W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > January 2011

Re: [css3] support for filters

From: Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>
Date: Fri, 7 Jan 2011 11:05:25 +1100
Cc: Paul Irish <paul.irish@gmail.com>, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com>, Cameron McCormack <cam@mcc.id.au>, Charles Pritchard <chuck@jumis.com>, "ed@opera.com" <ed@opera.com>, "www-style@w3.org" <www-style@w3.org>, Dan Clark <dclark@adobe.com>
Message-Id: <653435E0-A5E6-4B53-B845-3A6D33861EEF@apple.com>
To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@adobe.com>
I definitely think blending is separate from filters. Of course, a filter graph may specify its own blending operations between nodes, but we should not use filters to expose blend modes.

It would be nice to come up with some use cases and then investigate how a CSS solution would compare to doing it in canvas (where it is relatively easy to blend images at least). Do people want to blend complex HTML content? As Simon says in an adjacent followup message, CSS rendering is already pretty complex. The nice thing about canvas is that it gives you a pretty simple but powerful island to work in.

BTW - The (now dead) Adobe SVG plugin exposed a proprietary property/attribute to allow PDF blending of elements and groups of elements.

Dean


On 07/01/2011, at 10:48 AM, Rik Cabanier wrote:

> It looks like people want Adobe PDF/Flash style blending in addition to filters.  J
> It would be great if we could even add blending to the HTML imaging model. PDF style blending is probably overkill but Flash style should be sufficient.
> (ps filters and blending are very different concepts. I think it will be a lot harder to implement blending than filters)
>  
> Adobe has ample documentation and knowledge about this so we can certainly help out here.
>  
> Rik
>  
> From: Paul Irish [mailto:paul.irish@gmail.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2011 10:36 AM
> To: Simon Fraser
> Cc: Rik Cabanier; Cameron McCormack; Charles Pritchard; ed@opera.com; www-style@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [css3] support for filters
>  
>  
> On Wed, Jan 5, 2011 at 5:44 PM, Simon Fraser <smfr@me.com> wrote:
> It would be useful to get some input from authors on what they see as useful canned filters.
>  
>  
> So.. I held a little informal poll on twitter (where my followers are mainly web designers/developers).
> After getting responses from ~70 folks, I've aggregated the data.
> Here are the full results in google spreadsheet: http://goo.gl/YSa8r
>  
> Results summary:
> The most requested filters, by far, are: blur, saturation, compositing modes, noise, and color levels.
> A few folks also were interested in: sharpen, contrast, drop shadow (a la brad's proposal), and chroma key.
>  
> There were so many requests for blending/compositing modes and unique mentions of individual ones, that I could break out those, too.
> See the chart on http://goo.gl/YSa8r for detail (multiply has the most interest)
>  
> Additional effects mentioned by a single person are:
> feather, brightness, bump/displacement mapping, elliptical distortions, image fill, alpha masks, lighting effects, per color desaturate, wave distort, reflect, sparkles & rainbow effects, color matrix
> Interesting that brightness doesn't have a big demand. The rest of these probably out outside the bounds of these canned filters.
>  
> Worth mentioning that recently there have been a few javascript libraries people have been gravitating towards to apply these sort of effects:
> http://mezzoblue.github.com/PaintbrushJS/demo/
> http://peternitsch.net/bitmapdata.js/
>  
> Hope this data helps to illuminate authors' priorities. 
>  
> Cheers 
Received on Friday, 7 January 2011 00:11:06 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 26 March 2013 17:20:35 GMT