Animated (up state) button image quality

Hello,
I am experienced with Captivate and getting familiar with
Flash MX.
I am having trouble with loss of detail (blurry images) when
importing flash into Captivate.
In flash, I've created a simple button. It has a movie clip
in its up state that makes the button "pulse". It has a graphic
symbol for over, down, and hit states. I have published the swf
with no compression and %100 "JPEG quality". When I preview the
swf, it looks and responds to the click well. The button is a
"NEXT" button that will eventually be used to "continue" the movie.
It is about 108 pixels in width and 40 pixels high. It is based on
images I already use for my NEXT button which was created using the
Image Button functionality of Captivate.
(NOTE: I have not tried to attach any action script to my new
button yet because I am still struggling with image quality in
captivate.)
Since it can't be imported as a "button", I have imported it
as an animation. (I am well aware of the issues animations cause
with "losing focus" and such. Just click a library item and then
move on.)
After inserting the animation, the upstate does pulse, the
over state lights up when I mouse over, and the down state displays
when I click. But, the image is noticeably Fuzzy. It is easy to
measure just how fuzzy and bad it looks by putting my test button
right next to an image of the up and over states in captivate OR
opening the new button in flash player and looking at it next to
the images in my image editing software. My images for up and over
are crisp and clear, The animation in flash player is crisp and
clear, but the flash animation in Captivate is quite fuzzy. I do
not think the issue is in flash or in the way the swf was created.
(NOTE: I actually had to import "big" png images into flash,
resize them smaller, then make them into graphic symbols in order
to make the image quality good enough in flash itself. Simply
importing to the Flash library seemed to make images fuzzy too, but
I've gotten around that issue by shrinking bigger images.
...honestly it works.)
I want to know if there is anything I can do about this. Any
insight into getting better image quality of animations in
Captivate is greatly appreciated. As it stands the fuzzy images
just look unprofessional and I can’t use my cool pulsing
button.
Thanks for your insights.

While using the fill option for button , you can define the position and fitting for the image.
Thanks,
Sanjit

Similar Messages

  • Is there a way to make state transitions/animations of a fl.control states - button for example ?

    Is there a way to make state transitions/animations of a fl.control states - button for example ?
    All I can do now is change the skin design and that's it, I can't animate between states like I can with Flash Builder skins. So is there a way to do that, any technique or I have to create a button component from scratch?
    Thanks!

    simplebuttons have upState etc properties you can use to assign movieclips to the 3 states.  you can use the currentFrame property of movieclps to (appear to) smoothly transition from one state to another.

  • Image quality in Flash animations

    I notice when I run animations in the flash player, the image quality because very pixelated and blocky when I enlarge the animation.
    I need my website to scale to different screen resolutions, so this can be a problem. Is there any way to make images smoother when the flash file is enlarged beyond it's native resolution?
    I really need to know since my website has to scale to a LOT of resolutions.

    Dont think there is any concrete solution for this,
    Try using bitmap smoothing, it might help till some level.
    Another workaround would be, use large size images and scale them down to your current native resolution (size). This might help if you find an intermediate resolution and use imageof that resolution.
    http://www.darshanrane.com

  • How to link several 4 state buttons to an one image area?

    HI
    I've created a page with several 4-state buttons. I am trying to have a specific image show up in a target area when a specific button is selected. When i go into my states palette, all of the buttons show up in states 2-4. I can set this up easily to be roll-overs but i really want them to be buttons and i can't figure out how to get one image for each button. HELP!
    thanks!

    Button symbols are self-contained so it may be a little trickier to do this. Try adding a hotspot on top of each button symbol and create the disjoint effect from the hotspot, rather than the button symbol slice.
    NOTE: You may have to put the rollover effect on a 5th, 6th, 7th etc.. state.
    You could also try opening the Behaviors panel and adding the effect directly from the panel, using the button slice.
    HTH

  • !! Exporting SWF file in PDF reduces image quality.

