On 2010-05-20 19:00, Gregg Tavares wrote:
Adding only internal format will save memory in some cases and adding support for 16 bit format will save more memory in some cases. I don't really see why it has to be all or nothing, that 16 bit format can save more memory does not change the fact that exposing internal format will save some memory in some cases. If one is easier to add than the other, why not just add the easiest one and save a little bit of memory?
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Chris Marrin <email@example.com <mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
On May 20, 2010, at 9:23 AM, Gregg Tavares wrote:
On Thu, May 20, 2010 at 8:53 AM, Chris Marrin <email@example.com<mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org>> wrote:
On May 19, 2010, at 7:40 PM, Gregg Tavares wrote:
> What I don't get is why the need for these conversions? If
you load a grayscale image as RGB you'll get the same visual
result as LUMINANCE. So it seems like the valid reason to do
these conversions is for memory savings since you can always
create RGB or RGBA textures that will give you the same
I don't see how loading a grayscale as RGB is the same as
LUMINANCE. The OpenGL texturing engine deals with LUMINANCE
textures differently from RGB. The problem the information
that an original image was one channel is lost in the browser
implementations. Even if not (if the browsers were forced to
pass along the original image format information)
implementations would have to have internal format conversion
to get the image into the right format. So why not expose
that to the author?
Can you point out the difference between an RGB image where R ==
G == B and a LUMINANCE texture? I'm unaware of this difference.
I feel very old. There was a time that LUMINANCE textures behaved
differently that RGB in the face of the various texturing modes.
Those are all gone in a shader based world. So you're right, there
is no difference.
As far as I can tell there is no difference. There's also no
difference between an RGBA image were R == G == B and a
So arguably, the only point in providing the conversions is
memory savings. Otherwise there's no functional difference.
Right, but I don't think we can underestimate the significance of
that memory savings, especially in embedded devices. It can easily
mean the difference between content working and exhausting memory.
So I reiterate my opinion that we should add internalformat to
texImage2D in the 4 cases that take HTML objects.
And if the reason for doing this is memory savings then we need to add support for 565 5551 and 4444. All of which are supported by OpenGL ES 2.0 (and therefore WebGL)
That means just adding internalFormat to texImage2D is not enough.
Either we are trying to do this for memory savings or we aren't.
I don't really think it will be easy to add guessing of internal format based on the input image in a reliable way though, so I think we need to be very careful about how we expose the internal format if we do so.