- From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2012 11:05:33 -0800
- To: Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com>, public-fx@w3.org
- Message-ID: <CAGN7qDCJM2-2ooqfe5SAHS8vzMne9o32d2G7pJvbTF-q3krQ1A@mail.gmail.com>
Not sure I follow. so instead of brightness: -1 < brightness < 0 -> color.rgb * (1-brightness) 0 < brightness < 1 -> color.rgb * (1-brightness) + vec3(brightness) it would be: -1 < darken < 1 -> color.rgb * (1-darken) -1 < lighten < 1 -> color.rgb + vec3(lighten) Rik On Tue, Jan 24, 2012 at 10:26 AM, Chris Marrin <cmarrin@apple.com> wrote: > > On Sat, Jan 21, 2012 at 4:37 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Hi Chris, >> >> I agree that the current definition looks incorrect. >> To give you one more option, Flash also provides a brightness filter that >> uses a colormatrix. It seems to provide what you're looking for since it >> will darken and brighten the result. >> >> For brightness settings that are negative (= darken), the formula is: >> >> color.rgb * (1-brightness) >> >> So, for rgb of (0, 255, 64) and brightness of -25%, the end result is (0, >> 191, 48) >> >> For positive brightness (= lighten), the formula is: >> >> color.rgb * (1-brightness) + vec3(brightness) >> >> So, for rgb of (0, 255, 64) and brightness of 25%, the end result is (64, >> 255, 112) >> > > I know that many image editors (including Preview and iPhoto) have > replaced brightness adjustments with separate lighten and darken filters. > We could add those, but I think brightness as an additive effect is still > useful. In its current incarnation, as a pure multiplication, it's not very > useful. I won't comment on whether lighten/darken or brightness are more > useful. But if you do the former, you need to have both to be able to have > sufficient control. > >
Received on Tuesday, 24 January 2012 19:06:10 UTC