- From: Ralph Thomas <ralpht@gmail.com>
- Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2011 11:58:41 -0700
- To: Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com>
- Cc: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
Ok, that makes sense -- I like the idea of scaling the element's rendering down to fit inside a texture as it passes no additional complexity on to the shader. Blur and related shaders would work with a margin, but a lot of effects (e.g.: wrapping the element, as if simulating an old TV with broken vertical hold) wouldn't. Ralph On Sun, Oct 16, 2011 at 7:01 PM, Vincent Hardy <vhardy@adobe.com> wrote: > From: Ralph Thomas <ralpht@gmail.com> > Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2011 20:36:08 -0700 > To: "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org> > Subject: [css shaders] tiling large elements > > Hi, > How could a tiling scheme be implemented for CSS Shaders if the > element being shaded is larger than a texture may be given that (I > think!) the shader would expect the whole element to be in a single > texture? > Thanks, > Ralph > > > > Hi Ralph, > The shaders, as currently proposed, work with the assumption that the whole > element's rendering is available. If that was not the case, then we could > pass in additional uniforms to the shader. > However, to account for resource constraints, the implementations could > reduce the texture size. Doing multiple passes with different textures for > each tile would not work for some shaders, for example, a blur would not > work out of the box, without taking extra steps (e.g., have a notion of tile > margin the shader would need to still operate). > Cheers, > Vincent
Received on Monday, 17 October 2011 18:59:09 UTC