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

Re: Perlin and simplex noise

From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 08:40:51 -0700
Message-ID: <CAAWBYDDQkaFczobN8zugfGtWMyb-ox4w+gTVHqMw=651fuRHhg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
Cc: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, Erik Dahlstrom <ed@opera.com>, David Sheets <kosmo.zb@gmail.com>, "www-svg@w3.org" <www-svg@w3.org>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Mon, Sep 3, 2012 at 1:11 PM, Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com> wrote:
>> The type of noise I'm interested in is sufficient as a plain image.
>> It would also be useful as a filter function, sure, but I just want to
>> add a noise() function to the <image> type, and I'll rely on SVG
>> making a good decision about the type of algorithm to do it with.
>>
> This is already specified by Filter Effects[1].

Yes, if you already have an <feTurbulence> filter set up.

Actually, though, I don't really understand how that works.
<feTurbulence> is one of the silly filter elements that's not a filter
at all, but actually just a paint server (created, if I recall earlier
explanations correctly, because nobody thought of just letting filters
accept paint servers directly as inputs, so you had to choose, and
turbulence seemed more useful as a filter input than a paint server).
This means it doesn't accept any inputs.  Do you just have to provide
a dummy image that then gets completely ignored and replaced with the
turbulence?

If so, then that's all the more reason to have a shorthand function
for this that's just an <image> type, not a filter at all.  Like I
said, I'll just wait for SVG to settle on an algorithm, then I'll
reference it and define a new function in Image Values or something.

~TJ
Received on Tuesday, 4 September 2012 15:41:46 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Friday, 8 March 2013 15:54:52 GMT