The two comments show the same equation for alpha: Sa + Da - Sa*Da

However, you make a great observation on the impl. I will update the
code to use SkAlphaMulQ as you point out.

thanks,
mike

BTW - the most update skia sources are now at code.google.com/p/skia.
Feel free to file bugs/requests directly on that site. I regularly
pull from there back into Android (as other skia clients do too, like
Chrome).

On Tue, Mar 3, 2009 at 10:43 AM, Eric <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Thanks, one more thing:
>
> in SkXfermode.cpp DstOver is defined as
>
> //  kDstOver_Mode,  //!< [Sa + (1 - Sa)*Da, Dc + (1 - Da)*Sc]
>
> Shouldn't the alpha part be:
>
> //  kDstOver_Mode,  //!< [Da + (1 - Da)*Sa, Dc + (1 - Da)*Sc]
>
> Making it exactly the same as SrcOver but with dst and src reversed
> and then it can be defined as:
>
> static SkPMColor dstover_modeproc(SkPMColor src, SkPMColor dst) {
>  return dst + SkAlphaMulQ(src, 256 - SkGetPackedA32(dst));
> }
>
> Unless I am missing something?
>
>
> On Mar 2, 9:44 pm, Mike Reed <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Ah, if we only apply it to srcover. I'll take a wack at it.
>>
>> On Mon, Mar 2, 2009 at 10:22 AM, Eric <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> > It would indeed only require the following changes:
>>
>> > in SkColorPriv.h
>>
>> > inline SkPMColor SkPMSrcOver(SkPMColor src, SkPMColor dst) {
>> >  return src + SkAlphaMulQ(dst, 256 - SkGetPackedA32(src));
>> > }
>>
>> > and in SkXfermode.cpp
>>
>> > //  kSrcOver_Mode,  //!< [Sa + (1 - Sa)*Da, Sc + (1 - Sa)*Dc]
>> > static SkPMColor srcover_modeproc(SkPMColor src, SkPMColor dst) {
>> >  return src + SkAlphaMulQ(dst, 256 - SkGetPackedA32(src));
>> > }
>>
>> > This would solve the "opaque pixel problem" and it is a bit faster.
>>
>> > On Feb 28, 12:07 am, pixelflinger <[email protected]> wrote:
>> >> I think that Eric's point is that it works specifically for that
>> >> case.
>> >> The macro is correct in general, but in that specific case (32-bits,
>> >> premult blending), a different global equation (with +1) would work
>> >> better.
>> >> It wouldn't cause artifacts, would be slightly faster and would have
>> >> the nice property to never make a destination pixel less opaque.
>>
>> >> mathias
>>
>> >> On Feb 27, 12:50 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >> > I have also tried the +1 rounding trick, but have seen overflows
>> >> > (wrapping back to 0) in some modes, since we are asymmetrically
>> >> > applying the add to only one of the alpha components.
>>
>> >> > On Feb 27, 10:22 am, Eric <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > For a great article about this please 
>> >> > > seehttp://www.stereopsis.com/doubleblend.html
>> >> > > by Michael Herf (from Picasa)
>>
>> >> > > For the default blending function it describes an optimized version of
>> >> > > the one Mike Reed mentions but also the one I referred to which I
>> >> > > think is the fastest one possible. For this case it does satisfy the
>> >> > > OpenGL criteria and I imagine for Android that speed is more
>> >> > > important.
>>
>> >> > > On Feb 27, 2:05 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > static inline U8CPU SkMulDiv255Round(U8CPU a, U8CPU b) {
>> >> > > >     SkASSERT((uint8_t)a == a);
>> >> > > >     SkASSERT((uint8_t)b == b);
>> >> > > >     unsigned prod = SkMulS16(a, b) + 128;
>> >> > > >     return (prod + (prod >> 8)) >> 8;
>>
>> >> > > > }
>>
>> >> > > > This is used in some places for blending. I think it has even 
>> >> > > > smaller
>> >> > > > error than (a + (a >> 7)), though it is slower.
>>
>> >> > > > On Feb 27, 6:29 am, pixelflinger <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > The problem in the code you pointed to can be improved by 
>> >> > > > > rounding the
>> >> > > > > result (add 0x80 before shifting by 8).
>>
>> >> > > > > result = S + D * (((256 - (A + (A>>7))) + 0x80) >> 8)
>>
>> >> > > > > What you're proposing is interesting, essentially:
>>
>> >> > > > > result = S + (D * (256 - A))>>8
>>
>> >> > > > > Basically, this has a bigger error, but it is biased on the 
>> >> > > > > "opaque"
>> >> > > > > side, so it never causes a pixel to become more transparent. It 
>> >> > > > > looks
>> >> > > > > like it works very well for the premultiplied alpha case above. 
>> >> > > > > I'll
>> >> > > > > put this on the list of stuff to investigate further :-)
>> >> > > > > Thanks for the feedback.
>>
>> >> > > > > Mathias
>>
>> >> > > > > On Feb 27, 1:56 am, Eric <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > > Correct, that is why I mentioned it cannot be used in all 
>> >> > > > > > cases. The
>> >> > > > > > fact is that for some PorterDuff modes (see the SrcOver example
>> >> > > > > > above ) the current implementation with the shift optimization
