I have a container with several graphics containing circles. I would like to only render this container's outline, without the graphics themselves.
I managed to draw the outlines using OutlineFilter, and I managed to make the container transparent using AlphaFilter, but not both at the same time, no matter in which order I added the filters.
That is technically not possible like you intend to do it. One shader (pixi.js filter) doesn't know about the previous shader, such as where the outline was painted or what is the original texture alpha.
Alternatively you can create a new filter with a new shader that achieves that effect. I'm basing this on the OutlineFilter:
varying vec2 vTextureCoord;
uniform sampler2D uSampler;
uniform vec2 thickness;
uniform vec4 outlineColor;
uniform vec4 filterClamp;
const float DOUBLE_PI = 3.14159265358979323846264 * 2.;
void main(void) {
vec4 ownColor = texture2D(uSampler, vTextureCoord);
vec4 curColor;
float maxAlpha = 0.;
vec2 displaced;
for (float angle = 0.; angle <= DOUBLE_PI; angle += 0.1) {
displaced.x = vTextureCoord.x + thickness.x * cos(angle);
displaced.y = vTextureCoord.y + thickness.y * sin(angle);
curColor = texture2D(uSampler, clamp(displaced, filterClamp.xy, filterClamp.zw));
maxAlpha = max(maxAlpha, curColor.a);
}
float resultAlpha = maxAlpha * step(ownColor.a, 0.0) > 0. ? 1. : 0.0;
gl_FragColor = vec4(outlineColor.rgb * resultAlpha, resultAlpha);
}
Example result as in the pixi-filters demos:
Related
I made a plane in THREEjs using Mesh, PlaneGeometry and ShaderMaterial. It's a very simple/basic form.
I applied a simple phormula to make the plain more steep. Now I'm trying to make the lower surface darker than the higher surface. Here is what I tried.
Vertex shader:
varying vec3 test;
void main(void) {
float amp = 2.5;
float z = amp * sin(position.x*0.2) * cos(position.y*0.5); //this makes the surface steeper
test = vec3(1, 1, -z); //this goes to fragment shader
//test = vec3(698.0, 400.0, -z); I have tried this. first coordenates here are to normalize the vector
gl_Position = projectionMatrix * modelViewMatrix * vec4(position.x, position.y, z, 1.0);
}
Fragment shader:
precision mediump float;
varying vec3 test;
void main(void) {
vec3 st = gl_FragCoord.xyz/test;
gl_FragColor = vec4(st.xyz, 1.0);
}
Result:
This result is not desirable, since the contrast between top and down is too aggressive and I'd like the lower surface less white. What do I have to change to accomplish this?
If you want to create a brightness based on the height of the waves, then you'll need to only use the test.z value, since test.xy aren't really doing anything. The problem is that brightness needs a value between [0, 1] and due to the amplitude multiplication, you're getting a value between [-2.5, 2.5] range.
precision mediump float;
varying vec3 test;
void main(void) {
float amp = 2.5;
// Extract brightness from test.z
float brightness = test.z;
// Convert brightness from [-2.5, 2.5] to [0.0, 1.0] range
brightness = (brightness / amp) * 0.5 + 0.5;
vec3 yellow = vec3(1.0, 1.0, 0.0);
// Multiply final color by brigthness (0 brightness = black)
vec3 st = yellow * brightness;
gl_FragColor = vec4(st.xyz, 1.0);
}
That should give you a smoother transition from full yellow to black.
As an aside, to help me visualize the values I'm getting from GLSL functions, I like to use the Graphtoy tool. I recommend you give it a shot to help you write shaders!
I'm trying to do an edge shader but I have places where the edges are not shown at all. The behaviour is shown in the following image.
As you see the way I look at the model, doesn't show edges, but the other places are very sharp and looks good.
here is my attempt
uniform mat4 projection_matrix;
varying vec3 normFrag;
void main()
{
vec4 pos_transformed = modelViewProjectionMatrix * vertex;
vec3 normalizedNormal = normalize(normal);
vec3 norm = mat3(normalMatrix)* normalizedNormal ;
norm.y *=projection_matrix[2][3];
norm.x *= projection_matrix[3][2];
//norm *=-1.0;
norm = normalize(norm);
pos_transformed.xy -= pos_transformed.z*norm.xy*0.005;
gl_Position = vec4(pos_transformed);
}
I'm trying to get a screen position of a vertex in pixels inside a vertex shader,
I saw some others posts here but I can't find answer that works for me.
this is what I've got in my vertex Shader:
#version 400
layout (location = 0) in vec3 inPosition;
uniform mat4 MVP; // modelViewProjection
uniform vec2 window;
void main()
{
// vertex in screen space
vec2 fake_frag_coord = (MVP * vec4(inPosition,1.0)).xy;
float X = (fake_frag_coord.x*window.x/2.0) + window.x;
float Y = (fake_frag_coord.y*window.y/2.0) + window.y;
}
It's not working very well and I know it's a strange think to do inside a vertex shader but I want to multiply my vertex offset by a 2d texture, so I need to find the pixel the vertex is on top to be able to multiply it by the pixel of the texture.
thanks!
