Thanks for clearing this up.
I'm still in development, but right now I'm "solving" the problem by
increasing the size of the parent movie and then scaling it down in the
browser.
Olivier Besson wrote:
hi,
yes, filters "broke" the important property of scalability of vector
graphics.
This has been around since flash 8.
But surprisingly, your (justified) request is quite rare.
Some hints:
- ask Adobe to add a "scale with movieClip" checkbox in filter params
(almost hopeless)
- set up the filters using programming, and make the pixel params
scale-dependant (not very easy, because reproducing IDE filters using
ationscript is complicated by differences in parameter names) (EDIT:
try googling to find some tool or JSFL generating this actionscript
for you)
- ask your designer to duplicate the layout and apply a scale factor
"by hand" to pixel distances in filter parameters. (easiest)
If you can't edit the source file, Glen Pike s' bitmap is the only
solution I see.
Normally, wrapping the filtered clip in another clip doesn't change
anything.
Olivier
Andrew Sinning a écrit :
We've build an interface for a 512x384 movie using an external skin
movie built at 1024x768. We've actually been doing this for a number
of years, but now that we're trying to improve the quality of our
art, I'm noticing something for the first time. When the imported
movie is scaled down, the filters become exaggerated. My take on
this is that the pixel values specified in the filters are relative
to the root clip, not relative to the clip on which they are
applied. This effectively doubles the effect of the filter when the
clip is scaled down.
Is there a work around?
Thanks!
_______________________________________________
Flashcoders mailing list
Flashcoders@chattyfig.figleaf.com
http://chattyfig.figleaf.com/mailman/listinfo/flashcoders