Re: 32-bit images in gimp - Alpha handling wrong?

2000-07-19 Thread David Hodson

Thanks to everyone for the responses. A few comments:


Jay Cox wrote:
 
 David Hodson wrote:
  the opinion of (for example) Jim Blinn, and Thomas Porter and Tom Duff.
 
 All three of whom come from a 3d rendered graphics background.

As do I.

 For compositing and image warping pre multiplied alpha is great.  for
 color correction pre-multiplied alpha just gets in the way.

Agreed. I'm kind of interested in compositing and image warping, though,
and I'd like to see Gimp as widely useful as it can be. When I find
something that it can't do, I try to fix it, subject to the prevailing
design philosophies.


Nick Lamb wrote:

 I'm not aware of any other common interchange format which supports the
 pre-multiplied alpha representation in storage.

I suspect many image formats don't actually specify how rgba data is
defined, though it's not something I've looked at for a while.

 sigh No the program which produced your example PNG image is broken.

That would be Gimp  :-)
The original image was loaded from TGA and directly saved to PNG.
Since Gimp didn't know that the targa was pre-multiplied, it left
it alone.


"Garry R. Osgood" wrote:
 
 [...] How would the unerase
 tool deal with full transparent premultiplied alpha [A*R = A*G= A*B = A = 0]?

This comes back to the distinction I was trying to make between masks
and alpha. Gimp uses (what I refer to as) masks (not alpha) to combine
layers. An rgba image has nothing to unerase where alpha = 0 - the image
doesn't exist there. An rgba layer in Gimp would have a separate mask
channel added, and unerase would still work where the layer had been
erased.

 Premultiplication buys its efficiency
 by removing information content from the layer.

It's arguable that the information isn't there to start with. A pixel
with an alpha value of 0.5 will only contribute to half the colour of
the pixel, so it only needs half the colour information.


-- 
David Hodson  --  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  --  this night wounds time



Re: 32-bit images in gimp - Alpha handling wrong?

2000-07-18 Thread David Hodson

Nick Lamb wrote:
 
 On Sun, Jul 16, 2000 at 05:37:56PM +1000, David Hodson wrote:
  OK, this has been bugging me for some time. I'm convinced that Gimp's
  alpha handling is wrong, in more than a few places.
 
 OK, but please provide some concrete examples...

  To start with, there should be a clear distinction between alpha, which
  is a transparency channel in an image and should always scale the pixel
  colour values; and masks, which serve to select areas of an existing
  image. (Yes, I know not all rgba images are pre-multiplied. They should
  be.)
 
 Can you justify that (all images should be pre-multiplied)?
 Or is this just your unsupported opinion?

Well, that was attempted editorial humour to some extent, but it's also
the opinion of (for example) Jim Blinn, and Thomas Porter and Tom Duff.
I'd hardly call it unsupported.

  At the moment, as far as I can tell, the Gimp cannot handle
  pre-multiplied rgba images.
 
 Gimp has no support for pre-multiplied alpha,

Well, there's my answer. No support.

 and I don't see any reason
 to change this because it's just a hack.

A hack? I thought it was a mathematically elegant representation of
an image layer, which is why I see a reason to support it. I'm trying
to find out if anyone else agrees, or if I'm missing something that's
already there, or there's something specific about Gimp and the way
it's used that makes it unnecessary or not useful.

And even if you consider it a hack, don't people use pre-mult alpha?
Am I the first one to notice this and complain?

 The Gimp TIFF loader tries its
 best to convert pre-multiplied alpha images, but loading TIFFs is an
 unending struggle. The format should be put out of its misery ASAP (but
 see all previous Gimp discussions on TIFF for reasons why it stills
 stalks the earth).

I have no love at all for the TIFF format. (I was present at the birth
of
a similarly over-extended format. I should have complained more loudly.)
But that's irrelevant - or at least orthogonal - to the use of pre-mult
alpha.

 [...] Maybe you could send me some sample images off-list and I
 will look at them.

I've placed a page at:

www.ozemail.com.au/~hodsond/alpha.html

Images are just inline PNGs, just grab 'em as they appear; but it's not
really necessary, if you say that Gimp doesn't handle pre-mult alpha,
then that explains the results.


