[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Public WebGL] Gamma correction and texImage2D/texSubImage2D



On Tue, Sep 7, 2010 at 4:43 AM, Mark Callow <callow_mark@hicorp.co.jp> wrote:
>  On 07/09/2010 01:31, Thatcher Ulrich wrote:
>> I'll say it again, because this is sticking in my craw -- linear 8-bit
>> RGB is a mistake.  I put together a page showing the type of artifacts
>> that will result. http://tulrich.com/webgl/rgb/linear_vs_srgb.html
>>
> Specifying the canvas to internally be sRGB is mathematically incorrect.
> I agree very strongly with Steve Baker that we should not enshrine in
> the standard something that is mathematically incorrect. I don't think
> anybody said the spec. should require linear 8-bit. Only linear.
> Implementations should be free to use more bits. 12 per channel is what
> is actually necessary to avoid banding and is increasingly possible in
> hardware.

You would lose lots of real hardware and lots of performance.
Disaster for WebGL.

> Is banding more or less evil that the artefacts that come with a
> non-linear  space? Artefacts include: in lighting, loss of shader
> details. in blending incorrect colors and in anti-aliasing insufficient
> smoothing. These artefacts become even more pronounced with high-dynamic
> range imaging.

I think I addressed these points adequately in the new thread.

> As a practical matter the spec. will probably have to allow
> implementations to do everything in a non-linear space but requiring it
> be so is absolutely the wrong thing to do.

Allowing the implementations to choose either of two contradictory
spaces would be a disaster for developers trying to use WebGL.  A
post-1.0 extension is a much better way to introduce linear
framebuffers.

-T

-----------------------------------------------------------
You are currently subscribed to public_webgl@khronos.org.
To unsubscribe, send an email to majordomo@khronos.org with
the following command in the body of your email: