From: Benoit Jacob <jacob.benoit.1@gmail.com>

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:29:59 -0400

Message-ID: <CAJTmd9oBOPs8aNiuCkVwvbSmWkR13ZbMWoTygRSKJhdxYgBPNQ@mail.gmail.com>

To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>

Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>

Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2013 10:29:59 -0400

Message-ID: <CAJTmd9oBOPs8aNiuCkVwvbSmWkR13ZbMWoTygRSKJhdxYgBPNQ@mail.gmail.com>

To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>

Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>

2013/3/20 Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> > It is easier to answer to the answers entirely, even if we can discuss > details in separate threats later. > > The specification describes a unified way to exchange matrices across > other specifications. This is a very reasonable approach for me. It's reasonable to exchange matrices across APIs but we don't need a Matrix class for that, we can exchange raw arrays (say Typed Arrays) as is done in WebGL. We'd just need to agree once and for all on a storage order (say column-major as in WebGL). If we do add a Matrix interface for the purpose of exchanging data, then at least it does not need to offer any computational features. > We already have matrix definitions in SVG (SVGMatrix). And even if > SVGMatrix is less specified than with this specifications, we have a huge > amount of compatible implementations, including all major browsers and even > more SVG viewers. I am much less concerned about the specification than you > are. In fact, there is a need for an exchange format of transformation > descriptions. Currently, HTML Canvas relies on SVGMatrix to describe a CTM. > > The primary goal of the specification is interoperability and backwards > compatibility. As mentioned before, SVG described SVGMatrix. This > specification replaces SVGMatrix with the requirement to be as much > backwards compatible as possible. This requires to follow the naming schema > chosen in the specification. That SVG has a SVGMatrix doesn't imply that other Web APIs should have a matrix class. Maybe SVG had a good reason to have a matrix interface, which I don't know, but I don't understand how that would generalize enough to have a Web-wide matrix interface, when, as I said above, arrays are enough to exchange matrices, and even if we really wanted a matrix interface for data exchange, that still wouldn't justify putting computational features in it. > The interoperability is not limited to SVGMatrix. There is a strong > relation to CSS Transforms. The decomposing code is entirely based on the > matrix decomposing for CSS Transforms. It's good to know where bad things (this matrix decomposition) come from, but that doesn't provide justification to spread them even wider! Since, as you seem to concede below, there is no other documentation for decompose() than looking at its pseudocode, let's do that. The key part is where the upper-left 3x3 block is decomposed into "rotation", "scale" and "skew". I use double quotes here because the geometric terms here, "rotation" and "scale", are clearly being abused, as we're going to see: // Now get scale and shear. 'row' is a 3 element array of 3 component vectors for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) row[i][0] = matrix[i][0] row[i][1] = matrix[i][1] row[i][2] = matrix[i][2] // Compute X scale factor and normalize first row. scale[0] = length(row[0]) row[0] = normalize(row[0]) // Compute XY shear factor and make 2nd row orthogonal to 1st. skew[0] = dot(row[0], row[1]) row[1] = combine(row[1], row[0], 1.0, -skew[0]) // Now, compute Y scale and normalize 2nd row. scale[1] = length(row[1]) row[1] = normalize(row[1]) skew[0] /= scale[1]; // Compute XZ and YZ shears, orthogonalize 3rd row skew[1] = dot(row[0], row[2]) row[2] = combine(row[2], row[0], 1.0, -skew[1]) skew[2] = dot(row[1], row[2]) row[2] = combine(row[2], row[1], 1.0, -skew[2]) // Next, get Z scale and normalize 3rd row. scale[2] = length(row[2]) row[2] = normalize(row[2]) skew[1] /= scale[2] skew[2] /= scale[2] // At this point, the matrix (in rows) is orthonormal. // Check for a coordinate system flip. If the determinant // is -1, then negate the matrix and the scaling factors. pdum3 = cross(row[1], row[2]) if (dot(row[0], pdum3) < 0) for (i = 0; i < 3; i++) scale[0] *= -1; row[i][0] *= -1 row[i][1] *= -1 row[i][2] *= -1 So that's just plain old Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization. So what's being called "rotation" here is just the orthonormalized rows of the original matrix, and what's being called "scale" here is just the lengths of the rows of the original matrix. In other words, this decomposition is a QR decomposition. Sure enough, if the input matrix is of a very special form, like DiagonalMatrix * Rotation Then this decomposition will recover the expected scaling and rotation. But that's about it (it works in slightly more generality thanks to the skew factors, but not much more generality). For an arbitrary matrix, this decomposition will return "scaling" and "rotation" components that aren't what one would naturally expect. Here's an example. Let's reason with 2D transforms for simplicity. Take the following 2x2 matrix: 1 3 3 1 It's a non-uniform scaling along orthogonal axes: it scales by a factor of 4 along the axis generated by the (1,1) vector, and it scales by a factor of -2 along the axis generated by the (1,-1) vector. So if a decomposition method