    Hello,
    I have a file with many multi-state picture frames and buttons for them. I export it in pieces in SWF format, then I put the SWF's back in the document as a new layer and export as interactive PDF. Finally everything worked fine, except that PDF opens in a larger then normal zoom and when zooming in on pictures the quality is very poor I am guessing 72ppi at the intended zoom. I check the SWF file and see that its image quality is good when zoomed, so the problem is with the way the PDF has exported the SWF.
    notes: I made sure the settings were to export at 300ppi and high image quality. When I take a single multi-state frame with its associated button and export to SWF then PDF the image quality is maintained.... however I have over 150 image frames, so I rather not export them individually. Please, please reply... any suggestions will be gratefully excepted.

    edit your image in photoshop and experiment with various settings/size.  there's no magic high quality small file size setting.
    it's a trade-off.  the higher the quality and the greater the image dimensions, the greater the file size.  you have to decide where those are acceptable.

  • 3D Tween Image Quality Issues

    Hi all,
    I'm using 3D tweens for  animations on my site.  Problem is, that at the end of the tween, the  image quality of the movieclip I'm tweening is pretty bad.  For example,  I have seom text in the movie clip that I'm tweening, and it's kind of  blurry.  I know 3D tweens live convert everything in the movieclip into a  bitmap, and I'm assuming that's what's causing the poor quality.  Is  there a way to convert the movieclip back to it's original state where  it looks crisp at the end of the tween?  Or bump up the quality of the  3D tween?
    Thanks!

    Finally found the solution!
    Apparently, anytime you change the z axis of the movieClip, it is  transformed into a live bitmap to be animated.  This is why the moieClip  can look a little blurry.
    movieClip.transform.matrix3D = null;
    If you just  add the above code to the frame that the tween completes on (aka, it's  no longer moving), the 3D tween will release its grip on the movieClip,  undo the bitmap status, and effectively restore the clarity of the  movieClip without removing your desired tween.
    Thanks so much for the help!
    P.S. the  blur filter was not on.

  • NOT happy with image quality of Lightroom 1.1

    Sure, LR now launches faster and the interface looks a bit nicer. And the more capable sharpening controls and the clarity slider which mimics contrast enhancement with USM are nice additions, but has anyone else notice what happened to the image quality?
    First, while formerly LR and ACR struck a great balance between detail and noise suppressionerring on the side of maintaining detail even at the expense of slightly higher noise levelsit appears the goal for the redesign has been to minimize the appearance of noise at all costs. It just so happens that yesterday afternoon, I'd shot some available light candids (up to ISO 800) of the staff at a local health care facility and was intent on using them as a trial run on Lightroom 1.1. Well, the difference in image quality jumped right out at me: there was no granular noise at all remaining, even in the ISO 800 shots, but neither was there any fine detail. I use a Canon 5D, and while I'm accustomed to slightly higher levels of chroma noise, images up to ISO 1600 in even the worse lighting are always full of fine detail. Fine structures like strands of hair and eye lashes have now lost their delicacy, and have instead become coarse, unnaturally painterly analogs. Looking into shadow areas, I can see the results of what seems to be luminance noise smearing at work, obliterating noise and detail along with it. I never used Raw Shooter because I'm a Mac user (2x2GHz G5 w/2GB RAM and 250GB HD), but if this is the result of incorporating Pixmantic's technology, the result is not a positive one from my standpoint. The images I shot yesterday are to be cropped to 4:5 proportions, then printed 20" x 25", at which size the processing artifacts and lack of fine detail in these LR1.1 conversions becomes even more apparent. I've even tried turning off all image processing options: Clarity, Sharpening and NR (neither of which I ever use in RAW conversion, anyway)... It simply seems this noise smearing is part of the baseline RAW processing, and it really, really bites. Am I missing something? Is there some way to actually turn off this processing that looks uncomfortably like the "watercolor" noise reduction that Kodak and Panasonic use for their compact digicams. Yuck!
    Secondly, is there a way to get back the suppression of hot and stuck pixels that LR used to perform? Now, my high ISO files are riddled with them, the same as they would be when converted with Aperture or Canon's DPP. Default suppression of hot and stuck pixels was a major advantage of LR/ACR, and contributed in no small bit to my adoption of LR as my standard tool for RAW conversion due to the amount of high ISO, low light photography I do. What's even worse, is that the random-color speckles are now smudged into the image along with all the other noise data that's being smoothed out, resulting in images that looks more like impressionist paintings than photographs.
    I thought about reinstalling LR1.0 and just continuing to use that, but if LR1.1 is an indication of the direction Adobe is going to take in the development of the software, I really don't see the point of continuing to use the softwareparticularly when I had a few existing problems with LR1.0 that were never resolved, such as crashing during the import of photos from a memory card and progressively slower preview rendering as the size of my library increased. So, I'm probably going to go back to using Aperture, which is itself not free of IQ foibles, but certainly looks much more attractive now in comparison to LR1.1.
    Anybody notice the same things with IQ? Anybody got any suggestions of how to get more natural-looking conversions before I remove LR and go back to Aperture?

