W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-style@w3.org > February 2016

Re: [css-images][svg2] gradient rendering and the image-rendering property

From: Rick <graham.rick@gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 3 Feb 2016 10:50:26 -0500
Message-ID: <CAGDjS3dXeOzzE3k_gr43HPrk6-0zNwOBG-Q5F9fjn81=RQsbsg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika@yahoo.com>
Cc: Amelia Bellamy-Royds <amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com>, "www-style@w3.org list" <www-style@w3.org>, www-svg <www-svg@w3.org>
When I read it, pixelated was nearest neighbour with zero smoothing and
crisp edges were anti-aliased.

On Wed, Feb 3, 2016 at 2:15 AM, Jonathan Wilkes <jancsika@yahoo.com> wrote:

> What is the difference between "pixelated" and "crisp-edges"?
>
> -Jonathan
>
>
>
>
> On Tuesday, February 2, 2016 10:13 PM, Amelia Bellamy-Royds <
> amelia.bellamy.royds@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> A discussion at the joint SVG/CSS face-to-face meeting centered on
> gradient quality, and whether features such as dithering could be supported
> (or required) to address banding in gradients.
>
> I brought up that there are already cross-browser inconsistencies in
> whether colors are anti-aliased when gradients have sharp transitions
> (color stops at the same offset value to create stripes), and pointed out
> that anti-aliasing looks better on diagonal stripes but can look fuzzy on
> horizontal/vertical stripes.  Someone suggested I write up a proposal.  I
> initially avoided an action, but after discussion moved on I realized that
> this is essentially the same issue as the image-rendering properties:
> sometimes you want smooth interpolation, and sometimes you want crisp edges.
>
> So, the basic proposal is as follows: make the image-rendering property
> apply to gradient images, including CSS and SVG gradients for an element.
> Add the proposed "smooth" value to distinguish from "auto", and make the
> definitions for each value as follows:
>
> auto <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-3/#valdef-image-rendering-auto>The
> image or gradient should be rendered with an algorithm that balances a
> smooth appearance with performance.smoothThe image or gradient should be
> rendered in such a way that pixilation effects are minimized. In
> particular, image scaling should smoothly interpolate color transitions,
> such as by using bilinear interpolation. This is intended for images such
> as photos.  Gradient rendering should use anti-aliasing on sharp color
> transitions and may use dithering or similar effects to minimize banding
> when the color depth of the display cannot create an even color transition.
> crisp-edges
> <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-3/#valdef-image-rendering-crisp-edges>The
> image or gradient should be rendered in a way that preserves contrast and
> edges in the image.  Images should be scaled with algorithms that do not
> smooth colors or introduce blur to the image in the process. This is
> intended for images such as pixel art.  Gradient rendering may (or should?)
> nonetheless use anti-aliasing to create clean diagonal lines.pixelated
> <https://drafts.csswg.org/css-images-3/#valdef-image-rendering-pixelated>Images
> must be scaled with the "nearest neighbor" or similar algorithm, to
> preserve a "pixelated" look as the image changes in size. Gradients should
> not use anti-aliasing or dithering.
>
> Some additional complications:
>
>    - For SVG paint servers, should the value in effect on the paint
>    server element be used, or the value in effect on the painted shape?  I
>    think consistency with other *-rendering properties (e.g. for color) is to
>    use the value on the gradient element itself.  Alternatively, the "auto"
>    behavior on a shape could be to use the behavior on the gradient, but a
>    different value on the shape could override it.
>    - Should you be able to set different rendering hints on different
>    layers of CSS backgrounds (e.g. to have a smooth gradient overtop of a
>    crisp-edges stripe)?  E.g., with a background-image-rendering property that
>    takes a list of values?  If so, probably also want to introduce equivalent
>    properties for layered SVG fill and stroke paint.
>
>    - For existing SVG content, there may be backwards compatibility
>    issues.  E.g., if image-rendering is set on the <svg> element itself with
>    the expectation that it would only affect <image> elements, but now it also
>    affects gradients.  Not sure if this would break anything badly.
>
> If people are worried about backwards compatibility, an alternative would
> be to create a distinct `gradient-rendering` property.  If so, I would want
> `gradient-rendering` to use the same values as `image-rendering` as
> described above, so authors would only have to memorize one set of keywords.
>
> ~Amelia Bellamy-Royds
>
>
>
>
>


-- 
Soap and education are not as sudden as a massacre, but they are more
deadly in the long run.
        -- Mark Twain
Received on Wednesday, 3 February 2016 15:51:03 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 25 March 2022 10:09:00 UTC