is going to claim to be able to recover "scaling" and "rotation" and "skew" components from this, it should be able to find scaling factors of (4, -2), the rotation by 45 degrees bringing the above (1, 1), (1, -1) axes onto the X and Y axes, and no skew. But if you apply the spec's decompose() to this matrix, you won't find that. The scaling factors, being computed as the lengths of the rows, will be claimed to be equal to sqrt(1*1+3*3) == sqrt(10) and -sqrt(10). That's not useful. That sqrt(10) number is not an interesting thing associated with this geometric transformation, it's just incidental to how this transformation is represented in this particular basis. Moreover, giving both scaling factors as equal to sqrt(10) in absolute value misses the fact that this is a non-uniform scaling (the geometric scaling factors here are -2 and 4). The resulting "rotation" matrix will be equally useless from a geometric perspective. I'm not saying that the computation performed by decompose() is generally useless. It's Gram-Schmidt orthonormalization, and it's one of the most basic, and most useful algorithms in linear algebra. But it's not giving what is implied by the names of "rotation" and "scaling", and as a matrix decomposition, it amounts to a QR decomposition, which is useful for linear solving but is not revealing geometric components of the transformation at hand here. What this should all have been, is a polar decomposition http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_decomposition whereby an arbitrary matrix (even singular) can be decomposed as rotation * scaling or scaling * rotation provided that the scaling is allowed to be along arbitrary orthogonal axes, not just the X/Y/Z axes. That is the right approach because it has meaning at the level of the geometric transformation itself, not just for its matrix in a particular basis. In other words, you can use another basis and still get the same rotation and scaling. The skew factors are a poor way to compensate for its inability to account for other axes than X/Y/Z. The requirement that the top-left 3x3 block be non-singular is another sad aspect. It's an artifact of using non-pivoting QR here. It could be solved by pivoting or, better, by abandoning QR completely and switching to a polar decomposition, which doesn't have this limitation. Anyway, in its current form, the algorithm suffers from the same issue as I outlined in my first email for inverse(): it's really bad to suddenly stop working on "singular" matrices. (See first email). At this point I have NO confidence in the W3C working groups to spec anything doing nontrivial matrix computations. This decomposition should have been turned down. I had a suspiscion that this working group was outstretching its domain of competence by speccing matrix APIs, now I'm convinced of it. > It was a request from SVG WG members to provide one decomposing operation. > To use the same as CSS Transforms is a logical way. The composing and > decomposing are described by the pseudo code at the end of the > specification (will be removed to avoid duplication with CSS Transforms). I > understand your concerns about additional decomposing algorithms, but this > is the reasoning for this specific algorithm. > > To point 6. This is not a matrix library. The spec provides a simple set > of functions to do basic operations. It does not aim to allow full linear > algebra. As we just discussed, this offers a QR decomposition method (part of decompose()) even if it's hidden under misleading geometric names. This also offers matrix products, and various geometric transformation helpers. In my book, this _is_ a matrix library; regardless of naming, this is plenty complex enough to be very hard to optimize fully. Even an API offering only, say, translate() and scale() and skew() and transpose() would already have hard problems to solve. First, as these are cheap operations, the overhead of a DOM API call would be dominant, so browser developers would be scratching their heads about whether to add special JS-engine-level shortcuts to avoid the overhead of DOM calls there. That may sound overengineering until you realize that if a benchmark stresses these operations, having such shortcuts will allow to get faster by easily TWO orders of magnitude there. Now suppose that a browser engine has such shortcuts. The next problem as I mentioned in my first email is temporaries removal. Indeed if a benchmark (or a real application, for that's a real use case) does .translate().scale().skew()... then avoiding copying the intermediate results to/from temporary matrices will allow > 2x speedups. In short, as soon as you have_any_ computational feature in a matrix library, it's a tough job to optimize and maintain. > It just specifies what is necessary to fulfill the goal as an common > exchange format for transformation matrices. You are mentioning benchmarks > for browsers. I actually hope that browsers will optimize for performance > as well. This brings the question of precision over performance. Either you > make a compromise or decide for one or the other. Again, for me this is not > the priority. I can live with one or the other direction. > > I hope this answers some of your questions. > Unfortunately, it doesn't. Benoit > > Greetings, > Dirk > > > > > Benoit > >Received on Wednesday, 20 March 2013 14:30:27 UTC

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1
: Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:57:12 UTC
*