This experiment illustrates the angles of circular movement in Flash, while mirroring those angles on the opposite side of the circle. I have two mirrored movements here. The first movement being a Sprite that mirrors the mouse’s position on the opposite side of the circle, while snapping to the boundaries of that circle. Then a second Sprite, that mirrors the mouse’s position on the opposite side of the circle, but instead shares the same distance of the mouse from the center point.
While recently working with the NetStream class, I was surprised to learn that there was no preset method in place for maintaining the pixel aspect ratio. The situation I faced was that I was building a video player that needed to host both 4:3 and 16:9 ratios. However if the Video object's dimensions are preset to that of a 16:9 ratio, and a video with a 4:3 ratio is loaded in, instead of the clip maintaining shape and centering within the video object, it instead flushes with the edges of the 16:9 dimensions.
Makes sense, right? In reality it's doing what I ask. It's displaying the video at the dimensions I specified. However, it's distorting the the video in the same process.
The BitmapData.getPixel method is a pretty interesting method. In previous posts I've experimented, using the number it returns, to scale, rotate, move, and in my last post, create a halftone pattern.
Expanding on my previous experiment, using the BitmapData.getPixel and PerlinNoise to scale a Sprite based on the color info of a defined pixel, I noticed that it seemed to be creating this halftone pattern with the different scaling. Where in the previous I applied to an PerlinNoise pattern, here I thought I'd apply to an image.
A while back I created a little ActionScript 3 class, using the ExternalInterface.call method, that returns a query string value from the url. This came in pretty handy for things such as direct linking to certain videos within a video player, displaying campaign specific content on load based on different referring sites, ect, etc.
Upon second glance, I realized that I got a little loop-happy with the previous attempt. Below is a slimmer version with the redundancies taken out.