    Jeff,
    I mean no disrespect. But I would like to see samples of 1.1 compared to 1.0 of the same image (ISO 400, and/or 800), because I do not want to convert my library to a catalog until I know whether or not I like the image quality. Why is it so hard to get one good sample. That is all I am asking. I would just rather not jump through hoops to go back to 1.0 if I do not like 1.1....That is all
    And yes, after well over 400 printed articles I can tell what an image will look like in print when I view it 1:1.... I can tell if the eyelashes or pores on someones face, the detail in a rug, or wood grain will be detailed on the off set printed page if I look at the image at 1:1 and see smudging...this means to me that the most detail possible is NOT going to translate to the page. If however I CAN see detail in those types of areas, clearly (ie no smudging), than I know that I will see those fine details on the page. If these fine details were not important than we would all still be shooting with 3 and 4 mp cameras. Those fine details that are only visible to our eyes at a 1:1 preview on screen, are important on the printed page.
    Oh, and I am not chest thumping. You can check my history here, I do not have a history of that type of activity. I am simply asking to see samples before I update....
    I am very discriminating Pro, not some over testing, too much time on my hands, complaining , over paid amateur who only has time to complain that their test chart is out of focus. Or that they can measure toooo much noise at ISO what ever, instead of actually making photos. I actually make my living taking photos. And my clients have come to expect a certain level of quality from me. They comment all the time how much higher quality my images are than some of the other photogs they use. And I am still shooting a D60, where as these others are shooting 5d's and D2X's.
    Jeff, I am not against you or Adobe. Matter of fact, I LOVE LR. It has changed my work flow in a very positive direction. I think it is wonderful. I just want one sample.... I am asking nicely: Please with sugar on top :)
    If you can't give me a sample, than please at least reassure me that it will be easy to go back to 1.0 for the time being. Is it as easy as uninstalling 1.1, reinstalling 1.0 and recovering my DB from a current backup? If so, than fine, I will go this route........... If not, than I am hoping for a sample.
    Thank you very kindly Jeff for engaging in this lively conversation. I do appreciate your comments and participation on this forum. And please note that none of this is said with attitude or malice. I know that some times a writers intent or emotional state is easy to misinterpret in a forum like this. So please know that I am calm and not angry, just curious about image quality.
    Ok. I will shut up now. Thanks again

  • Secondary Display image quality is poor (at 1:1) in Library module

    I'm not a frequent user of the Secondary Display feature, so I can't say state whether this particular issue is new in 2.3RC or if it also was seen in a previous version. I submitted a bug report since I searched but did not find any previous mention of this sort of thing. Anyone else notice this?
    Here's my problem: When I'm using LR's Develop module and activate the Secondary Display (SD) window, the SD images for all zoom ratios seem identical in quality (sharpness. color) to the images seen in the main screen--as expected. However when I switch over to Library module and use 1:1 zoom, the SD image becomes relatively degraded (i.e., quite blurry/pixelated) compared to the main window. When SD is set at the lower zoom ratios (still in Library module) its quality seems fine--i.e., more or less indistinguishable from the main screen. It's only when SD is used at 1:1 in the Library module that it appears "buggy".
    I'm using a Mac Power PC G4, OSX 10.4.11.
    Phil
    P.S. I should mention that the image quality at 1:1 zoom in Library Module's Secondary Display is not only worse than the main Library screen, it's also significantly worse (less sharp) than seen in the Develop module--and that's certainly not unexpected.