Luiz
I have corrected your vertex shader with proper terms, and shown you the exact sequence of transformations that actually happens when GL computes gl_FragCoord (window-space).
#version 400
layout (location = 0) in vec4 inPosition; // Always use vec4, it makes life easier!
uniform mat4 MVP; // modelViewProjection
uniform vec2 window;
void main()
{
// Vertex in clip-space
vec4 fake_frag_coord = (MVP * inPosition); // Range: [-w,w]^4
// Vertex in NDC-space
fake_frag_coord.xyz /= fake_frag_coord.w; // Rescale: [-1,1]^3
fake_frag_coord.w = 1.0 / fake_frag_coord.w; // Invert W
// Vertex in window-space
fake_frag_coord.xyz *= vec3 (0.5) + vec3 (0.5); // Rescale: [0,1]^3
fake_frag_coord.xy *= window; // Scale and Bias for Viewport
// Assume depth range: [0,1] --> No need to adjust fake_frag_coord.z
[...]
}
Texture coordinates and window-space coordinates are very different things, however. Generally you need normalized coordinates for traditional texture fetches, that means you want the coordinates in the range [0,1].
Luckily window-space and texture-space share the same origin convention (0,0) = bottom-left, so you can cut out the line below to get the appropriate texture coordinates:
fake_frag_coord.xy *= window; // Scale and Bias for Viewport
I think Andon M. Coleman's answer is fine. However, I like to point out a more general issue with the approach discussed in the question: there might be no meaningful screen space position for a vertex at all.
The vertex might lie utside the viewing frustum. This will not be a a problem if the vertices you draw are guaranteed to lie in the frustum, or if you are drawing only points.
But it will fail if you have primitives intersecting the near plane. You might think that in such a case, you just get some coordinates which are outside [-1,1] in NDC space, and if you just use them to assign some output value for the vertex, the clipping state will make it right. But that assumption is wrong. You might values which are pefectly in [-1,1] in NDC space even for vertices which are outside the frustum, and it it will appear as if the vertices lie in front of the camera for all vertices wich actually lie behind the camera. And no subsequent clipping stage is able to fix this.
The only way to get this right would be to actually carry out the clipping operation, before doing the divide by w. And this is something you don't want to do in a vertex shader.
If you want to get this working on the js part of things, this is how I adapted Andon M. Coleman's reply:
var winW = window.innerWidth;
var winH = window.innerHeight;
camera.updateProjectionMatrix();
// Not sure about the order of these! I was using orthographic camera so it didn't matter but double check the order if it doesn't work!
var MVP = camera.projectionMatrix.multiply(camera.matrixWorldInverse);
// position to vertex clip-space
var fake_frag_coord = position.applyMatrix4(MVP); // Range: [-w,w]^4
// vertex to NDC-space
fake_frag_coord.x = fake_frag_coord.x / fake_frag_coord.w; // Rescale: [-1,1]^3
fake_frag_coord.y = fake_frag_coord.y / fake_frag_coord.w; // Rescale: [-1,1]^3
fake_frag_coord.z = fake_frag_coord.z / fake_frag_coord.w; // Rescale: [-1,1]^3
fake_frag_coord.w = 1.0 / fake_frag_coord.w; // Invert W
// Vertex in window-space
fake_frag_coord.x = fake_frag_coord.x * 0.5;
fake_frag_coord.y = fake_frag_coord.y * 0.5;
fake_frag_coord.z = fake_frag_coord.z * 0.5;
fake_frag_coord.x = fake_frag_coord.x + 0.5;
fake_frag_coord.y = fake_frag_coord.y + 0.5;
fake_frag_coord.z = fake_frag_coord.z + 0.5;
// Scale and Bias for Viewport (We want the window coordinates, so no need for this)
fake_frag_coord.x = fake_frag_coord.x / winW;
fake_frag_coord.y = fake_frag_coord.y / winH;
Lately I implemented the FXAA algorithm into my OpenGL application. I haven't understand this algorithm completely by now but I know that it uses contrast data of the final image to selectively apply blurring. As a post processing effect that makes sense. B since I use deferred shading in my application I already have a depth texture of the scene. Using that it might be much easier and more precise to find edges for applying blur there.
So is there a known antialiasing algorithm using the depth texture instead of the final image to find the edges? By fakes I mean an antialiasing algorithm based on a pixel basis instead of a vertex basis.
After some research I found out that my idea is widely used already in deferred renderers. I decided to post this answer because I came up with my own implementation which I want to share with the community.