>> >> > > > > > produces incorrect results because fully opaque pixels (with 
>> >> > > > > > alpha
>> >> > > > > > 255) that should remain fully opaque turn into partially 
>> >> > > > > > transparent
>> >> > > > > > pixels (with alpha 254). It is only a very slight difference 
>> >> > > > > > but it
>> >> > > > > > can be avoided.
>>
>> >> > > > > > On Feb 27, 8:52 am, pixelflinger <[email protected]> 
>> >> > > > > > wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > > > Hello,
>>
>> >> > > > > > > If you compute the errors, that is:
>>
>> >> > > > > > > a*float(256/255) - (a + (a>>7))
>>
>> >> > > > > > > and
>>
>> >> > > > > > > a*float(256/255) - (a + 1)
>>
>> >> > > > > > > you'll see that the former is a better choice; the maximum 
>> >> > > > > > > error is
>> >> > > > > > > smaller (0.5 instead of 1.0)
>>
>> >> > > > > > > The later is also incorrect per the OpenGL blending 
>> >> > > > > > > specification
>> >> > > > > > > because it doesn't map "0" to "0" (you're lucky in that 
>> >> > > > > > > specific
>> >> > > > > > > example, but if you were to dither the result, it wouldn't 
>> >> > > > > > > work).
>>
>> >> > > > > > > Additionally, doing the actual computation in integer:
>>
>> >> > > > > > > (a * 256)/255
>>
>> >> > > > > > > will give you the same result than with the equation used in 
>> >> > > > > > > skia.
>>
>> >> > > > > > > Mathias
>>
>> >> > > > > > > On Feb 26, 11:04 am, Eric <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > When using some of the PorterDuff modes in the Android SDK 
>> >> > > > > > > > incorrect
>> >> > > > > > > > alpha values are produced. For example the following:
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > Bitmap bitmap = Bitmap.createBitmap(100, 100,
>> >> > > > > > > > Bitmap.Config.ARGB_8888);
>> >> > > > > > > > bitmap.eraseColor(0xff000000); // Black with alpha 255
>> >> > > > > > > > Canvas canvas = new Canvas(bitmap);
>> >> > > > > > > > canvas.drawColor(0x80000000, PorterDuff.Mode.SRC_OVER);  // 
>> >> > > > > > > > Black with
>> >> > > > > > > > alpha 128
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > results in 0xfe000000 so an alpha value of 254 instead of 
>> >> > > > > > > > 255
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > After some digging in the source code I traced it back to 
>> >> > > > > > > > incorrect
>> >> > > > > > > > use of SkAlpha255To256 defined in
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > platform/external/skia.git/include/core/SkColorPriv.h
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > 34 static inline unsigned SkAlpha255To256(U8CPU alpha) {
>> >> > > > > > > > 35     SkASSERT(SkToU8(alpha) == alpha);
>> >> > > > > > > > 36     return alpha + (alpha >> 7);
>> >> > > > > > > > 37 }
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > It is frequently used in the PorterDuff blending functions, 
>> >> > > > > > > > below is
>> >> > > > > > > > SRC_OVER from:
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > platform/external/skia.git/src/core/SkXfermode.cpp
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > 347 //  kSrcOver_Mode,  //!< [Sa + (1 - Sa)*Da, Sc + (1 - 
>> >> > > > > > > > Sa)*Dc]
>> >> > > > > > > > 348 static SkPMColor srcover_modeproc(SkPMColor src, 
>> >> > > > > > > > SkPMColor dst) {
>> >> > > > > > > > 349     return src + SkAlphaMulQ(dst, SkAlpha255To256(255 -
>> >> > > > > > > > SkGetPackedA32(src)));
>> >> > > > > > > > 350 }
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > Running the above numbers for alpha it produces 128 + (255 
>> >> > > > > > > > * 127) >> 8
>> >> > > > > > > > = 254. Doing it without the shift optimization returns 128 
>> >> > > > > > > > + (255 *
>> >> > > > > > > > 127) / 255 = 255.
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > Fro some of these functions (not all) it would be better to 
>> >> > > > > > > > use a
>> >> > > > > > > > SkAlpha255To256 defined as
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > static inline unsigned SkAlpha255To256(U8CPU alpha) {
>> >> > > > > > > >      SkASSERT(SkToU8(alpha) == alpha);
>> >> > > > > > > >      return alpha + 1;
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > }
>>
>> >> > > > > > > > which is not 100% accurate either but you can still use the 
>> >> > > > > > > > shift
>> >> > > > > > > > trick and it does produce correct result when alpha is 0 
>> >> > > > > > > > and when
>> >> > > > > > > > alpha is 255. Any thoughts?
>>
>>
> >
>

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"android-framework" group.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
[email protected]
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/android-framework?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---

Reply via email to