W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-svg@w3.org > February 2012

Re: Clarifying the behavior of SVG arithmetic feComposite filters

From: Mike Reed <reed@google.com>
Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2012 13:08:22 -0500
Message-ID: <CAERTzqysUgCFxuvro4RhxMtt6Qr_NPB_o0Npr=MOG9VrL-gNtQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Cc: Stephen Chenney <schenney@chromium.org>, www-svg@w3.org, Nikolas Zimmermann <nzimmermann@rim.com>
I also think #1 is the best solution.

On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 12:36 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:

> I think it was a mistake to have the filters work on premultiplied alpha.
> Premultiplied alpha is a trick to make calculations easier, but it should
> not be the default.
>
> So, option 1 is the 'correct' one.
> However, I agree that 2 is much simpler since it doesn't break existing
> behavior.
>
> Rik
>
> On Tue, Feb 7, 2012 at 7:31 AM, Stephen Chenney <schenney@chromium.org>wrote:
>
>> The SVG 1.1 (Second Edition)  16 August 2011 feComposite filter
>> operation (http://www.w3.org/TR/SVG/filters.html#feCompositeElement)
>> currently defines arithmetic composite to act on pre-multiplied rgba
>> pixels, just as the other feComposite operations do. Combined with the
>> per-component nature of the filter, this allows the filter to generate
>> invalid pre-multiplied rgba values both as intermediate results and
>> the final output. For example, this filter sequence:
>>
>> <!-- This filter produces intermediate results that are invalid
>> pre-multiplied rgba pixels. -->
>> <!-- Specifically, after the 4th step an interior pixel will contain
>> (0, 0.8, 0, 0.5) which -->
>> <!-- is invalid because g > a. When used in other operations, this may
>> generate bad results. -->
>> <filter id="arithmetic">
>>  <feComposite operator="arithmetic" in="SourceGraphic"
>> in2="SourceGraphic" k1="0" k2="0.2" k3="0" k4="0" result="rgba02" />
>>  <feComposite operator="arithmetic" in="SourceAlpha"
>> in2="SourceAlpha" k1="0" k2="0.3" k3="0" k4="0" result="alpha05" />
>>  <feComposite operator="arithmetic" in="rgba02" in2="alpha05" k1="0"
>> k2="1" k3="1" k4="0" result="tmp" />
>>  <feComposite operator="arithmetic" in="SourceGraphic" in2="tmp"
>> k1="0" k2="1" k3="-1" k4="0" />
>>  <feComposite operator="arithmetic" in="tmp" k1="0" k2="1" k3="1" k4="0"
>> />
>> </filter>
>>
>> An invalid pixel is anything with color component greater than alpha.
>> The easiest way to produce invalid pixels is in a subtraction
>> operation (k1=0, k2=1, k3=-1, k4=0), when one opaque image subtracted
>> from a different opaque image will generate an entire image of alpha =
>> 0 pixels that have non-zero color components.
>>
>> The Webkit team is concerned with this behavior because the invalid
>> pixels may feed into other operations and pollute the entire image. We
>> would like to tighten the spec on arithmetic filter operations to
>> preclude this behavior.
>>
>> Option 1 is to define arthimetic feComposite to act on regular rgba
>> pixels. This prevents any issue of invalid data and is probably easier
>> for content authors to reason about. On the downside, it may be costly
>> to convert between pre-multiplied and regular pixel representations.
>>
>> Option 2 is to modify the spec section 15.12 from this statement "with
>> the result clamped between [0..1]" to this statement "with alpha
>> clamped to [0..1] and color components clamped to [0..alpha]". This is
>> the simplest change that ensures valid pixels everywhere.
>>
>> Option 3 is to modify the spec to require that arithmetic results be
>> clamped to valid pre-multiplied pixels before use in any other filter
>> operation, while intermediate arithmetic results must clamp only to
>> [0..1] per component. This seems to match current behavior in Opera,
>> Firefox and Webkit, although I have not extensively tested. I think
>> the behavior just falls out of current pixel conversion methods for
>> pre-multiplied to regular pixels, although Webkit catches the problem
>> in debug builds.
>>
>> Personally I support Option 2 as it is least disruptive and simplest
>> to implement, although I am also satisfied with Option 1.
>>
>> Regardless of which clarification is chosen, in the interests of
>> cross-browser consistency we would like the spec tightened.
>>
>> Stephen.
>>
>>
>
Received on Wednesday, 8 February 2012 22:11:08 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:50 GMT