[Public WebGL] WEBGL_texture_from_depth_video extension proposal

Daniel Koch [email protected]
Tue Nov 11 14:55:05 PST 2014

"If a non-shadow texture call is made to a
sampler that represents a depth texture with depth comparisons turned
on, then results are undefined."

I believe this just means that if you want the non-shadow comparison for a
depth texture (i.e. the raw values) you just have to turn off the depth

ES 3.0 spec section 3.8.15 says: "If the currently bound texture¹s base
internal format is DEPTH_COMPONENT or DEPTH_STENCIL, then
texture unit as described below. Otherwise, the texture unit operates in
the normal manner and texture comparison is bypassed."


On 2014-11-11 10:38 PM, "Kenneth Russell" <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 8:16 PM, Jeff Gilbert <[email protected]>
>> Are there a large number of devices which support 16-bit depth sensing
>>but do not support a depth_texture equivalent extension? depth_texture
>>has overwhelming support everywhere but older Android. Any GLES3 device
>>would have it, though.
>Uploading a depth camera's output to an OpenGL depth texture won't
>work. The only thing an OpenGL depth texture can be used for is a
>depth comparison with other geometry in the scene. The GLSL ES 3.00.4
>spec section 8.8 says "If a non-shadow texture call is made to a
>sampler that represents a depth texture with depth comparisons turned
>on, then results are undefined." The application will always have to
>perform some post-processing of the depth camera's output, so it has
>to be uploaded into a non-depth texture.
>On Mon, Nov 10, 2014 at 10:59 PM, Florian Bösch <[email protected]> wrote:
>> For these reasons, what's likely going to happen with these depth
>>values in
>> practical use, is this:
>> upload the depth to 5-6-5
>> decode the depth to some interpolatable format
>> use the depth data
>> It'd a rare usecase indeed that somebody would want to directly work
>> the data as-is.
>I think that's overstating the case. Sampling with NEAREST filtering
>will probably work fine for a significant class of applications.
>The application can render the 5_6_5 texture into an FBO with another
>format if it wants to do a GPU-GPU conversion. I think it is not a
>good idea to put this code into the browser because:
> - The browser will be responsible for a plethora of format conversions
> - All of these conversions will have to be tested
> - Any bugs in them will have to be worked around by the application
> - They can be implemented with the same efficiency, portably, by the
>application in JavaScript, using WebGL
>On Tue, Nov 11, 2014 at 5:21 AM, Mark Callow <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Capturing depth video into a texture has basically the same needs as
>>capturing regular video. So this extension and WEBGL_dynamic_texture
>>should be developed together. The synchronisation features will be
>>needed by both types of data.
>> The Media Capture Stream must be something fairly recent as I don¹t
>>recall seeing it when I was writing WDT but it clearly should be one of
>>the sources that can be used with dynamic textures.
>Let's certainly move WEBGL_dynamic_texture forward. These two
>extensions don't need to gate each other.
>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

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