  At the same time, much of the code for handling alpha data seems to
  unscale and rescale the colour channels. [...]

OK, just had a look at the transform code and realised what it does -
the
"unscale and scale" is actually converting the non-premultiplied alpha
to
pre-multiplied alpha to do the transform! Hmmm...


Do users have problems with pre- and non-mult alpha?


-- 
David Hodson  --  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  --  this night wounds time



Re: 32-bit images in gimp - Alpha handling wrong?

2000-07-18 Thread Marc Lehmann

On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 12:53:31AM +1000, David Hodson [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
 A hack? I thought it was a mathematically elegant representation of
 an image layer, which is why I see a reason to support it. I'm trying

AFAICS premultiplied alpha is a speed hakc and nothing more, for cases where
sacrificing precision for speed makes sense.

 And even if you consider it a hack, don't people use pre-mult alpha?

Gimp tries to convert pre-multiplied alpha back to normal alpha, as Nick
said, so it is supported (or should be). This really sounds like a load
(and maybe save) issue (most image formats do not support pre-multiplied
alpha).

Can you state any reason why premultiplied alpha should be directly
supported as data representation?

-- 
  -==- |
  ==-- _   |
  ---==---(_)__  __   __   Marc Lehmann  +--
  --==---/ / _ \/ // /\ \/ /   [EMAIL PROTECTED] |e|
  -=/_/_//_/\_,_/ /_/\_\   XX11-RIPE --+
The choice of a GNU generation   |
 |



Re: 32-bit images in gimp - Alpha handling wrong?

2000-07-18 Thread Guillermo S. Romero / Familia Romero

It depends on what you are doing weather pre multiplied alpha is useful
or not.  For compositing and image warping pre multiplied alpha is great.  for
color correction pre-multiplied alpha just gets in the way.  Since
pre-multiplying the alpha does throw away a few bits of information my
preference is for non-pre-multiplied alpha.

I know 3D software that outputs pre or non-pre, user selectable, but read
only pre. The manual says all that, and recommends non-pre for "drawing
programs".

What I do not understand, is why I would like pre for compositing? If I have
an image with pre, when I composite with another image, I will get damaged
borders, instead of true composition based in the alpha, no? If software
knows it, it can be fixed... but after lossing precission, no?

GSR
 




Re: 32-bit images in gimp - Alpha handling wrong?

2000-07-18 Thread Nick Lamb

On Wed, Jul 19, 2000 at 12:53:31AM +1000, David Hodson wrote:
  Can you justify that (all images should be pre-multiplied)?
  Or is this just your unsupported opinion?
 
 Well, that was attempted editorial humour to some extent, but it's also
 the opinion of (for example) Jim Blinn, and Thomas Porter and Tom Duff.
 I'd hardly call it unsupported.

Ah, but as others have said, these are people working in a totally
different area, and at least Tom Duff is most famous for a speed-up hack
easily as ugly as pre-multiplied alpha (Duff's device).

  Gimp has no support for pre-multiplied alpha,
 
 Well, there's my answer. No support.

... and no need for it. With the exception of (IMHO useless) out-of-gamut
RGB values, each is equally expressive, plug-ins and tools are free to
convert to pre-mult if appropriate but the core uses ordinary RGBA.

 A hack? I thought it was a mathematically elegant representation of
 an image layer, which is why I see a reason to support it. I'm trying
 to find out if anyone else agrees, or if I'm missing something that's
 already there, or there's something specific about Gimp and the way
 it's used that makes it unnecessary or not useful.

Let's rather say "Not a priority" rather than "not useful", but I do
not expect pre-mult alpha to be exposed to the user (as opposed to
used in plug-ins or for speed-up hacks) in Gimp any time soon.

 And even if you consider it a hack, don't people use pre-mult alpha?
 Am I the first one to notice this and complain?

Notice? I don't know. Complain, yes. You'll see why in a minute I think.

 I have no love at all for the TIFF format. (I was present at the birth
 of a similarly over-extended format. I should have complained more loudly.)
 But that's irrelevant - or at least orthogonal - to the use of pre-mult
 alpha.