Based on the gradient changes of the depth and the angle changes of the normals, there is blurring applied to the pixel.
// GLSL fragment shader
#version 330
in vec2 coord;
out vec4 image;
uniform sampler2D image_tex;
uniform sampler2D position_tex;
uniform sampler2D normal_tex;
uniform vec2 frameBufSize;
void depth(out float value, in vec2 offset)
{
value = texture2D(position_tex, coord + offset / frameBufSize).z / 1000.0f;
}
void normal(out vec3 value, in vec2 offset)
{
value = texture2D(normal_tex, coord + offset / frameBufSize).xyz;
}
void main()
{
// depth
float dc, dn, ds, de, dw;
depth(dc, vec2( 0, 0));
depth(dn, vec2( 0, +1));
depth(ds, vec2( 0, -1));
depth(de, vec2(+1, 0));
depth(dw, vec2(-1, 0));
float dvertical = abs(dc - ((dn + ds) / 2));
float dhorizontal = abs(dc - ((de + dw) / 2));
float damount = 1000 * (dvertical + dhorizontal);
// normals
vec3 nc, nn, ns, ne, nw;
normal(nc, vec2( 0, 0));
normal(nn, vec2( 0, +1));
normal(ns, vec2( 0, -1));
normal(ne, vec2(+1, 0));
normal(nw, vec2(-1, 0));
float nvertical = dot(vec3(1), abs(nc - ((nn + ns) / 2.0)));
float nhorizontal = dot(vec3(1), abs(nc - ((ne + nw) / 2.0)));
float namount = 50 * (nvertical + nhorizontal);
// blur
const int radius = 1;
vec3 blur = vec3(0);
int n = 0;
for(float u = -radius; u <= +radius; ++u)
for(float v = -radius; v <= +radius; ++v)
{
blur += texture2D(image_tex, coord + vec2(u, v) / frameBufSize).rgb;
n++;
}
blur /= n;
// result
float amount = mix(damount, namount, 0.5);
vec3 color = texture2D(image_tex, coord).rgb;
image = vec4(mix(color, blur, min(amount, 0.75)), 1.0);
}
For comparison, this is the scene without any anti-aliasing.
This is the result with anti-aliasing applied.
You may need to view the images at their full resolution to judge the effect. In my view the result is adequate for the simple implementation. The best thing is that there are nearly no jagged artifacts when the camera moves.
How do you calculate the angle between two normals in glsl? I am trying to add the fresnel effect to the outer edges of an object (combining that effect with phong shading), and I think that the angle is the only thing I am missing.
Fragment Shader:
varying vec3 N;
varying vec3 v;
void main(void) {
v = vec3(gl_ModelViewMatrix * gl_Vertex);
N = normalize(gl_NormalMatrix * gl_Normal);
gl_Position = gl_ModelViewProjectionMatrix * gl_Vertex;
}
Vertex Shader:
varying vec3 N;
varying vec3 v;
void main(void) {
vec3 L = normalize(gl_LightSource[0].position.xyz - v);
vec3 E = normalize(-v);
vec3 R = normalize(-reflect(L,N));
vec4 Iamb = gl_FrontLightProduct[0].ambient
vec4 Idiff = gl_FrontLightProduct[0].diffuse * max(dot(N,L), 0.0);
vec4 Ispec = gl_FrontLightProduct[0].specular * pow(max(dot(R,E),0.0), gl_FrontMaterial.shininess);
vec4 Itot = gl_FrontLightModelProduct.sceneColor + Iamb + Idiff + Ispec;
vec3 A = //calculate the angle between the lighting direction and the normal//
float F = 0.33 + 0.67*(1-cos(A))*(1-cos(A))*(1-cos(A))*(1-cos(A))*(1-cos(A));
vec4 white = {1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0};
gl_FragColor = F*white + (1.0-F)*Itot;
}
varying vec3
dot product between two vectors will return the cosine of the angle (in GLSL it's dot(a,b)). Taking arc-cosine of that will return angle in radians (in GLSL it's acos(x)).
Dot product is very cheap, arc-cosine is quite expensive.
However, Fresnel effect does not really need the angle. Just having dot result between the vectors is enough. There are many approximations for the Fresnel effect, one of the cheapest is just using the dot directly. Or squaring it (x*x), or raising to some other power.
In your shader above, it looks like you just want to raise dot to 5th power. Something like:
float oneMinusDot = 1.0 - dot(L, N);
float F = pow(oneMinusDot, 5.0);
From the dot product of two vectors you can get the cosine of the angle between them
cos A = DotProduct(v1, v2) / (Length(v1) * Length(v2))
Using this, you don't need to calculate the cosine when calculating F. Since your vectors are unit vectors, e.g., have length one, you can even avoid the division.