How can I manually set where the pixel ends up in the texture in PixelShaderFunction HLSL? Ideally I want the GPU to follow the next logic:
Write pixels one by one in no particular order. Meaning whenever first pixel comes out, write it into the top left corner of the texture. Write second one to the right of the first one and the third one to the right of the first one, and so on.
When you reach the end of the line - go to the next line.
When you reach the end of the texture - drop all the remaining pixels.
Thanks.
I feel like I can do it by manually computing the needed position for my pixel at the vertex shader level. If I could understand better how the pixel positioning works I might be able to pull it out. If I have a render target 2000*4. How can I ensure at the vertex shader level that my pixel will end up in the second row?
What if my RenderTarget is a texture with height = 1 can I not bother computing the positions? Or do I risk loosing data via pixel merging? I am planning to draw nothing but long lines through the screen, one by one and clear the target in between.
Basically you can't do what you're describing.
After the vertex shader, the GPU has a collection of triangles to draw. It fills them, pixel-by-pixel, on the render target (possibly the backbuffer). As part of this filling process - to determine the colour of each pixel - your pixel shader gets called (like a function) for that specific pixel being filled. There is no capacity at this point for "moving" the output pixel.
What you can do is modulate the texture coordinate parameter to tex2D (MSDN) when sampling from a texture in your pixel shader. You can apply whatever functions make sense to achieve your desired result.
Or, if the transform is simple, you can simply set the texture coordinates appropriately either in the vertex data, or using a vertex shader.
Related
Image morphing is mostly a graphic design SFX to adapt one picture into another one using some points decided by the artist, who has to match the eyes some key zones on one portrait with another, and then some kinds of algorithms adapt the entire picture to change from one to another.
I would like to do something a bit similar with a shader, which can load any 2 graphics and automatically choose zones of the most similar colors in the same kinds of zone of the picture and automatically morph two pictures in real time processing. Perhaps a shader based version would be logically alot faster at the task? except I don't even understand how it works at all.
If you know, Please don't worry about a complete reply about the process, it would be great if you have save vague background concepts and keywords, for how to attempt a 2d texture morph in a graphics shader.
There are more morphing methods out there the one you are describing is based on geometry.
morph by interpolation
you have 2 data sets with similar properties (for example 2 images are both 2D) and interpolate between them by some parameter. In case of 2D images you can use linear interpolation if both images are the same resolution or trilinear interpolation if not.
So you just pick corresponding pixels from each images and interpolate the actual color for some parameter t=<0,1>. for the same resolution something like this:
for (y=0;y<img1.height;y++)
for (x=0;x<img1.width;x++)
img.pixel[x][y]=(1.0-t)*img1.pixel[x][y] + t*img2.pixel[x][y];
where img1,img2 are input images and img is the ouptput. Beware the t is float so you need to overtype to avoid integer rounding problems or use scale t=<0,256> and correct the result by bit shift right by 8 bits or by /256 For different sizes you need to bilinear-ly interpolate the corresponding (x,y) position in both of the source images first.
All This can be done very easily in fragment shader. Just bind the img1,img2 to texture units 0,1 pick the texel from them interpolate and output the final color. The bilinear coordinate interpolation is done automatically by GLSL because texture coordinates are normalized to <0,1> no matter the resolution. In Vertex you just pass the texture and vertex coordinates. And in main program side you just draw single Quad covering the final image output...
morph by geometry
You have 2 polygons (or matching points) and interpolate their positions between the 2. For example something like this: Morph a cube to coil. This is suited for vector graphics. you just need to have points corespondency and then the interpolation is similar to #1.
for (i=0;i<points;i++)
{
p(i).x=(1.0-t)*p1.x + t*p2.x
p(i).y=(1.0-t)*p1.y + t*p2.y
}
where p1(i),p2(i) is i-th point from each input geometry set and p(i) is point from the final result...