    >Gordon McKinney:What happens is the second display doesn't render a 1:1 for optimal sharpness.
    For me it isn't just sharpness. I can make a change that is fairly radical and have it show up immediately in the main monitor--both in the navigation panel and in the main display panel. The image on the 2nd monitor remains unchanged.
    If I then use the history panel to move back to the previous state and then re-select the final state the image on the secondary display
    usually, not always gets updated. Sometimes it takes a 2nd or a third cycle from previous to latest history state. This 'missed update' in the 2nd monitor doesn't happen 100% of the time, but it does happen quite often.
    LR 2.3RC, Vista Ultimate x64, 8GB DRAM, nVidia 9800 GTX+ with latest drivers.

  • Image quality issues - Sony Handycam (MPEG) to iMovie / iDVD

    I have read through dozens of posts but the recommendations vary widely and am hoping I can get some guidance specific to my situation. The image quality I am getting from home movies I edit in iMovie11 and burn to DVD in iDVD are far inferior to the original material.
    I have a Sony DCR-TRV17. This camera is a little over 10 years old. It is a miniDV with 500 lines resolution, 680K gross pixels and uses MPEG. While not HD, the image quality is exceptional. The DVDs I used to create using my Sony Viao likewise looked fantastic. But the results I get from iMovie and iDVD are on par with VHS -- very poor, especially in low-light.
    I hope the issue is just the settings when I import, edit (iMovie) and share to iDVD. I generally use the default settings, and often alternate settings don't seem to be selectable. It also sounds from other posts like iMovie sacrifices quality for reduced file size and increased simplicity? I would appreciate help with the following:
    1) Please list the settings I should be adjusting from default when I  a) import, b) edit in iMovie11 and c) share to iDVD and burn -- and the recommended settings for each
    2) Is there a process I should be trying? Should I be creating test DVDs using different settings at each stage and then reviewing various setting combinations to find the best one?
    3) I will most probably buy an HD camcorder very soon, and plan to burn to Blue Rays. I have no problem with going ahead and buying Final Cut and an external drive to burn Blue Rays. Should I just go ahead and do it and get away from iMovie / iDVD entirely. Will Final Cut solve this issue for my old miniDVs without a whole lot of hair pulling? Or will I still have to tinker with a bunch of settings or convoluted processes to get it "right." I never had to tinker with settings on my Viao. Really expected Mac software to be more user friendly…
    Thanks very much for any help or advice!

    On Import you could try unchecking Optimize video and choose Full Size. Your disk space however will get eaten up incredibly quickly choosing these settings as each hour of video = 40GBytes of disk space. So be forewarned about how big those files will expand as they come off the MiniDV tapes.
    Another thing you will immediately see a difference in is how you move files from iMovie to iDVD. Share to iDVD while named in an intuitive way, is NOT the best way to get good quality DVDs out of iMovie. Instead you want to Share to Media Browser. Choose the Large Size setting. Then quit iMovie. Open iDVD, click the Media button, the Movies button. Find your project listed under the iMovie star icon and drag it into the iDVD project. Burn the Disc and see if you get a higher quality disk by Sharing to Media Browser instead of Share to iDVD.
    If you choose a Blu-Ray burner, also get a copy of Roxio Toast. The encoding to Blu-ray that Toast provides will be top notch and prevent you from making mistakes as the recordable Blu-ray disks are more expensive than DVDs. So every mistake will be expensive.

  • Poor image quality display with low resolution on websites

    I have just upgraded to the new Firefox browser 32.0.3
    Since upgrading I have noticed a severe degradation in image viewing on websites. Images on websites are poor quality and pixelated, as if I were surfing on a slow connection.
    We have fibre optic broadband with DL speeds generally of around 70mbps so that can't be the problem! I have also tested on other browsers and the images appear fine and clear.
    I am currently on an iMac 27" with OS 10.9.5
    Help would be appreciated!
    Thanks

    Hello wildfirepro, any luck if you disable graphics hardware acceleration ?
    You might need to restart Firefox in order for this to take effect, so save all work first (e.g., mail you are composing, online documents you're editing, etc.).
    Then perform these steps:
    #Open Firefox ''Preferences'' window as follows:
    #* Click the menu button [[Image:New Fx Menu]] and select ''Preferences'' on your Mac.
    #In the Firefox Preferences window, click the ''Advanced'' tab, then select ''General''.
    #In the settings list, you should find the ''Use hardware acceleration when available'' checkbox. Uncheck this checkbox.
    #Now, restart Firefox and see if the problems persist.
    Additionally, please check for updates for your graphics driver by following the steps mentioned in the following Knowledge base articles:
    * [[Troubleshoot extensions, themes and hardware acceleration issues to solve common Firefox problems]]
    * [[Upgrade your graphics drivers to use hardware acceleration and WebGL]]
    Thanks.

