This seems to be a reasonably thorough discussion of bounding boxes, and the relationship between space co-oridinates for shapes, and space co-oridinates for movies.
HTH Regards, Chris. On 18 March 2010 12:09, <[email protected]> wrote: > I have the same problem with image positioning while moving or rotating > an image. > If I compile this code: > > .flash bbox=200x100 filename="ftest1.swf" fps=25 > .png slika1 "pict01.png" > .put slika1 pin=center x=100 y=50 scale=0% > .frame 50 > .change slika1 rotate=360 scale=100% > .frame 100 > .end > > the picture finnishes as rotated for only around 350 degrees (see > attachment p1.png). > > If I, trying to compensate, change the code to this: > > .flash bbox=200x100 filename="ftest1.swf" fps=25 > .png slika1 "pict01.png" > .put slika1 pin=center x=100 y=50 scale=0% > .frame 50 > .change slika1 rotate=361 scale=100% > .frame 51 > .change slika1 rotate=360 > .frame 100 > .end > > then it is almost correct, but not quite (rotated around 358 degrees). > > But if I change the code as Mick suggested (thanks Mick!), it ends up > rotated correctly (of course, in HTML embedding code I leave width=200 > and height=100): > > .flash bbox=2000x1000 filename="ftest1.swf" fps=25 > .png slika1 "pict01.png" > .put slika1 pin=center x=1000 y=500 scale=0% > .frame 50 > .change slika1 rotate=360 scale=1000% > .frame 100 > .end > > The swfc version I'm using is 0.9.0 and was installed in Ubuntu 9.10 > from Ubuntu repositories. I checked viewing the .swf with Opera and > Firefox browser, in Ubuntu Linux, and WinXP, and I get the same results > in all of them. > > Regards, > nevenq > > >> Hi Chris, >> >> Refusing to give up, I took a look at some of the code. Twips seem >> to crop up quite a lot in various routines. I had assumed the metric >> used for size, position etc. was pixels. Out of interest I >> multiplied all my pixel values by 20 to convert them to twips. This >> gave: >> >> .flash filename="test_swfc.swf" version=6 fps=50 bbox=8700x2440 >> .png img1 filename="test.png" >> .put img1 scalex=8700 scaley=2440 >> .end >> >> >> The image now renders perfectly. The HTML maintains the original size >> in pixels as specified by the object tag. Notice I had to add the >> scalex and scaley properties to the .put command. Additionally, any >> subsequent zooming or moving of the image is now carried out with a >> great deal more accuracy. >> >> I'm still not sure I fully understand why this method works better. >> It would be nice if someone could maybe explain what is happening >> under the bonnet and how twips and pixels fit into the bigger picture. >> Anyway, for now I have a workaround :-) >> >> Cheers, >> Mick
