[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Public WebGL] Generic compression formats (and a texImage2D API issue)
On May 12, 2010, at 11:04 AM, Cedric Vivier wrote:
> On Thu, May 13, 2010 at 01:41, Chris Marrin <email@example.com> wrote:
>> I've thought about this as well. We could support a compressed texture format without actually defining any specific formats. Doing it as a hint, the implementation would be free to ignore it and store the texture uncompressed, or use whatever texture compression format is available in the driver. This avoids the licensing issues associated with texture compression. If your implementation has rights to a compressor that is used in your graphics driver, then you can implement it.
>> My only concern about this is that different texture compression formats have different rendering characteristics. Some have more green resolution than blue, others have more luminance resouiton that chrominance, etc. This could cause inconsistencies. But as long as the author understands that using compression is always an approximation, I don't think this problem is too significant.
> Yes, that's exactly what generic formats are about :)
> This is imho much more web-ish and appropriate to WebGL than expecting
> web developers to generate as many textures as there is formats to
> support - an issue similar to the <video> codecs situation.
>> But I also think this should go on the list for post 1.0.
> Yeah certainly makes sense.
> However, I still believe we should add internalFormat to texImage2D
> DOM helpers  rather sooner than later, more arguments below as
> answer to Gregg's proposed workaround :
Yes, I jusrt proposed this in a separate thread.
You are currently subscribe to firstname.lastname@example.org.
To unsubscribe, send an email to email@example.com with
the following command in the body of your email: