- From: Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Sep 2012 08:40:51 -0700
- 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 15:41:44 UTC