Printable View
Dear VBFormers,
I am looking for having my MKV files, to then be compressed and then embedded into a RES file, that runs into the VB6 project files. I am looking to have it made as a DCR file, after it has been finished being written in as source code. then looking to have the VB6 project, to then be compiled as a OCX and then built as a stand-alone file in Adobe Director, if that makes any sense, also then
A MKV is already compressed. You can't compress it any further.
And the rest makes no sense to me.
Not much of it makes sense to me either, but yes, MKV files are already compressed. I've found that any further attempts to compress them typically results in a larger file because of the overhead needed for the compression.
Regarding stuffing them in the resources, go for it. Just use VB6's Add-In, and put them in there, no problem. And getting them out as a byte array, and doing what you want with that byte array is also no problem, and this is true for running in IDE or compiled. It all works just fine.
Regarding the rest, I really don't understand. I suppose I could say one thing: VB6 compiled OCX files can have resources just like an EXE can. In fact, regardless of how it's compiled, it can have a resources section.
I would not recommend putting movie files in a res file. All you are really doing is hiding the movie while inflating the size of the exe and you will find that you have very little room in the res file to do this as compressed movie files are usually 100s of megs or more in size.
I've never understood people's reluctance to put things into resources. AFAIK, there's no limit to the size of files you can put in there (maybe 2GB or something), and they're not read into memory until you request them. So, it's just "data" that's sitting there on disk (in the EXE) until you need it for something.Quote:
Originally Posted by DataMiser
The only problem I've ever had with files in resources is that it would round the size of the file up to the nearest double-word for files over 65520 bytes. But, typically, that doesn't cause any problems (but it can in certain circumstances). But, beyond that, I've never understood all the negativity toward doing this.
What is the name of the add-in that is able to compress files, i have never seen such an add-in, then soQuote:
Originally Posted by Elroy
The add in mentioned is for adding to the res file. It is not a compression utility and as mentioned a couple of times already in this thread those MKV and many other video format files are already compressed so you gain nothing by trying to compress them often they will get larger when you try.
Man!!
I was told that i could be able to compress them to about 100Bytes, then so. is this not true or totally false fiction, then so???
Anybody else ever get the sense that this is Dilettante's "Andy Kaufman" account?
who are you talking about, i am my own person, here so. my name is Richard Graeme Ambra and i work and live in Perth, WA also then so...Quote:
Originally Posted by jpbro
Attachment 183514
Total fictionQuote:
Originally Posted by ThEiMp
Crikey Moses!!
So if a multiple megabyte mkv film could be compressed to 100 bytes why would we not be using this format instead of mkv? mkv is already a compressed format, you aren't going to get one compressed to 100 bytes unless it started off slightly smaller than 100 bytes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ThEiMp
You could not even get a decent quality screen shot compressed to 100 bytes.
Most of the ThEiMp posts are about his magical compression routines for movies, using his MovieDirector tool.
Everytime he's confusing compression with hash values.
That would be too easy explanation. The waters here are way deeper.Quote:
Originally Posted by Arnoutdv
cheers,
</wqw>
Not to throw gas on the fire (but I'm bored, so I will) ... did you know that it actually might be possible to compress a movie to 100 bytes? It would probably take an inordinate amount of time to do it (or we may need to wait until quantum computers are a bit better), but it's possibly doable.
For one, we'd have to decide if we're okay with some level of lossy (versus lossless). But here's the idea. First, make a massive 2D image of the movie. (Hopefully, that's imaginable by most.) And then, decide on some fractal algorithm. And then, start searching the fractal for a near (or exact match) of the pattern that represents your movie. Once found, you just take X,Y coordinates of the centroid of your massive 2D image, and that's your compression information. Basically, all you need is a code for the fractal algorithm, the size of the 2D image, and the fractal coordinates, and you've got what you need.
It's very possible that your X,Y fractal coordinates won't fit into 100 bytes, but they may. In any event, they'd take far less than the original file size.
But, it's not like we've currently got any such compression algorithm. So, this is all just theoretical. Under thoughts of generosity, maybe this is what someone suggested to ThEiMp.
EDIT; ThEiMp, I must say though, the naïveté of some of your questions is a bit startling. But I suppose we all have our own levels of naïveté. However, aren't you someone who once suggested that you could knock out an alternative to the VB6 IDE in a relatively short amount of time?
Blah
3700+ posts in 15 years, is this an elaborate troll?
Who told you that, Albert?Quote:
Originally Posted by ThEiMp
mkv is just a container.
its the video-codec inside that counts. and it can be anything really.
theres high processing codecs that can be use that makes the files smaller.
a lot of videos uses mp4 (that is also a container) and mostly the codec is h264.
but using h265 will make it smaller. but it will also require more cpu/gpu when decoding it when u play it.
theres also high-progressing sound methods.
that can resize quite a bit, but again, will require more cpu when decoding it.
I suggest that you do your homework better.
this is not something you can ask people make for you,
you need to start, have a plan (valid one, and possible one)
and when you get stuck, you can ask , and usually with a small function or if you need assistance for some methods.
usually you ask for the whole thing. and that means weeks if not months of work.
nobody will do that for you.
No one is this determined to troll. Even if this were they case, there are far better places that VBForums to troll like this.Quote:
Originally Posted by EmmaPortwood
The impression I get is that he is a non-English speaker using Google Translate.
Kind of. Albert Redditt is well-known in the FreeBasic forum for his endless attempts to find the magic formula for compression.Quote:
Originally Posted by EmmaPortwood
But there is a magic compression method
Sort the the data on a byte level then use a mix of delta and run length encoding. And repeat these steps in a loop.
:rolleyes:
How come?! LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by Albert
Reality train hits hard :-))
cheers,
</wqw>
Just wait on quantum computers. They'll do it. :p