On Thu, Jul 5, 2012 at 7:39 PM, Gregg Tavares (社用) <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:I strongly disagree that frameworks can't handle this. As long as the framework provides a way for the application to tell it what type of texture image it wants to use, many frameworks will be able to handle the separate sampler type without major problem. Existing frameworks of course have no mechanism for the app. to indicate the type of texture image so they will require modification.
Zero copy is the whole point of this extension. If you want the copy path just call texImage2D(....., HTMLVideoElement). Browsers are already working on making that path use an FBO to speed up the copy. But it's still a copy. Copying 1920x1080p video at 60hz is a much slower and battery intensive operation than not copying at all.The only way this texture type can be accommodated without breaking all existing shaders and forcing everybody to adopt shader preprocessors as well as forcing everybody to define their sampler types up front for this flavor is to *copy* so we can get it into a texture that we can drop into our existing frameworks/libraries/utilities that just works. If the aim of this extension is to get rid of the copy, than that is mostly a failure, except for border-use cases where people incidentially have a friendly and simple enough app structure and framework so that works.
NOTE: This electronic mail message may contain confidential and privileged information from HI Corporation. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, photocopying, distribution or use of the contents of the received information is prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete this message and all related copies.