Re: bitmapid in swf functions?
| From: | Rasmus Lerdorf | Date: | Wed, 17 Jan 2001 09:58:52 +0000 |
| Subject: | Re: bitmapid in swf functions? | ||
| References: | 1 | Groups: | php.dev |
| Request: | Send a blank email to php-dev+get-44332@lists.php.net to get a copy of this message | ||
> They are a bit magical. You might want to have a look at:
> http://www.opaque.net/ming/, which provides an easier to use
> interface (I'm
> currently working with the author to contribute the PHP extension code to the
> php distribution, he's keen on the idea (ie, if you compile --with-swf
> --enable-ming, you get the mingswf extension, --with-swf or --with-swf
> --enable-libswf you get the libswf extension)). That library also works with
> windows and is constantly maintained (whereas Paul Haebaerli's libswf is not
> maintained anymore...).
How far away is this?
> > I'm probably missing something obvious here.
> >
>
> You are, something obvious, but not intuitive...
>
> void swf_definebitmap(int objid, string image_name)
>
> Is the prototype for swf_definebitmap(), the first argument (objid) is the
> object id to use with swf_getbitmapinfo(), etc.
>
> ie,
>
> <?php
>
> // The bitmap id to define the bitmap with, and
> // then use with the other bitmap functions
> $pic_id = 10;
> // Komodo, Rasmus? *LOL*! From phpics.com ;)
> $pic_location = "korea/0.50/17.jpg";
>
> // ...
> swf_definebitmap($pic_id, $pic_location);
> // ...
> $pic_info = swf_getbitmapinfo($pic_id);
>
> echo "Size of the bitmap in bytes is: $pic_info[size]\n";
> echo "Width of the bitmap in pixels is: $pic_info[width]\n";
> echo "Height of the bitmap in pixels is: $pic_info[height]\n";
> ?>
Ok, so I would have expected something like this to work:
header('Content-type: application/x-shockwave-flash');
swf_openfile('php://stdout',400, 250, 30, 1, 1, 1);
$pic = swf_nextid();
swf_definebitmap($pic, 'php-big.fi');
swf_pushmatrix();
swf_placeobject($pic, 1);
swf_popmatrix();
swf_showframe();
swf_closefile();
But it doesn't seem to. I'll keep reading. The ming stuff does look a
lot more intuitive.
-Rasmus