W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-fx@w3.org > January to March 2013

Re: Filter Effects and High DPI

From: Gregg Tavares <gman@google.com>
Date: Fri, 15 Mar 2013 13:50:36 -0700
Message-ID: <CAKZ+BNqRnQ_U0ogYbUAmta5NfGU9EWGGYMyqUVQHVBth3Z_Grg@mail.gmail.com>
To: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: Stephen White <senorblanco@chromium.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
This brings up an issue that I don't *think* is addressed by the current
custom filters proposal?

In custom filters, assuming they use GLSL, there are global values
available. For example


that are in device coordinates. If we want CSS custom filters to be device
independent the spec will probably need to mention that shaders using
gl_FragCoord are disallowed or else that implementations must re-write the
shader so that gl_FragCoord is in CSS pixels and not device pixels.

On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote:

> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Stephen White
> <senorblanco@chromium.org> wrote:
> > In particular, in Chrome's accelerated implementation, on a high-DPI
> > display, we get high-DPI input images from the compositor.  Right now,
>  we
> > filter the high-DPI image by the original (unscaled) parameter values,
> > which, for the filters whose pixel's result depends on more than a single
> > input pixel value (e.g., blur(), drop-shadow()), results in less blurring
> > than would be visible on a non-HighDPI display.  This seems wrong.  (Last
> > time I checked, the non-composited path was downsampling the input
> > primitive, giving a non-high-DPI result but correct amounts of blur,
> > although that may have been fixed).
> This is a bug in our implementation, then.  The values in the
> functions are CSS values, so a length of "5px" means 5 CSS pixels, not
> 5 hardware pixels.  The browser has to scale that to whatever internal
> notion of "pixel" it's using.
> > For blur() and drop-shadow(), It would be straightforward to scale the
> > parameter values by the devicePixelRatio automatically, and achieve the
> > correct amount of blurring without affecting the resolution of the
> result.
> > Of course, we could downsample the input primitive for all filters, but
> that
> > would lose the high DPI even for those filters which are unaffected by
> this
> > problem, e.g., brightness() etc.
> >
> > However, for the reference filters, in particular feConvolveMatrix, it's
> not
> > clear what the optimal behaviour is.  It's tempting to simply multiply
> the
> > kernelUnitLength by the devicePixelRatio, and apply the convolution as
> > normal.  However, that also loses high DPI, and incurs the cost of a
> > downsample where it otherwise wouldn't be required (also note that
> > kernelUnitLength seems to be unimplemented in WebKit, but that's our
> > problem).  Would it be a possibility to simply upsample the kernel by
> > devicePixelRatio instead, and apply that kernel to the original unscaled
> > image?   (Or perhaps size' = (size - 1) * devicePixelRatio + 1 for odd
> > kernel sizes?)   This would result in a similar effect range, while
> > preserving the resolution of the source image.
> >
> > I have no idea if the convolution math is really correct this way,
> though.
> > I'm guessing not, since if it was, presumably the spec would have allowed
> > its use for kernelUnitLength application in general.
> I'm not sufficiently familiar with feConvolveMatrix to know how to
> handle it well.  However, if you get a substantially different result
> (beyond rendering/scaling artifacts), the implementation is definitely
> wrong in some way.  None of SVG or CSS should require knowledge of the
> device's DPI.
> ~TJ
Received on Friday, 15 March 2013 20:51:07 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 22 June 2015 03:33:49 UTC