Re: [css-shaders] subdivision for transparency

On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Gregg Tavares (wrk) <gman@google.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2011 at 3:35 PM, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
> wrote:
>> On Wed, Oct 5, 2011 at 9:13 AM, Dean Jackson <dino@apple.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> As for filters, I was really hoping that we'd be able to specify them as
>>> purely a 2d effect - as in whatever is composited in the end is a quad, not
>>> a mesh, even if the filter itself uses a mesh.
>>
>> I totally agree. The result of a "custom" filter primitive is flattened to
>> an image. Nothing else makes sense, even within a filter chain
>
> That's fine in all you want to achieve is filtering effects but that doesn't
> fit with the examples shown by Adobe. They're morphing the content in 3d.
> http://www.adobe.com/devnet/html5/articles/css-shaders.html#1
> In one case they're morphing something to look like a newspaper. It unfolds
> but is still interactive once it unfolds.
> In another case they're morphing a twitter feed a kind of wavy shape and
> they are interacting with it while it's in this wavy shape. I don't see why
> the user would think it's not 100% interactive.
> So it seems like for this proposal to be generally useful that content needs
> to able to be interactive (ie, the user needs to able to click on stuff just
> like they can with 3d css). Otherwise the number of use cases for it seems
> exceedingly small.

Note that vertex shaders (what, I think, were used to achieve the
effects that Greg mentioned) are reversible, though it requires the
shader to be run on the CPU (I think), so you can still handle mouse
interaction.  Pixel shaders aren't, but that's not something fixable.

~TJ

Received on Tuesday, 4 October 2011 23:19:08 UTC