To enhance visual appearance the linear interpolation is exchanged with specific trajectory (like BEZIER curves) so the morph look more cool. For example see
Path generation for non-intersecting disc movement on a plane
To acomplish this you need to use geometry shader (or maybe even tesselation shader). you would need to pass both polygons as single primitive, then geometry shader should interpolate the actual polygon and pass it to vertex shader.
morph by particle swarms
In this case you find corresponding pixels in source images by matching colors. Then handle each pixel as particle and create its path from position in img1 to img2 with parameter t. It i s the same as #2 but instead polygon areas you got just points. The particle has its color,position you interpolate both ... because there is very slim chance you will get exact color matches and the count ... (histograms would be the same) which is in-probable.
hybrid morphing
It is any combination of #1,#2,#3
I am sure there is more methods for morphing these are just the ones I know of. Also the morphing can be done not only in spatial domain...
I am trying my hand at writing a 3d graphics engine, but I am having some trouble with drawing the shapes in the correct order.
When I translate the points of triangles into window space, i.e. the 2-dimensional space that directly correlates to position on the screen, in addition to an x and y position of each point, I also assign them a depth variable that stores how far away from the viewer that point was in 3d space.
At the moment, the only shapes I am rendering are triangles. My current render order algorithm sorts the triangles by the average depth of their 3 points. I knew when I started it that it would not be perfect, but I wanted a placeholder for testing.
For testing purposes, I constructed a square box with an open top, each side being a different color and made from 2 triangles, as shown below:
As you can see from the image above, the algorithm I am using works most of the time. However, at certain angles and positions, the triangles will be rendered in the wrong order, as show below:
As you can see, one of the cyan triangles on the bottom of the box is being drawn before one of the yellow triangles on the side. Clearly, sorting the triangles by the average depth of their points is not satisfactory.
Is there a better method of ordering shapes so that they are rendered in the correct order?
The standard method to draw 3D in correct depth order is to use a Z-buffer.
Basically, the idea is that for each pixel you set in the color buffer, you also set it's interpolated depth in the z (depth..) buffer. Whenever you're about to paint the next pixel, you first check that z-buffer to validate the new pixel if in front of the already painted pixel.
On top of that you can add various sorts of optimizations, such as sorting triangles in order to minimize the number of times you actually paint the color buffer.
On the other hand, it's sometimes required to do the exact opposite in order to properly handle transparency or other "advanced" effects.
Background
Using gluTess to build a triangle list in Direct3D9 from a GDI+ DrawString(..) path:
A pixel shader (v3.0) is then used to fill in the shape. When painting with opaque values, everything looks fine:
The problem
At certain font sizes, if the color has an alpha component (ie Argb #55FFFFFF) we begin to see these nasty tessellation artifacts where triangles may overlap ever so slightly:
At larger font sizes the problem is sometimes not present:
Using Intel's excellent GPA Frame Analyzer Pixel History tool, we can see in areas where the artifacts occur, the pixel has been "touched" 3 times from the single Erg.
I'm trying to figure out how I can stop my pixel shader from touching the same pixel more than once.
Other solutions relating to overdraw prevention seem to be all about zbuffer strategies, however this problem is more to do with painting of a single 2D triangle list within a single pixel shader pass.
I'm at a bit of a loss trying to come up with a solution on this one. I was hoping that HLSL might have some sort of "touch each pixel only once" flag, but I've been unable to find anything like that. The closest I've found was to set the BLENDOP to MAX instead of ADD. But the output is not correct when blending over other colors in the scene.
I also have SRCBLEND = ONE, DSTBLEND = INVSRCALPHA. The only combination of flags which produce correct output (albeit with overdraw artifacts.)
I have played with SEPARATEALPHABLENDENABLE in the GPA frame analyzer, which sounded like almost exactly what I need here -- set blending to MAX but only on the "alpha" channel, however from what I can determine, that setting (and corresponding BLENDOPALPHA) affects nothing at all.
One final thing I thought of was to bake text as opaque onto a texture, and then repaint that texture into the scene with the appropriate alpha value applied, however this doesn't actually work in this project because I also support gradient brushes, where stop values may contain alpha, meaning either the artifacts would still be seen, or the final output just plain wrong if we stripped the alpha away from the stop values prior to baking to a texture. Also the whole endeavor would be hideously expensive.
Any hints or pointers would be appreciated. Thanks for reading.
The problem you're seeing shouldn't happen.
If two of your triangles are overlapping it's because you've placed the vertices in such a way that when the adjacent triangles are drawn, they overlap. What's probably happening is that these two adjacent triangles share two vertices, but each triangle has its own copy of each vertex that's been calculated to be in a very, very slightly different position.
