So take the original source file (like, if you have an uncompressed source, use IT), generate an XviD and a Flash file, and ensure that they look pretty much the same. (This is made easier if you examine selected frames under high zoom.) Then tell us the parameters you used for both processes. Provide screenshots so we can see exactly what's going on.shadow-the-hedgehog wrote:on the test I ran the file was considerably smaller than the original file. And the only reason it looks bad is b/c I put it at 50% compression.
You're making an outrageous claim here, and as such, we demand hard evidence for the claim. If you can't provide it, you might as well have not said anything.
Chances are that the XviD will be smaller AND will play back at a more guaranteed frame rate across ALL platforms that XviD runs on (which includes Mac OS X, Linux/FreeBSD/many other free UNIX-like operating systems, Windows...)
In fact, I'd wager that that would be the case, because I've done several experiments with raster compression in Flash myself. (The short conclusion: The results sucked, in comparison to what I'd get from a system DESIGNED for raster compression -- you know, like XviD, DivX, MPEG-1/2, etc.)
