[Public WebGL] WEBGL_texture_from_depth_video extension proposal

Rob Manson [email protected]
Wed Nov 5 14:00:18 PST 2014

Hi Florian,

I'm one of the authors of the Media Capture Depth Stream Extensions spec.

Thanks for your feedback and suggestions. We'd definitely like to hear 
these sorts of comments and see if there are more generic and more 
useful ways we can make this set of extensions work.

Our initial advice was that a WebGL extension was the simplest and 
quickest way for us to get this feature shipping. Then with WebGL 2.0 we 
could move to using Red Integer or some simpler data structure that just 
maps directly to Uint16Array.

BTW: I don't think the proposal had been announced yet as we are still 
polishing off a few rough edges and it's not really a finished proposal 
quite yet.

We'd definitely like it if all WebGL implementers made this a standard 
part of their implementation...but in the mean time it really does seem 
like an extension is a good stop gap measure. Happy to hear robust 
debate about this though.

Also, if you'd like to expand upon your suggestion in point 3 then I 
think that could become the basis for a broader discussion.



On 6/11/14 8:11 AM, Florian Bösch wrote:
> I've seen a new extension pop  up in the proposals:
I'd like to take issue with that extension in 3 points.
 > 1) Personally I'd like extension proposals be announced on the
 > public ML. It keeps everybody in the loop. I can't speak for the WG
 > of course since I'm not a member, but it'd be nice.
 > 2) I'm not sure an extension is needed in this case, since basically
 > it just covers uploading a particular surface format to a texture,
 > with WebGL being largely oblivious of the underlying format. It
 > would appear to me to be an extension a bit like trying to add one to
 > make the browser do a YUV conversion of video to RGB, which it
 > already does as part of the course. I agree that the behavior of the
 > browser upon encountering a different video surface format for upload
 > to either WebGL or Canvas2D should be specified, but I'm not sure an
 > extension is the right place to do that.
 > Additionally, a separate WebGL extension would imply a vendor who
 > would implement WebGL, and the Media Capture Depth Stream
 > Extensions, would somehow not implement using that depth stream with
 > WebGL. This doesn't make much sense, since it's not a hardware
 > limitation, and so it'd probably be good if whichever vendor
 > implements WebGL and media capture depth stream would implement it
 > fully from the get-go.
 > 3) The style of how to support the upload isn't very friendly to
 > users because it requires manual conversion in the fragment shader.
 > I'd much rather see float/half-float texture formats being
 > satisfied, where the browser knows about the surface format of the
 > depth texture, and converts it (on GPU, without blocking operation)
 > to the specified floating point format for upload. This'd have the
 > advantage of offering users a transparent support for depth images,
 > regardless of their underlying format.

You are currently subscribed to [email protected]
To unsubscribe, send an email to [email protected] with
the following command in the body of your email:
unsubscribe public_webgl

More information about the public_webgl mailing list