W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > July 2013

Re: [whatwg] Adding features needed for WebGL to ImageBitmap

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2013 12:36:25 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDD=4KkgD8Cg0eZE2tKM6ySCSNZ-bw2mzEZ-mXQsZbo5kw@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Novosad <junov@google.com>
Cc: WHATWG <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>, "Tab Atkins Jr." <jackalmage@gmail.com>
On Thu, Jul 11, 2013 at 8:29 AM, Justin Novosad <junov@google.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 9:37 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, Jul 10, 2013 at 5:07 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>>
>> > On Wed, 10 Jul 2013, Kenneth Russell wrote:
>> > >
>> > > ImageBitmap can cleanly address all of the desired use cases simply by
>> > > adding an optional dictionary of options.
>> >
>> > I don't think that's true. The options only make sense for WebGL --
>> > flipping which pixel is the first pixel, for example, doesn't do
>> anything
>> > to 2D canvas, which works at a higher level.
>> >
>> > (The other two options don't make much sense to me even for GL. If you
>> > don't want a color space, don't set one. If you don't want an alpha
>> > channel, don't set one. You control the image, after all.)
>> >
>> >
>> > > I suspect that in the future some options will be desired even for the
>> > > 2D canvas use case, and having the dictionary already specified will
>> > > make that easier. There is no need to invent a new primitive and means
>> > > of loading it.
>> >
>> > If options make sense for 2D canvas, then having ImageBitmap options
>> would
>> > make sense, sure.
>> >
>> >
>> yeah, these options seem a bit puzzling.
>> From the spec:
>>
>> An ImageBitmap object represents a bitmap image that can be painted to a
>> canvas without undue latency.
>>
>> note: The exact judgement of what is undue latency of this is left up to
>> the implementer, but in general if making use of the bitmap requires
>> network I/O, or even local disk I/O, then the latency is probably undue;
>> whereas if it only requires a blocking read from a GPU or system RAM, the
>> latency is probably acceptable.
>>
>> It seems that people see the imageBitmap as something that doesn't just
>> represent in-memory pixels but that those pixels are also preprocessed so
>> they can be drawn quickly. The latter is not in the spec.
>>
>> I think authors will be very confused by these options. What would it mean
>> to pass a non-premultiplied ImageBitmap to a canvas object? Would the
>> browser have to add code to support it or is it illegal?
>> Maybe it's easier to add an optional parameter to createImageBitmap to
>> signal if the ImageBitmap is for WebGL or for Canvas and disallow a Canvas
>> ImageBitmap in WebGL and vice versa.
>>
>
> You are implying a pretty heavy imposition as to what constitutes undue
> latency.
> I think the spec should stay away from forcing implementations to pin
> decoded image buffers in RAM (or on the GPU), so that the browser may have
> some latitude in preventing out of memory exceptions. In its current form,
> the spec implies that it would be acceptable for an implementation to
> discard the decoded buffer and only retain the resource in encoded form in
> RAM.  Do we really need to make further optimizations explicit? For
> example, an implementation could prepare the image data for use with WebGL
> the first time it is drawn to WebGL, and keep it cached in that state. If
> the same ImageBitmap is subsequently drawn to a 2D canvas, then it would
> use the non-WebGLified copy, which may be cached, or may require
> re-decoding the image. No big deal.
>

Doesn't that double the memory requirement?
Also, since bitmaps will need to be prepared for either WebGL or Canvas 2d,
won't that introduce "undue latency"?


> Fundamental question: Do we really need the caller to be able to specify
> what treatments need to be applied to prepare an image for WebGL, or is it
> always possible to figure that out automatically? As long as there is a way
> to do it automatically, shouldn't we avoid adding complexity to the API?
>

I agree.  However, since Gregg was asking for this features, he must
believe there's a need for this feature.
Received on Thursday, 11 July 2013 19:36:50 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:03 UTC