/make/ - Creative

World made of things

SAVE THIS FILE: Anon.cafe Fallback File v1.0 (updated 2021-01-10)

Want your event posted here? Requests accepted in this /meta/ thread.

Max message length: 5120

Drag files to upload or
click here to select them

Maximum 5 files / Maximum size: 20.00 MB

Board Rules
More

(used to delete files and postings)


Open file (335.73 KB 910x908 sc.png)
EasyVideoCrop Anonymous 02/15/2021 (Mon) 21:41:37 No.161
Tool that lets you extract .gif animations out of videos. There's still a bunch of weird behavior and things missing, for example text fields wrap in a weird way if there's too much text. None of the problems are trivial to fix and I want to take a break from this project, everything should work fine though. Post ITT for problems or ideas for what I should add/change. Windows only for now. I need to port my OS file into Linux, it might be a while before I do that so I wanted to release this sooner than later. https://tsun.itch.io/easyvideocrop
Oh also let me know if itch.io requires javascript to download or something. I can upload to an alternate host.
Open file (257.96 KB 960x810 ui.png)
Also just for curiosity, this was the UI mockup before I had a proper UI. The end result ended up being surprisingly similar.
>>161 Wow, you really did it, well done anon! >Windows only for now. I need to port my OS file into Linux, it might be a while before I do that so I wanted to release this sooner than later. Cool guess I'll see how it works in virtualmode
>>164 >I'll see how it works in virtualmode I'd be surprised, I don't do things in a very conventional way. Fortunately porting to Linux shouldn't be too hard, I think. That's assuming the libraries I used work on Linux, I just realized that I'm not 100% sure if they do.
Open file (1.89 MB 580x540 60fps.gif)
Open file (1.97 MB 580x540 Original.gif)
Open file (111.98 KB 909x456 ClipboardImage.png)
I think your fps option isn't working properly? I tried making the gif 60fps, but looks like the framerate lowered, unless I'm mistaken, isn't the video supposed to get faster the more the fps?
>>166 The fps shouldn't affect speed, it's supposed to affect how smooth the animation is. There is a way to increase the speed intentionally though: first press the [1:] button, increase framerate, and then press the [2:] button. I could add a setting to specifically change speed too. I didn't expect someone would increase the framerate above the video fps so I didn't test it. I'm not immediately sure why it happens.
What language did you make this in?
>>169 C, compiled with GCC.
Released 0.9.1. Linux version not done yet. - NEW: Settings file to configure some default values. - NEW: Ability to modify animation speed. - NEW/TWEAK: Arrow keys now seek by 1 frame (inaccurately) by default. Hold Ctrl+Shift to seek by 1 second. Press down/up to go to the start/end of the selected time range. TWEAK: Disabled "-layers OptimizeFrame" by default from imagemagick as suggested by someone on /a/. I experimented with it and it doesn't seem to help filesize much at all with the command being used, and I even noticed a glitchy artifact once (looked as if the animation was cropped from the wrong place) when compared to the same command without OptimizeFrame. - ENHANCE: Improved text wrapping so words don't get cut from the middle. - FIX: Output gets stretched weirdly. --- Cause: some video files have additional resources like fonts or cover images on them. ffprobe treats attached images as "video streams" which makes them behave identically to the actual video, so sometimes an image size would sneak in instead of the video size. This problem may not be 100% fixed because I don't know if there's more similar attachment types. - FIX: Crash when closing the program. --- Cause: I called the wrong function to release the window's pixel data. I use generic "Image" objects to handle pixel operations, but sometimes the data for said images is created by a library (stb_image) which requires it's own mechanism for releasing the data. I was mistakenly using the library's mechanism for ALL images, including images created manually (such as the window's pixels). - FIX: Modifying the Top/Left crop values messes up the Bottom/Right values. --- Cause: I mistakenly thought the Top/Left inputs should work identically to the Y/X inputs without thinking much about it.
Open file (816.01 KB 500x452 12425346.gif)
What the fuck, I just realized the executable went from 541kb to 799kb. I rearranged some stuff while working on the Linux port but I don't remember adding anything meaningful.
So I don't seem to be able to find the source code download links on the site. Mind linking them here OP?
>>173 I didn't say there was source code. Convince me to release it and I might, because I see nothing but downsides.
Welp, Linux version paused indefinitely. A while ago our local ISP jews cut out all cable internet in the city because "muh 5G is the future" and I'm forced to use a retarded mobile internet dildo. Now this isn't a problem for me per se, but the problem is that it's not compatible with the laptop I have Linux on. The reason this is a problem is that unlike Windows, Linux doesn't have the required libraries to develop software on itself, and requires an internet connection to get them. Of course I have an internet connection - on my Windows machine that is - but downloads on Linux are meant to be done through magical terminal magic instead of just downloading files, so I can't just grab them and toss them over with a USB stick. At least I don't know how to. So unless someone can teach me how to download libx11-dev as files and offline-install it to a separate Linux machine, I can't make a Linux version of this program.
Open file (140.16 KB 1024x813 KarenMeinKampf.jpg)