The solution to the problem isn't to try and make the pixel shader touch the pixel only once it's to use an index buffer (if you aren't already) and have the shared vertices between each triangle actually share the same vertex and not use one that's ever-so-slightly not in the same place as the one used by the adjacent triangle.
If you aren't in control of the tessellation algorithm being used you may have to run a pass over the vertex buffer after its been generated to detect and merge vertices that are within some very small tolerance of one another. Even without an index buffer, a naive solution would be this:
For each vertex in the vertex buffer, compare its position to every other vertex in the rest of the vertex buffer.
If two vertices are within some small tolerance of another, replace the second vertex's position with the position of the one you are comparing it against.
This should have the effect of pairing up the positions of two vertices if they are close enough that you deem them to be the same.
You now shouldn't have any problem with overlapping triangles. In everyday rendering two triangles share edges with each other all the time and you won't ever get the effect where they appear to every-so-slightly overlap. The hardware guarantees that a sample point is either on one side of the line or the other, but never both at the same time, no matter how close the point is to the line (even if it's mathematically on the line, it still fails on one side or the other).
I'm learning XNA by doing and, as the title states, I'm trying to see if there's a way to fill a 2D area that is defined by a collection of vertices on a plane. I want to fill with a color, not a file-based texture.
For an example, take a rounded rectangle whose vertices are defined by four quarter-circle triangle fans. The vertices are defined by building a collection of triangles, but the triangles may not be adjacent.
Additionally, I would like to fill it with more than a single color -- i.e. divide the bound area into four vertical bands and have each a different color. You don't have to provide me the code, pointing me towards resources will help a great deal. I can be handy with Google (which I did try first, but have failed miserably).
This is as much an exploration into "what's appropriate for XNA" as it is the implementation of it. Being pretty new to XNA, I'm wanting to also learn what should and shouldn't be done on top of what can and can't be done.
Not too much but here's a start:
The color fill is accomplished by using a shader. Reimer's XNA Tutorials on pixel shaders is a great resource on the topic.
You need to calculate the geometry and build up vertex buffers to hold it. Note that all vector geometry in XNA is in 3D, but using a camera fixed to a plane will simulate 2D.
To add different colors to different triangles you basically need to group geometry into separate vertex buffers. Then, using a shader with a color parameter, for each buffer,
set the appropriate color before passing the buffer to the graphics device. Alternatively, you can use a vertex format containing color information, which basically let you assign a color to each vertex.
I'm looking for a way to programmatically recreate the following effect:
Give an input image:
input http://www.shiny.co.il/shooshx/ConeCarv/q_input.png
I want to iteratively apply the "stroke" effect.
The first step looks like this:
step 1 http://www.shiny.co.il/shooshx/ConeCarv/q_step1.png
The second step like this:
alt text http://www.shiny.co.il/shooshx/ConeCarv/q_step2.png
And so on.
I assume this will involves some kind of edge detection and then tracing the edge somehow.
Is there a known algorithm to do this in an efficient and robust way?
Basically, a custom algorithm would be, according to this thread:
Take the 3x3 neighborhood around a pixel, threshold the alpha channel, and then see if any of the 8 pixels around the pixel has a different alpha value from it. If so paint a
circle of a given radius with center at the pixel. To do inside/outside, modulate by the thresholded alpha channel (negate to do the other side). You'll have to threshold a larger neighborhood if the circle radius is larger than a pixel (which it probably is).
This is implemented using gray-scale morphological operations. This is also the same technique used to expand/contract selections. Basically, to stroke the center of a selection (or an alpha channel), what one would do is to first make two separate copies of the selection. The first selection would be expanded by the radius of the stroke, whereas the second would be contracted. The opacity of the stroke would then be obtained by subtracting the second selection from the first.
In order to do inside and outside strokes you would contract/expand by twice the radius and subtract the parts that intersect with the original selection.
It should be noted that the most general morphological algorithm requires O(m*n) operations, where m is the number of pixels of the image and n is the number of elements in the "structuring element". However, for certain special cases, this can be optimized to O(m) operations (e.g. if the structuring element is a rectangle or a diamond).