- From: Dirk Schulze <dschulze@adobe.com>
- Date: Mon, 18 Mar 2013 08:11:09 -0700
- To: Stephen White <senorblanco@chromium.org>
- CC: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>, "public-fx@w3.org" <public-fx@w3.org>
On Mar 18, 2013, at 7:02 AM, Stephen White <senorblanco@chromium.org> wrote: > 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? You forgot transformations on the element or it's parent elements that influence the element size. Rotations make it even harder :) I need to look at this. This is not the way it is implemented in WebKit or Firefox IIRC. Greetings, Dirk > > 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 15:12:20 UTC