>>175 > a while ago our local ISP jews cut out all cable internet in the city because "muh 5G is the future" and I'm forced to use a retarded mobile internet dildo. That sucks. I wonder if it's possible to use a router that has a 5G modem so you can just plug in an Ethernet cable to your PC (or use a Wi-Fi AP) and let the router itself handle the 5G? > Of course I have an internet connection - on my Windows machine that is Hmm, you could use VirtualBox (https://www.virtualbox.org) and install Linux on a VM. IIRC, you can "mount" VHD virtual disks using Windows. You can also drag-and-drop (or was it copy/paste?) files into/out of the VM, If you install the VirtualBox guest addons: On Arch/Artix the package is called virtualbox-guest-utils (you also probably need to install base-devel, dkms and linux-headers) On Debian/Devuan the package is called virtualbox-guest-x11(you probably need to also install build-essential and dkms) (NOTE: on Debian virtualbox-guest-x11 package is only available in unstable/sid release, on Devuan you can get it from ascii-backports and unstable repositories) If your distro/version doesn't offer the virtualbox-guest-x11 (or similar) package, you can use the Virtual Box software to insert a virtual CD that (automatically) contains a installation script/files for VirtualBox guest addons (to do this, you just need to click on a menu item in one of menus on VirtualBox window. Note that you still need to have build-essential and dkms installed before you attempt to execute the script inside the VM. > So unless someone can teach me how to download libx11-dev as files and offline-install it to a separate Linux machine, It depends on your distro but at least all distros that are based on Debian/Ubuntu and Arch have a mechanism for installing packages offline. On Debian/Ubuntu, you can use the DVD(s) as a package repository: https://help.ubuntu.com/community/AptCdrom https://linux.die.net/man/8/apt-cdrom If you have access to a Debian PC that has Internet Connection: https://manpages.debian.org/unstable/apt-offline/apt-offline.8.en.html On Arch/Artix, you can just download the pkg.tar.zst file from one of the mirrors and copy it to a memory stick, and then you can install it using pacman -U ./foo.pkg.tar.zst (just like when using AUR+makepkg) On Debian there is similar apt command, but I have forgotten it. The reason why I know it's possible is that Debian doesn't include proprietary drivers by default and I had to manually download the firmware.deb file and copy it to a flash drive and manually install it using apt (nowadays I just use Devuan which includes the non-free firmware by default) You can find/download .deb files using the Debian package search site: https://packages.debian.org/bullseye/libx11-dev#pdownload (you also need to make sure you have its dependencies also)
>>176 I don't really want to start buying things and learning esoteric hardware tricks just for this. I'm planning to move elsewhere anyway. >install Linux on a VM That's a good idea, I didn't consider that option. I've only messed around with VMs and haven't ever done anything on it properly though, but I'll give it a go. >you can use the DVD(s) as a package repository My laptop has some old version of Mint, if it doesn't have the library then would the CD have it either? I have X11 but not the development libraries.
>>177 > My laptop has some old version of Mint, if it doesn't have the library then would the CD have it either? I'm not sure, but I know Debian at least used to release a set of DVDs that contained a large selection of their packages. If you can use a VM, I suggest you go that route since then you don't need to worry about setting up offline repositories and keeping everything up-to-date yourself.
>>174 I have no interest in convincing you of anything OP. Your choice ofc. >nothing but downsides Funny, that's my perspective on your choice. >written in C -- notoriously famous for needing close scrutiny to avoid security issues >executable mysteriously grows in size overnight -- wtf? >reluctance to release windows source code Honestly, I smell a honeypot. OTOH, I do have at least one downside for you, insignificant as it may seem to you. Namely, >I'll never run your code if I can't compile and examine it myself. I'm sure I'm not alone in this perspective OP. There are many of us around who are both tech-savvy and security conscious. Especially the latter.
>>179 Releasing source code means that I'll have to maintain a second release, prune weird unrelated files that are mixed all over my source files and either constantly cherrypick the files that are actually relevant to the release or run into the risk of forgetting which ones I modified, listen to complaints about how I'm not doing this and that in the correct way™ and possibly continue to hear it in this board, and probably learn to use git which I have 0 interest in. It'll become unfun for me to release things at all, just for the sake of convincing the few most paranoid people. You're already complaining about C and the only thing I released was the answer to what language I use. It also wouldn't feel good to see someone else rebrand and release some pozzed and/or paid version of my program, nor will it be fun to think about licenses and legal shit to counter it and then probably hear complaints that it's not FOSS enough anyway. I almost deleted my whole system and had to reinstall some shit because apparently removing a drive from a list of drives means to systematically delete everything in it without warning according to VirtualBox. I don't like VirtualBox or have any interest in learning it, I'm not having fun interacting with it and I wouldn't have touched it at all if it wasn't necessary to make the Linux build right now. I wonder if it's even worth continuing to fight with X11 (which is currently refusing to work and there's no help to be found online) if people are just going to get angry and not use the program since it's not open source or whatever. I'll continue for now because I assume there will be at least one or two people who will find it useful. >executable mysteriously grows in size overnight I want to know the cause of that more than anyone. I compile release builds with -Os and -Wl,--gc-sections because I'm autistic about filesize, but I can't find anything that'll revert the file to the original size. The only significant change I remember doing is splitting all the Windows shit into it's own file and moving things so that the Windows file has as few things as possible. I had also made small changes to my build batch file and found out afterwards that it was no longer adding the -Wl,--gc-sections part to the link string, but adding it back only reduces the filesize by 11kb. I also had OpenGL enabled even though I'm not using it, removing that cut the filesize by another ~50kb but I can't remember if I had it enabled before too. If I was trying to release spyware or something then I wouldn't raise attention to this at all.

Report/Delete/Moderation Forms
Delete
Report

Captcha (required for reports)

no cookies?