| Home | Register | FAQ | Members List | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
06-06-2003, 18:51
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
This is it - ground zero.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Paper St.
Posts: 4,200
  |
Flash Optimizer
What do you think of Flash Optimizer?  Worth the $$? Easy interface? Does it really work?I know if I could compress movies by 50%-60%, I'd have a LOT more freedom in Flash, and a lot more of my creations would make it to the web. SO, I'd like to hear from everyone who has an opinion or has acutally used the software. fun: HGC v.4 | last.fm: DT | me | oi! f*ck u roto: ...via meebo!
New to interweb design? Your friends at dt can help. |
|
|
|
|
06-06-2003, 20:08
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
i do lines
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Poland/Denmark
Posts: 3,232
|
wow, if it really (really) does the job and I could afford it I'd order it right now! (Oli: that would be a nice prize to win... but I bet they are bastards & won't give a single copy away  I've just finished an intro that got skipped coz it was too big to go online... could use this software! ...
|
|
|
|
06-06-2003, 23:02
|
#3 (permalink) |
|
This is it - ground zero.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Paper St.
Posts: 4,200
|
I'm going to download the trial and see how it works on this 300K movie I just made. Hopefully it optimizes all file sizes as well...even if I cut it to 150, that would be nice! fun: HGC v.4 | last.fm: DT | me | oi! f*ck u roto: ...via meebo!
New to interweb design? Your friends at dt can help. |
|
|
|
07-06-2003, 02:59
|
#5 (permalink) |
|
Magazines™
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Glasgow..
Posts: 11,263
|
i have used it in the past but the results really werent that great. if all animation is vector based then it does take roughly 20% of file size but if you have bit maps within ( ie a website ( dont expect mush optimisation. i dont bother using it anymore. |
|
|
|
07-06-2003, 06:27
|
#7 (permalink) |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 2
|
Flash Optimizer really can compress movies by more than a half! But it depends upon the movie, you as professionals should understand that. Moreover, after playing a bit with optimization parameters you'll find the optimum compression rate even if it is not that big as you expected. If Flash Optimizer can't compress it - nothing will.... |
|
|
|
07-06-2003, 10:02
|
#9 (permalink) |
|
This is it - ground zero.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Paper St.
Posts: 4,200
|
So far, it hasn't done much for me, and I mucked with the settings for hours trying to optimize a photo slide show .swf. The total file size dropped only 5 KB from 314 to 309. So, I still need a preloader. I think this program could do the trick on other types of movies (like semya said), so I'll hold onto the trial for a while and see what happens. fun: HGC v.4 | last.fm: DT | me | oi! f*ck u roto: ...via meebo!
New to interweb design? Your friends at dt can help. |
|
|
|
09-06-2003, 12:04
|
#10 (permalink) |
|
Magazines™
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Glasgow..
Posts: 11,263
|
its a waste of time just compress you images better to start, cut down on gradients and tweens/ ani over bitmaps and optimise your graphics from within flash ( save 90 quid as well or whatever it costs |
|
|
|
12-06-2003, 12:52
|
#11 (permalink) | |
|
Registered User
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 33
|
Quote:
No you don't (sigh). This has been really pissing me off me since about...oooh...i dunno...'96? '97 maybe? And no-one ever seems to get the message! It's simple - you should be developing your flash movies modularly - either working them up on levels or loading movies into mcs. Either way, you're feeding the content to the user AS THEY NEED IT. Why make them wait for the whole lot at the start? If it's a slideshow you can load one image in while they're looking at another. Problem solved. People will insist on putting everything in one movie. It's just lazy development, basically. And it's that which puts a lot of people off flash stuff ("you have to wait for LOADING all the time - I can't be arsed" etc). (sorry oto, not a rant at you! just flash designers in general) |
|
|
|
|
12-06-2003, 13:03
|
#12 (permalink) | |
|
This is it - ground zero.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Paper St.
Posts: 4,200
|
ok then...
Quote:
This isn't a slide show that the user controls...the pictures rotate as set forth in the movie with no action scripting, etc. Also, it's not imperative as part of the design that the slideshow be loaded right away (Although it would be cool) Does any of these facts make a difference? If not, let's have it here as I would like to learn this technique of "developing your flash movies modularly - either working them up on levels or loading movies into mcs". It's obviously something I've missed. Please note: my action scripting skills in flash are intermediate at best. fun: HGC v.4 | last.fm: DT | me | oi! f*ck u roto: ...via meebo!
New to interweb design? Your friends at dt can help. |
|
|
|
|
12-06-2003, 13:29
|
#14 (permalink) |
|
hairball
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London
Posts: 3,158
|
We've recently done some indepth user testing on the whole flash thing, basically to find out the general users opinion on flash download time vs rich content. The general opinion (from a 25-35 year old, web savvy, progressive type of user) seemed to be that while the majority of folks love slick animations, rich content, sound etc, etc they dont like the wait thats involved (kinda obvious!). So after xx thousands of pounds researching it we're now making sure we load things modularly, so you still get that seamless movement from one section to another but you avoid the wait that everyone detests. Basically what ewarwoowar said above, but with some explanation based on real user feedback to back it up. Oh the joys of corporateness! |
|
|
|
12-06-2003, 13:52
|
#16 (permalink) | |
|
hairball
Join Date: May 2003
Location: London
Posts: 3,158
|
Quote:
Oh yeah, of course, but the client foots the bill so who am I to argue  |
|
|
|
 |
