W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > May 2014

Re: [whatwg] Canvas and color colorspaces (was: WebGL and ImageBitmaps)

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 22 May 2014 13:09:58 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDCTmNR8WaGv9VkY9h_=yFzQFwaSJq5P5GgtAPnKW_TjjQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Justin Novosad <junov@google.com>
Cc: Noel Gordon <noel.gordon@gmail.com>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Katelyn Gadd <kg@luminance.org>, Kenneth Russell <kbr@google.com>, "whatwg@whatwg.org" <whatwg@whatwg.org>, Noel Gordon <noel@google.com>, Ian Hickson <ian@hixie.ch>
Hi justin,

thanks for this explanation!


On Thu, May 22, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Justin Novosad <junov@google.com> wrote:

> tl;dr: The color space of canvas backing stores is undefined, which causes
> problems for many web devs, but also has non-negligible advantages. So be
> careful what you wish for.
>
> I saw some confusion and questions needing answers in the "WebGL and
> ImageBitmaps" thread regarding color management. I will attempt to clarify
> to the best of my abilities. Though I am knowledgeable on the subject, I am
> not an absolute authority, so others are welcome to correct me if I am
> wrong about anything.
>
> Color management... To make a long story short, there are two types of
> color profiles : input profiles and output profiles for characterizing
> input devices (cameras, scanners) and output devices (displays, printers)
> respectively.
> Image files will usually encode their color information in a standard
> color space or in a an input device dependent space. If colors are encoded
> in a color space that is different from the format's default, then a color
> profile or a color space identifier must be encoded into the image
> resource's metadata.
>
> To present color-managed image content on screen, the image needs to be
> converted from whatever color space the image was encoded into into a
> standard "connection space" using the color profile or color space metadata
> from the image resource. Then the colors need to be converted from the
> profile connection space to the output space, which is provided by the
> OS/display driver. Depending on the OS and hardware configuration, the
> output space may be a standard color space (like sRGB), or a
> device-specific color profile.
>
> Currently, many color-managed software applications rely on the codec to
> take care of the entire color-management process for image and video
> content, meaning that the decoded image data is in output-referred color
> space (i.e. the display's profile was applied).  There are practical
> reasons for this, the most important ones being color fidelity and memory
> consumption.  Let me explain. The profile connection space is typically CIE
> XYZ or CIE L*a*b. I wont get into the technical details of how these work
> except to say that they are device independent and allow for an accurate
> representation of the whole spectrum of human-visible colors. This makes it
> possible to map colors from a wide gamut camera to a wide gamut display
> with high color fidelity for all the colors that are located in the
> intersection of the color gamuts of both the input and output devices. If
> we were forced to convert the image to an intermediate sRGB representation,
> the colors in the image would be clamped to the sRGB gamut (which is
> narrower than the gamuts of many devices). Currently, most browsers avoid
> doing that for <img>, and therefore provide (more or less) optimal image
> and video color fidelity for users of wide gamut devices. Also, an
> intermediate representation in 8-bit sRGB means loss of precision due to
> rounding errors, as opposed to the profile connection space which uses
> higher precision registers for intermediate color values to avoid precision
> issues caused by rounding.  To avoid perceptible precision issues in an
> intermediate sRGB representation, we'd have to increase the bit depth and
> therefore use more RAM for storing decoded image data.
>
> All of this is to say that there are good reasons for the current
> situation where we deal with decoded images that have the output device's
> color profile pre-applied: color fidelity and memory consumption.
>
> In the case of 2D canvas, the color space for the backing store is
> unspecified, and many implementations have chosen to use the output
> device's color space, which has many advantages:
> * images and videos are already decoded directly into that space
> * no color conversion is necessary when presenting the canvas on screen
> (good for performance)
> * there is no loss of precision due the use of a limited-precision
> intermediate color space.
> * the color gamut is not constrained by an intermediate color space (like
> sRGB).
> And disadvantages:
> * Compositing operations produce incorrect results because most of them
> (including source-over) are affected by the color space.
> * direct pixel manipulation using put/getImageData exposes data in a color
> space that is undefined, making it extremely challenging to perform many
> types of image processing and image generation tasks in a
> device-independent way.
> * The device-dependent behavior of a drawImage/getImageData round trip is
> a known fingerprinting vector.
>
> Right now, I am hearing a lot of complaints regarding the lack of a
> standardized color space for canvases, and in particular the impact this
> has on applications that try to do cool things with put/getImageData, or
> generate images procedurally.  I want to make sure everyone understands
> there is a trade-off to fixing this, so be careful what you wish for.
>
> I am especially concerned about the issue of color gamut clamping, which
> will increase in relevance as wide gamut devices become more widespread.
>  If we were to decide that canvas backing stores had to be in sRGB, that
> would mean that a wide gamut image viewed on a wide gamut display would
> look best when displayed in an <img> and would be duller when drawn through
> a <canvas>, whether it be 2D or WebGL.  Is that something we are willing to
> live with in the name of standardizing the color space of ImageData?  I
> must admit I was in favor of moving canvases to sRGB until I reviewed some
> of Noel Gordon's recent work which brought the gamut and precision issues
> to my attention.
>

Well, the issue with not having a standardized intermediate colorspace, is
that output will look different on different devices.
For most cases, people don't really care about that and are happy will
vibrant colors and deep blacks. Worse, if you limit the gamut to sRGB on
wide gamut devices, you lose gray values which will result in banding
(unless you have a high bit monitor) [1]
However there are use cases where it is certainly important that what you
see on screen reflects the actual color. I've certainly try to order
clothes, paint and furniture online where I did care about the exact color.
There's currently no way to accomplish this.


> Rik: to answer your question about your experiment: there is no issue with
> a put/getImageData round trip. You will get back the same color you put in
> (at least for opaque colors, but that is another story).  The issue is with
> a drawImage/getImageData round trip.  For the same source image,
> getImageData will return different values depending on the display profile
> of the system you are running on.
>

I still am not able to reproduce: http://jsfiddle.net/Dghuh/14/
Is it just when you have a tagged image that is drawn and is then color
mapped to the device profile?

Ken: You mentioned to me off thread that built-in support for sRGB render
> buffers in OpenGL ES 3 may make it easier to move rendering to sRGB on next
> gen devices. I tend to agree, and I think it will also mitigate the loss of
> precision issue, but it still implies clamping wide gammut media to the
> sRGB range.
>

1: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_depth#True_color_.2824-bit.29
Received on Thursday, 22 May 2014 20:10:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Monday, 13 April 2015 23:09:28 UTC