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

Re: [whatwg] High-density canvases

From: Justin Novosad <junov@google.com>
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 2013 10:44:33 -0400
Message-ID: <CABpaAqRc1y-G_Oh1JgNDFXSZ-7nYMHKX+GJxpenJ1R1-8W9nPg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Stephen White <senorblanco@chromium.org>
Cc: WHAT Working Group <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
There is another closely related issue that's been discussed before: adding
a redraw callback to 2d canvas.  In the past we discussed this for solving
the problem of recoverring from a gpu context loss, but it seems there may
be better reasons to consider adding a redraw callback such as freeing
memory consumed by canvas backing stores that are in background tabs, and
re-building the content when needed. This discussion was revived in the
past few days on the chromium graphics-dev mailing list:
https://groups.google.com/a/chromium.org/forum/?fromgroups#!topic/graphics-dev/CQJXpXxO6dk

The idea is still embryonic and we're brainstorming in this chromium issue:
crbug.com/287823

I think that discussion should be merged with this thread because a resize
event is another case where one may want to redraw. It would be great to
solve all of these issues together.


On Tue, Sep 10, 2013 at 10:14 AM, Stephen White <senorblanco@chromium.org>wrote:

> For posterity, here were our objections to the original high-DPI canvas
> spec:
>
>    - The API feels like a short-term hack to automagically do something
>    that the developer may or may not want done (e.g., if the game/app was
>    tuned for particular resolution, or for pixel-exact rendering) that
> we'll
>    be stuck with in the web platform long after its short-term usefulness
> has
>    expired
>    - It doesn't scale well to non-integer devicePixelRatios
>    - It is easy for developers to implement the above behaviour in JS if
>    desired
>
> I think the new proposal addresses the first point, since it's opt-in. I
> don't think the second point is a problem, since [get|put]ImageData() will
> be back to manipulating exact backing store pixels, so no non-integer
> resizing will be required. The third point becomes moot.
>
> One question: now that some browsers are including browser zoom (page zoom)
> in window.devicePixelRatio, will/should the new proposal automatically
> cause a resize callback on page zoom, in order to preserve 1:1 device
> pixels? (Note that I think this is a problem with current JS-based
> implementations of canvas auto-scale as well, although perhaps there's a
> DOM event for this that you can listen to; I might just be showing my
> ignorance here.)
>
> Stephen
>
>
> On Mon, Sep 9, 2013 at 8:00 PM, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch> wrote:
>
> > On Wed, 17 Jul 2013, Rik Cabanier wrote:
> > > Ian wrote:
> > > >
> > > > The density aspect of this might be pointless, given the failure of
> > > > getImageDataHD(); if we're dropping that one, I'll drop this one at
> > > > the same time.
> > >
> > > Yes, please drop it since the HD methods are going away from the one
> > > implementation.
> >
> > On Tue, 9 Jul 2013, Stephen White wrote:
> > >
> > > Conversely, if it helps to bring the spec closer to the
> implementations,
> > > one thing we do not intend to implement in Chrome is the automatic
> > > high-DPI canvas scaling (ie., auto-doubling of backing stores,
> > > getImageDataHD(), putImageDataHD(), etc).
> > >
> > > I believe Apple has also announced that they are dropping support for
> > > this in Safari 7.
> >
> > So my understanding is that the reason this feature failed is that
> there's
> > existing content that assumes a 1:1 ratio, and having an automatic
> > high-density mode was making some pages end up with canvases with four
> > canvas pixels per CSS pixel (linearly) -- two from the browser making a
> > native canvas, times two from the page scaling the canvas for high DPI
> > displays. This is a factor of sixteen over a 1:1 canvas, a factor of four
> > more than it should be for high DPI, and a big waste of resources.
> >
> > As much as sites do this manually, though, it's a huge pain in the neck
> to
> > have to worry about pixel density when you're creating your canvas and
> > drawing on it, especially if you're not drawing sprites on it.
> >
> > While we're talking about annoying things, there's also the annoyance
> that
> > canvases tend to not take zoom into account (either density-affecting
> zoom
> > like page zoom on desktop, or "transparent" zoom like pinch-zoom on
> mobile
> > for non-mobile-optimised sites, which the site isn't supposed to know
> > about): you have to remember to listen for onresize, and then manually
> > blow away your canvas and recreate it at the right density and then
> > squeeze it into place so that the coordinate space matches what your code
> > is expecting while the <canvas> is actually sized for the display.
> >
> > There's also the issue of full-bleed canvases where every time the
> > container changes, you have to remember to re-update the canvas
> coordinate
> > space and repaint because otherwise your pretty page gets all warped.
> >
> > It would be nice to fix these all at once, and I think we can, by
> > introducing a configuration option on getContext(), in the style of
> WebGL:
> >
> >    getContext('2d', { density: 'autosize' });
> >
> > This would trigger the following behaviour: When the context is created,
> > and subsequently when the <canvas> changes size (e.g. due to being sized
> > with CSS relative units and the element they're relative to changing), or
> > when the display density changes size (e.g. due to page zoom), then:
> >
> >    - the width and height of the canvas bitmaps get updated to match the
> >      new native size of the <canvas>, at native density.
> >
> >    - the coordinate space of the canvas (context.width/context.height)
> >      gets updated to match the size of the <canvas> in CSS pixel units.
> >
> >    - a 'resize' event gets fired at the <canvas>.
> >
> > We would dump the *HD versions of the methods, and make the regular ones
> > go back to returning the actual raw pixels, since that would now work
> fine
> > and still provide HD-quality content everywhere it's available.
> >
> > What do people think?
> >
> > --
> > Ian Hickson               U+1047E                )\._.,--....,'``.    fL
> > http://ln.hixie.ch/       U+263A                /,   _.. \   _\  ;`._ ,.
> > Things that are impossible just take longer.   `._.-(,_..'--(,_..'`-.;.'
> >
>
Received on Tuesday, 10 September 2013 14:45:00 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:09 UTC