Exactly my suggestion!

Or, if your sound card supports it, an MP3.

@@siimplysiibliings3723 the mp3 would have to be very low quality to fit in the remaining space

@@RealEpikCartfrenYT Yeah at 16kbps or less (even in mono), MP3 does *not* make good use of the bits, and it sounds pretty awful.

Bonus points if it uses the PC Speaker!

Oswald the Lucky Rabbit by Walt Disney has been in the public domain for a while, so he could use that

@@abso1utezer010 a Disney film in public domain? What kind of divine intervention is this?

Now there is Steamboat Willie, so a part 2 could be made

Me too! #FreeBritney (it's still a good tag, we need to continue to look after her now that she is actually free, so they don't somehow hurt her again)

Have you heard of something called bad apple?

@@catsame5703 Mhm. They also mentioned it in the video.

@@catsame5703 IDK if we can go much further than Bad Apple played on minecraft sheep. I wonder if we can do, like, Bad Apple on ARGB RAM sticks.

I don't hope, don't give more fame to that horrible song

Awesome!

That is quite amazing!

in windows 10 (since some specific version), you can actually enable ansi escapes in terminal (and also utf8), which is a fun thing you could do

Thought the same. Many video codecs do that to reduce file size. With only a handful of characters instead of 16 million colors that should be quite compact.

Also, much of the compression trouble comes from the "noise" introduced by dithering. Maybe you could store the raw data in 4 to 5 bit values (16 or 32 colors, roughtly one to 4 levels between the 7 exact values that lead to a solid "color" i.e. one character repeated over and over). That's more data but might compress just as well or even slightly better. Even more so if you only encode the differences to the last frame, and one "index" per frame (or maybe per block of 20x5 characters, since sometimes, there's a lot of static background behind the moving parts of the scene). The index could point to one of eight decoding tables, from #7 for a frame that's virtually unchanged where the "+0" value compresses very well, all the way down to table #0, which compresses only marginally but doesn't include a lot of overhead either if the values are completely different (maybe even make #0 mean "don't decode at all, just overwrite with those raw values." That #0 would come in handy after a hard cut, where there's no relation to the previous frame, or the first frame ever, which can't compare to any previous frame at all. That would impose the burden of dithering on the playback software, but that should be almost as easy as Huffman decoding.

Sounds like mp4 with their i frames and p frames. Good idea!

yes only redrawing what's changed, look at what accomplished there a lot ...... ,,,, xxxxx, in large patches on the screen, ?

It gets complicated, since you would then need to also keep track of pixel locations across frames, or increase the bit depth enough to be able to include a skip pixel length, which would bloat the overall frame overhead either way. It gets easier if you combine with zip compression. You can represent all pixels that don't change with the same value, and the zip compression will do the work squashing all the redundancies.

Why not even in DOS? ☺️

@@intel386DX Put simply, MS DOS is 16-bit, Windows is 32bit. Thus, it needs a partial rewrite to be compatible.

Windows 3.x had 32 bit extensions for using features of the 386 and 486 processors, long before Windows 95 came around, despite the fact that it all ran on top of the ostensibly 16 bit MS DOS. There have also been several 32 bit versions of 'DOS' created over the years, which are broadly compatible with MS DOS. But that would probably be cheating. 😉

@@another3997 Nice! Maybe it could be ported to those extensions.

@@another3997 Win32s on Windows For Workgroups 3.11 with all the DOS drivers compatible with enabling both 32 bit disk access and 32 bit file access in Windows. That's how many programs circa 1995 were compatible with both Windows 3.1 and Windows 95. But since Windows 95 could run most Windows 3.1 software, many programs were just straight 16 bit but written to not run into any incompatibilities in Win 95. A problem with software written to work with Win32s is it will often run on 64 bit versions of Windows, but cannot be installed because the installer is 16 bit. Some programs can be extracted from their install files, dumped into a folder and work. Others that doesn't work for. The fix there is either to build a new 32 bit installer or use one of the open source ports of NTVDM to x64 to run 16 bit software in 64 bit Windows.

I'll pass on going back to dialup ever again.

