[Public WebGL] WEBGL_texture_from_depth_video extension proposal

Ben Adams [email protected]
Mon Nov 10 21:34:37 PST 2014


Would 5-6-5 cause interpolation issues? Is it and rgb or float texture?

On 10 November 2014 20:33, Florian Bösch <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 8:43 PM, Kenneth Russell <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> It'll only be efficient to upload depth videos to WebGL textures using
>> the internal format which avoids converting the depth values during
>> the upload process. That's why UNSIGNED_SHORT_5_6_5 was chosen as the
>> single supported format for uploading this content to WebGL 1.0. It's
>> not desirable for either the browser implementer or the web developer
>> to support uploading depth videos to lots of random texture formats if
>> they won't be efficient. The Media Capture group should comment on
>> what formats depth cameras tend to output, and are likely to output in
>> the future.
>>
>
> I think it's demonstratable that conversion between formats is reasonably
> efficient if it can be done on-GPU, which is something that's just about
> getting done for <video> now.
>
> The reason I'm not in favor of fixing this to ushort 5-6-5 is because it
> is quite often the case that an app developer would want something else to
> use. So for instance because you cannot interpolate 5-6-5 that's been
> bastardized to hold a single depth value, you'd then proceed to write your
> own framebuffer to decode it to say, byte, int, float or what have you.
> Likewise, 5-6-5 smells smack of an internal format, that's liable to change
> with whoever's putting out the next depth capture device, and so, latest by
> that point, you'll be converting something like say, a floating point depth
> TO 5-6-5, which would be more than a little ironic.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://khronos.org/pipermail/public_webgl_khronos.org/attachments/20141111/60d12094/attachment.html>


More information about the public_webgl mailing list