Viewing sample resized to 39% of original (view original) Loading...
Parent: post #5973664 that has a sibling (learn more) show »

This post was flagged for review (learn more):

  • [FLAG] Duplicate or inferior version of another post (post #6529163) -
This post is pending approval. (learn more)
Description

Taken from the high quality non-interpolated source of the interpolated video

Pinned down and knotted, just the way I like them. :3

Animation: Sterr (FurAffinity)

Female VA: @XeraphinaVA

Male VA & Sound Editor: @KitsuneSFX (Me)

Sound Pack: @OpenNSFWSP

Blacklisted

    Pretty sure being able to pull out of a knot so easily defeats the entire purpose of it...

  • |
  • 0
  • vk2002 said:
    Pretty sure being able to pull out of a knot so easily defeats the entire purpose of it...

    at some point we gotta accept that in furry artwork its purpose is to stimulate, not to actually tie the partners for a longer time :')

  • |
  • 6
  • How is this a duplicate or inferior the other two is a gif and an audioless webm

  • |
  • 2
  • halolover69 said:
    How is this a duplicate or inferior the other two is a gif and an audioless webm

    hi, of course processing the flag is taking too long and in the meantime someone reverted the 'parent', causing confusion.

    first off, this wasn't marked as a "duplicate or inferior" of its current parent, or any other available version. it was marked as inferior of post #6529163, because it is inferior of that.

    - this is an upscaled version: 2824x2160 vs 2500x1912 of the webm original - it's even higher resolution than post #6529163, which afaict WASN'T upscaled (it's also 2500x1912) despite being deleted for it.
    - this is played in 29.97 fps, compared to 12 fps original and 30fps post #6529163 - both are inferior to the original: have uneven duplicated frames, but at least post #6529163 could be exactly 2x longer (because of audio), 21 seconds, instead of this having to be stretched by ~0.02s. nitpick, but moderations here seems sometimes even more nitpicky (and without giving an alternative).

    so my verdict is: as a bare minimum, post #6529163 should be restored as it's better than this in every way i'm aware of.
    even better, one of them could be replaced by a version of actual 12 fps and 2500x1912 resolution. i would've ed one already, but i've gotten no of whether my ffmpeg commands were entirely correct, and i don't want to just rashly another junk to get deleted.

  • |
  • 0