@@ClearComplexity Yeah it was cool seeing the “beginning” of everything, when simple things were cutting edge, like “wow I just downloaded my first MP3!!” but those slow speeds of both the internet and the computers themselves were just hell on Earth. So many hours wasted. Never again.

pc-speaker beeps all the way, babyyy! (it can actually beep out surprisingly legible music)

@@jan_harald Oh yah, there is even a player (BaWaMi) that can send midi output to the speaker and a program for DOS that can do the same with wav files. Let's just say What Is Love has never been that chiptuny.

Fully embrace "The Toxic we have bad home"!

Put it through that one shit mic from a Logitech camera

Another way to increase "graphical" resolution in text-mode if you don't mind a bit of x86 assembler and not being portable: Use the 160*100 CGA text-mode hack. It sets the card to 80*25 text mode but tells the CGA card to use characters only 2 pixels tall and uses the horizontal half-block character and background/foreground colours to create makeshift pixels, giving a pseudo-graphics mode that can have all 16 CGA colours on screen at once (the actual graphics modes only allow 2 or 4 colours).

That should work under direct DOS, but I doubt that would run that nicely in the windowed command line on a more recent system.

At this point you're compressing a plain old video, just chunked down a bit. It's a lot harder, but still doable.

I mean, if the video's short enough, you could use something like the PL_MPEG decoder. Or roll your own format if you want longer videos.

What about PPMd compression, have you considered it?

Yes Good Right -!

Or limitations create problems that motivates to solve and makes exploration cobined with creativity a necessity.

shitpost delivery service, for a monthly fee, you get sent a box of floppy disks containing nothing but shitposts every month

That's reminds me back in 2005 when we downloaded bunch of movie clip or MV from wap websites, they generally a 320x240 vids with size less than 500KB, they are so pixelated it almost like a Japanese hentai censorship

My old nokia could record 10 second avi clips the resolution was 96p at 10 fps the files where 128kb.

@@belstar1128 cool

@@windowsxpnt2347 You should sign me up...

Technically his fourth since he posted a short

@@DistrosProjects calling "shorts" an actual video is bit of stretch for me. 🤣

@@Man-of-Steel674 I'm counting the short! I view them on desktop anyway, as regular videos so they won't auto-loop. Basically, if you load them from your Subscriptions page or the creator's channel -> Videos page, they'll play as a normal video in KZfaq's normal video player. (Not sure about the homepage, since I never visit it; I just jump straight to my subscriptions.)

One issue is that you never know how those character look on the target platform. For example, * could be perfectly centered on some low-res platforms like C64 and IBM CGA. Another example: ~ could be centered or top-heavy. I'd suggest characters which are always top- or bottom-heavy, like °, " and _ .

Check out 8088 Corruption by Trixter/Hornet (kzfaq.info/get/bejne/ecmSrM2Iz97Wj4E.html (download link in the description)). Text-mode full-motion video on an XT with CGA and a Sound Blaster. He later followed it up with 8088 Domination, which does the same thing in graphics mode. If you want to run them on a real period machine (as opposed to an emulator), you will need an entire hard drive for just one of them as they're 10 and 30 MB, respectively.

[Coder's evil grin:] With or without PWM?

1. Hay is for horses. 2. Good ruck not bleaking your tabret in flustlation. 3. I don't know.

...except that it is patent encumbered making the result slightly less portable. An alternative would be Codec-2: a similar one that is open-source (and thus one could make Linux builds of the same executable). Note that both these codecs are speech codec, geared specifically to compressing human voice. The lyrics might still be intelligible, but the music will probably sound very garbled.

Eh, maybe a floptical or something. Shrek would likely just be too long to compress well enough.

We're talking about 5400 seconds of video. that means a max of around 30 kbps combined for audio and video. Even with Opus at lowest setttings we have maybe 14 kbps for video left What I have done so far is rendering Shrek at 2.5 mbps 96x56 pixel mpeg-2 video on my mp3 player. Size is around 212 MB at 2.5 mbps And Never Gonna Give You Up at 160x90 in HEVC/Opus with a total bitrate of 55 kbps and a quality that is just adequate to rickroll people from floppy. So I don't think we get Shrek down to floppy like that.

Making full length movie files in to an animated GIF isn't difficult. People have been doing that for 20 years or more. Making it small enough to fit on a 1.44Mb floppy disk? Well, if you drop the resolution to 16 x 9 pixels and settle for 3 frames per second, then do some epic compression, you might fit it on a disk. It won't be watchable, but hey... that's not the point. 😁