Did try changing the stagePadding values, albeit I took it down to one and then zero from the default (40 I believe) - maybe I'll try going up instead..
I understand what is happening in the centering process, but (I think) what is maybe not so great is that the stage size itself is too large, and so centering it no matter the image size is going to make it appear as though there is dead space above and below the image...
idea: could it be that the code is (and Im not that great at debugging code but from what I can read of it this appears to be the case?) actually calculating the overall size of the stage by padding both the thumbnail row AND the main image, and then getting the positionals by dividing that by whatever factor (2 I believe) for vertical placement, thereby effectively creating two padded areas between a top row of thumbnails and the main image below? or maybe there is some default padding that is happening if the XML shows a zero?
what i mean is maybe it's doing this:
height thumbnail row +
padding for thumbnail row +
padding for main image +
height main image
divide by ? to find vertical placement
when in reality if the thumbnail is on top, it shouldn't try to pad the thumbnail row? just makes more sense...if a person developing a web page really wants it somewhere specific on their page, it makes way more sense for them to do it themselves in the html vis a vis a table or <p> rather than count on the swf generation to do it?
All my images are sized at 600 x 400 and Ive tried resizing the instance of the swf in the html to everything from 300 to 600 (height) and still same thing, the resizing happens yes but even if I've got everything proportionate the space still appears...also already done the whole div thing..