  • Poor Image Quality when Printing PDF from Office 07 using Acrobat 9 Pro Ext

    Hi there,
    Hoping to figure out why my images (jpegs, gifs, pngs, etc) seem to print in very poor quality when printing from Powerpoint and Word 2007?
    When I actually print out the pdf onto paper, the images seem fine. The image quality is also good in Word and Excel
    I did not have this problem using Office 2003 products.
    Is this a common problem? I realize that the problem maybe Office related but any help or information appreciated.
    Thanks

    If the images' file format is PNG or TIFF you could play with the compression settings available in Acrobat's Preferences.
    Edit > Preferences > select the Category "Convert to PDF".
    In the"Converting To PDF" pane, select PNG or TIFF.
    Then, click on the Edit Settings" button.
    For either image format you could try one of the Lossless compression routines.
    Be well...

  • Poor Image Quality at Start Menu

    Hi All
    I use iDVD 08 for my movies and was creating a menu at the start of the program.
    While the resolution looks good in iDVD (before burning to DVD), it is not so after. I would like to enquire on how can can improve on the image quality on my DVD.
    FYI, I referring to the photos that I put in my start menu. I burn my DVD in NTSC format. Appreciate any help and advise.
    Thanks.
    Jojo

    Here's what iDvd's Help Menu states about those 3 encoding settings you inquired about:
    You can use the amount of video in your project as a rough determination of which method to choose. If your project has an hour or less of video (for a single-layer disc), choose Best Performance. If it has between 1 and 2 hours of video (for a single-layer disc), choose High Quality. If you want the best possible encoding quality for projects that are up to 2 hours (for a single-layer disc), choose Professional Quality. This option takes about twice as long as the High Quality option, so select it only if time is not an issue for you.
    Use the Capacity meter in the Project Info window (choose Project > Project Info) to determine how many minutes of video your project contains.
    Can we really tell the difference ?
    Yes. I can see the difference. And so can bcd in the following thread:
    http://discussions.apple.com/message.jspa?messageID=8377592#8377592
    Keep in mind Burned dvd's are low res devices by nature. Meaning all data is eventually compressed into mpeg 2 (normally). In general, Dvd's have not kept pace with today's higher res cameras and camcorders nor with apple's editing applications (ie, iMovie, FCE, and FCP) and there is very little you can do to improve upon this unfortunately since most macs do not yet support burning a Blu-ray disc. When and if they ever do, then we will see some significant improvements all the way around since Blu-ray dvd's hold at least 5 times the data of a standard dvd and with significantly higher clarity and resolution than the standard Dvd's most of us use today.
    Am I missing something ?
    No. You aren't missing anything from what you have described above. Your observations are actually rather astute.
    Hope this reply helps but if not just come on back.
    Message was edited by: SDMacuser

  • Poor image quality elements 12 slideshow preview

    As I can't find any reference to my original post I thought I'd re-do it.  I created a slideshow in elements 12 and found the image quality to fall far short of high definition.  The source folder for the images used is contained in Windows Pictures.  The pictures were taken with a Canon t4i camera with the image quality being excellent.  For whatever reason the quality of the slideshow images are poor.  Any help would be appreciated.

    Don't purchase a video editing app to work with just still images. They are meant to be used with DV and really don't do a still image any justice.
    The final source format should determine the software used. You are suggesting a DVD distribution of your work.
    iPhoto is meant to be used on still images (not iMovie, in my opinion).
    You don't really want to convert a single frame into multiple frames if you don't need to.
    You may want to try the Photo JPEG, Motion JPEG or Animation codecs from iMovie and see if they improve the visual appearance of your work.
    Since you want to use a DVD as the distribution method then iDVD may not be the best option either. It is meant for set top boxes using a poor 720X480 dimension in MPEG-2 video format.
    You may want to consider a bit different approach and use a "data" DVD and use QuickTime Player as the playback engine. These will only play on a computer but your could use the higher dimensions to your advantage and also the visual quality of computer displays to showcase your work.
    Since HD DVD players are not yet ready for mass use it may be a better way to distribute your work.
    There is no 720X480 dimension limit (only the limit set by the viewer on the display size when viewed on a computer monitor).
    Your "still" images would remain "still" except for transitions.
    Heck. You could probably put the whole file onto a CD and save even more in production costs.

