Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Add "merge" blend mode #6936
Add "merge" blend mode #6936
Changes from 19 commits
71e511e
3490baf
9710973
3f871db
ce1fff2
c22b91c
4821ce5
11020f5
1f5b217
0dbf947
6b4da6a
820bd9d
2ca4a81
f9cdd4d
ebadcb8
134acf8
30b268f
f9fe4b9
777c923
fd9a454
a23718e
9ff0aa4
56e971a
96cb1b2
c4df6c2
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
There are no files selected for viewing
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Is it true that this only affects color layers? Segmentation layers are handled differently?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Right now, that's exactly the case. The segmentation layer color pattern is added on top of the color value computed for the color layers.
Imo including the segmentation layer in that blending calculation might make things more complicated because in case a person has a color layer with opacity 100%, this would mean that this person could not see the segmentation. As this is currently the case (one can always see the segmentation if there is one), this might be confusing. Additionally, including the segmentation layer in the blending might require more configuration changes from a user for a typical use case for the "cover" blend mode: First change the blend mode to cover, then activate / deactivate the layer the user wants to see and finally tweak the opacities for the color layers so that the segmentation is still visible in the desired way the user wants.
Leaving the segmentation layer out of the blend mode calculation potentially removes the last step of the steps described above.
But I am open for discussion on this. I'll try to schedule a small meeting for this :)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Update: We already discussed a solution:
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
the semantics of this var is a simple boolean, right? in that case, maybe define a struct with a vec4 and a bool?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh wow, I never knew that glsl has structs 🤯. Thanks for the input 🙏
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
is this still true?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
oh sorry, forgot to remove this comment. This is no longer true thanks to the changes in
texture_bucket_manager.ts
.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@MichaelBuessemeyer can you give this entire code block a bit of love? variable naming could be more consistent and I'd also hope that the code for the different blend mode could be extracted into helper functions?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
That is a very good suggestion: I added a new glsl module called blending and extracted the methods there. I also renamed all variable to snail case and all methods & struct names to camelCase. Sadly, the name is very inconsistent in the shaders and thus I couldn't find a clear pattern what naming scheme / style to use. I also discussed this shortly with daniel (the naming style)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I think, I'd simply rename
color_value
tolayer_value
and then don't define a new variable (as it's not necessary to have both at the same time, I think).There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The problem is that the calculates done with
color_value
are only for the rgb channels and not for the alpha channel. But the blending needs a color with an alpha channel. Thus the calculations on the color are done withvec3 color_value
and from that a fullvec4 layer_color
is calculated and then used for the blending calculation.If I would remove the
layer_color
and rename color_value to layer_value, I would still have to construct avec4
combining thecolor_value
with the alpha channel in the blending methods (now extracted into own methods). So the construction of an additionalvec4
cannot be avoided imo.There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
@daniel-wer I diverged from the original approach with the if statement to guard against the division by zero. Instead I used a neat tick that was already used a few code lines above where a simple
1.0
is added to the potentially dangerous divisor in case the divisor (mixed_alpha
) is equal to zero.I simply saw how it was handled in the code lines above and think that it is even easier to ready than the if expression.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Oh, sadly I cannot comment the lines I mean in the comment above. The trick is already applied in the lines 218 - 228.