- From: Stephen White <senorblanco@chromium.org>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 10:02:12 -0400
- To: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
- Cc: "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <CAPeKFTgw5DWRxiDOUPfayP4mjMCCn30Yx5Febc7Vz57b=pAvzg@mail.gmail.com>
On Sun, Mar 17, 2013 at 10:01 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Tab Atkins Jr. <jackalmage@gmail.com>wrote: > >> On Fri, Mar 15, 2013 at 11:59 AM, Stephen White >> <senorblanco@chromium.org> wrote: >> > In particular, in Chrome's accelerated implementation, on a high-DPI >> > display, we get high-DPI input images from the compositor. Right now, >> we >> > filter the high-DPI image by the original (unscaled) parameter values, >> > which, for the filters whose pixel's result depends on more than a >> single >> > input pixel value (e.g., blur(), drop-shadow()), results in less >> blurring >> > than would be visible on a non-HighDPI display. This seems wrong. >> (Last >> > time I checked, the non-composited path was downsampling the input >> > primitive, giving a non-high-DPI result but correct amounts of blur, >> > although that may have been fixed). >> >> This is a bug in our implementation, then. The values in the >> functions are CSS values, so a length of "5px" means 5 CSS pixels, not >> 5 hardware pixels. The browser has to scale that to whatever internal >> notion of "pixel" it's using. >> >> > For blur() and drop-shadow(), It would be straightforward to scale the >> > parameter values by the devicePixelRatio automatically, and achieve the >> > correct amount of blurring without affecting the resolution of the >> result. >> > Of course, we could downsample the input primitive for all filters, but >> that >> > would lose the high DPI even for those filters which are unaffected by >> this >> > problem, e.g., brightness() etc. >> > >> > However, for the reference filters, in particular feConvolveMatrix, >> it's not >> > clear what the optimal behaviour is. It's tempting to simply multiply >> the >> > kernelUnitLength by the devicePixelRatio, and apply the convolution as >> > normal. However, that also loses high DPI, and incurs the cost of a >> > downsample where it otherwise wouldn't be required (also note that >> > kernelUnitLength seems to be unimplemented in WebKit, but that's our >> > problem). Would it be a possibility to simply upsample the kernel by >> > devicePixelRatio instead, and apply that kernel to the original unscaled >> > image? (Or perhaps size' = (size - 1) * devicePixelRatio + 1 for odd >> > kernel sizes?) This would result in a similar effect range, while >> > preserving the resolution of the source image. >> > >> > I have no idea if the convolution math is really correct this way, >> though. >> > I'm guessing not, since if it was, presumably the spec would have >> allowed >> > its use for kernelUnitLength application in general. >> >> I'm not sufficiently familiar with feConvolveMatrix to know how to >> handle it well. However, if you get a substantially different result >> (beyond rendering/scaling artifacts), the implementation is definitely >> wrong in some way. None of SVG or CSS should require knowledge of the >> device's DPI. >> > > From the Filter Effects spec [1]: > > Because they operate on pixels, matrix convolutions are inherently > resolution-dependent. To make ‘feConvolveMatrix’ produce > resolution-independent results, an explicit value should be provided for > either the ‘filterRes’ attribute on the ‘filter’element and/or attribute > ‘kernelUnitLength’. > > So, this is a case where the device's DPI is allowed to make a difference. > 'FilterRes' [2] should be used if you want device independent output. > It seems that for feConvolveMatrix, 'FilterRes' should have been required. > (It's weird that 'FilterRes' is not a resolution but a number of device > pixels) > Thanks! I didn't catch that. So it seems the author's options are: 1) Set filterRes, and have the image downsampled before all filtering (lo-DPI results) 2) Set kernelUnitLength, and have the image downsampled before convolution only (lo-DPI results). 3) Check window.devicePixelRatio, and provide a kernel sized appropriately to the DPI (hi-DPI results). Does that sound right? Stephen > > 1: > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/FXTF/raw-file/tip/filters/index.html#feConvolveMatrixElement > > 2: > https://dvcs.w3.org/hg/FXTF/raw-file/tip/filters/index.html#FilterElementFilterResAttribute >
Received on Monday, 18 March 2013 14:02:44 UTC