  • Fustrating problem with self-made 5-state button

    Hey guys, just wondering if you could help me, i don't have
    much knowledge with actionscript and i created my own 5 state
    button using a movie clip and a little bit of actionscript by
    following a tutorial online. (
    http://www.sanctifiedstudios.com/advanced-five-state-buttons/)
    Basically, when rolled over, the button slides out, and when
    rolled off, the button slides back in. The problem is, while the
    button is rolling back in, if you flick your mouse onto the button
    again quickly, instead of restarting the roll-out animation, the
    button just flickers quickly between the in position and the out
    position.
    You can see it for yourself here: www.everlightmusic.com <
    hover your mouse over the buttons on the right, move your mouse
    off, and then while its rolling back in, quickly move your mouse
    back onto it.
    The actionscript for the buttons is this:
    quote:
    this.onRollOver = function(){
    this.gotoAndPlay(20);
    this.onRollOut = function(){
    this.gotoAndPlay(30);
    this.onPress = function(){
    this.gotoAndStop(29);
    this.onRelease = function(){
    this.gotoAndStop(29);
    this.onReleaseOutside = function(){
    this.gotoAndPlay(40);
    this.onRelease = function(){
    _parent.gotoAndPlay(31)
    And here is a screenshot of the movie clip timeline:
    Click
    Any help with this would be greatly appreciated :)

    yeah this is typical when using a timeline based button
    action. two things you could do:
    1) control the state change by using a variable to indicate
    when the motion is complete (or not) like 'isOpen' - you'd need to
    do this for each button in combination with a condition in the
    handler that 'reads' the var and determines the course of action -
    of course the next problem is that if you 'rollout' while the
    motion is happening and the handler fires previous to the setting
    of the var to it's 'new' state it won't close because the condition
    would only be fired once - the only way around that would be to
    include a loop that runs until the condition is satisfied.
    2) much better than the above method (which would get messy
    fast) is to simply use the 'tween' class to create you motions, you
    can then 'open' or 'close' from what ever the current position of
    the clip is at the moment the handler is fired. you've got your
    code on the timeline of the 'button' MC (good job) so you could
    change it to something like this:

  • Image Quality - how to preserve it?

    I have a web application in which I draw into a BufferedImage and Graphics2d created as follows:
    BufferedImage bi = new BufferedImage(xlen,ylen,BufferedImage.TYPE_INT_BGR);
    Graphics2d g2 = bi.createGraphics();
    At this time, I am creating plots that mainly consist of horizonal and vertical lines, filled rectangles and text.
    All the coordinate values are full integers, no roundoff.
    I then create a jpg image and send it to the output stream of my servlet using the following:
    ServletOutputStream sos = response.getOutputStream();
    BufferedImage bi = sb.getPlotImage();
    response.setContentType("Image/jpg");
    ImageIO.write(bi,"jpg",sos);
    The image gets transferred to the web component of the same dimensions as the image and the result looks really bad.
    I see horizontal and vertical lines occasionally showing up as 2 pixels rather than 1 pixel wide.
    And the text looks like hammered fecal matter.
    My guess is that the resolution got hammered in either the image compression/transmission/decompression stage.
    The question is:
    How can I retain the quality of the image?
    In the two lines where I convert the image to a jg and send it to the web page
    response.setContentType("Image/jpg");
    ImageIO.write(bi,"jpg",sos);
    I am using jpg images. I am not able to get 'gif' or 'png' image types to work for some reason.
    Can anyone suggest something that I can do to retain the original resolution of my drawn images?
    I am willing to sacrifice transfer time for image quality.
    Any suggestions?

    You probably just want to use an effect, whichever one you like best. Select the button, then go to the "Window" menu, and select "Effects" to open the Effects panel. In the bottom left you'll see an "Add Effect" button, click that and experiment with your options.

Maybe you are looking for