE ATTENTION OF THE PEOPLE
Hi Kids! I just thought about this, and this is crazy, so here it is, and call me mebbe! ^o^
Instead of allowing users to upload a separate image for a thumbnail that may probably be misleading (like post #130815), how about a meta-tag to allow uploaders (and users) to give it a title? To turn this into this.
This meta-tag would be something like "title:Title_of_the_flash" and when displaying replacing underscores for spaces (appearing like "Title of the flash"). It can also be made to display only when the post is a SWF, or allow it for every post, so all can have a title. And it would be faster than playing the SWF to where the title is, screencapping, saving and then uploading. It's just like a normal tag and it can be changed easly, without having to re-upload a new thumbnail.
So, what'cha think?
Updated by anonymous
That would be quite nice.
Updated by anonymous
I think that would be a good way to handle it. Might not be that helpful for finding a flash the first time, but...it doesn't need to be useful for finding flashes the first time to be useful for finding a flash again.
Hell, even sticking the md5 of the flash in place of the [Download] would help (actually, for me, that might even be more useful than user-editable titles, since I could count on it not changing). Anything but a sea of completely undifferentiated [Download] boxes.
Updated by anonymous
A title meta-tag sounds like a nifty idea.
Updated by anonymous
Xch3l said:
OH THREAD THAT LIES STILL IN PAGE 5, I COMMAND YOU TO RISE TO PAGE 1 WITH BOLD STRENGTH AND ATTRACT THE ATTENTION OF THE PEOPLEHi Kids! I just thought about this, and this is crazy, so here it is, and call me mebbe! ^o^
Instead of allowing users to upload a separate image for a thumbnail that may probably be misleading (like post #130815), how about a meta-tag to allow uploaders (and users) to give it a title? To turn this into this.
This meta-tag would be something like "title:Title_of_the_flash" and when displaying replacing underscores for spaces (appearing like "Title of the flash"). It can also be made to display only when the post is a SWF, or allow it for every post, so all can have a title. And it would be faster than playing the SWF to where the title is, screencapping, saving and then uploading. It's just like a normal tag and it can be changed easly, without having to re-upload a new thumbnail.
So, what'cha think?
Sounds better than nothing, but I am still in favor of a separate image that automatically gets the flash logo added in a corner. Misleading images wouldn't be a problem: The perpetrator would get raped by admins quickly.
Updated by anonymous
Akkira said:
Sounds better than nothing, but I am still in favor of a separate image that automatically gets the flash logo added in a corner. Misleading images wouldn't be a problem: The perpetrator would get raped by admins quickly.
Giving admins extra work is not the way to go.
I say go with the file name or whatever. at least it's distinguishable, that's all we really need.
Updated by anonymous
I think that thumbnail is a better idea, than just text. Good thumbnail would really help in mass tagging.
Updated by anonymous
Setting aside that the main programmer of the site has already talked about this...
I would enjoy having Flash thumbnails, because as it is, it's too much of a pain in the ass to open every one and let it load, plus the irritation of having to mouseover every one to check the tags first, so I end up just ignoring all Flash entirely most of the time.
That said, it's worth it only if it's not a lot of work server-side.
Updated by anonymous