I'm not aware of any other common interchange format which supports the
pre-multiplied alpha representation in storage. If we didn't have to load
or save it, pre-mult would not be a problem for Gimp.

 I've placed a page at:
 
 www.ozemail.com.au/~hodsond/alpha.html
 
 Images are just inline PNGs, just grab 'em as they appear; but it's not
 really necessary, if you say that Gimp doesn't handle pre-mult alpha,
 then that explains the results.

sigh No the program which produced your example PNG image is broken.
The PNG specification requires straight RGBA, pre-multiplied alpha is
prohibited and this is spelled out several times. Gimp can't hope to
interpret an invalid image correctly.

Please identify the program (name, version, vendor etc.) and I will pass
the details on to png-implement. Hopefully we can arrange for them to
issue an urgent update to their users and if necessary get publicity so
that everyone knows not to use this broken program.

 Do users have problems with pre- and non-mult alpha?

Since they are equivalent I'd guess users remain comfortably unaware.

Nick.



Re: 32-bit images in gimp - Alpha handling wrong?

2000-07-18 Thread Garry R. Osgood

David Hodson wrote:

 "Steinar H. Gunderson" wrote:

  GIMP already does this (32-bit = RGBA, the `extra' 8 bits is an alpha channel,
  used for transparency information), and has done for a long time now.

Calvin Williamson recommended "Image Composition
Fundamentals" by Alvy Ray Smith, for a review
and advantages of the technique.
http://www.alvyray.com/Memos/default.htm.

 At the moment, as far as I can tell, the Gimp cannot handle
 pre-multiplied rgba images.

Yes. In fact, in generating the projection images (app/paint_func.c) Gimp
pretty much does the "unmultiplied case" in the above
cite, including the "second composition" step to recover an unmultiplied
layer from a premultiplied intermediary result. From the premultiplied
viewpoint, that's a lot of unnecesary multiply and divides.

 Example: render an rgba image. (I was using
 some PovRay output; I presume it does a reasonable job.) Now create a
 flat colour background in the Gimp, lay the rgba image on top, and try
 to get a clean composite without black fringing. I don't think it can
 be done,

It can't be done, in my opinion. What we surmise to be [R*A, G*A, B*A, A]
Gimp assumes to be [R, G, B, A] and reads the color components as
near black for near transparent regions.  That makes black fringing unavoidable.

 though I'd love to be proven wrong. (There could be issues
 here with different gamma handling between PovRay and the Gimp, but I
 suspect the problem is simply a failure to handle rgba properly.)

If all we had to care about was an efficient pipeline, premultiplied is the
way to go - but there's more to Gimp than its rendering pipeline. There
are tools that are relatively simple to code with unmultiplied layers, but are
difficult or impossible to do with premultiplied ones. How would the unerase
tool deal with full transparent premultiplied alpha [A*R = A*G= A*B = A = 0]?
Look for some back door on an undo stack?  Premultiplication buys its efficiency
by removing information content from the layer.

The performance arguments advanced by Smith are compelling, and his pipeline
is computationally cleaner, but the last time I did any serious
performance measurement on the pipeline was a low-teens Gimp, and compositing
to the projection was not a big comsumer compared to building buffered writes
to the X server (this was, I recall, not built with threads enabled).

My two U. S. cents

Garry Osgood





Re: 32-bit images in gimp - Alpha handling wrong?

2000-07-18 Thread Tom Rathborne

On Tue, Jul 18, 2000 at 09:41:49PM -0400, Garry R. Osgood wrote:
 David Hodson wrote:
  Example: render an rgba image. (I was using some PovRay output; I
  presume it does a reasonable job.) Now create a flat colour
  background in the Gimp, lay the rgba image on top, and try to get
  a clean composite without black fringing. I don't think it can be
  done,
 
 It can't be done, in my opinion. What we surmise to be [R*A, G*A,
 B*A, A] Gimp assumes to be [R, G, B, A] and reads the color
 components as near black for near transparent regions.  That makes
 black fringing unavoidable.

The way I got around this was to regenerate my own "Alpha" channel by
re-rendering my PovRay scene in black-on-white. That is, white
background with all objects solid black. If I recall correctly, it was
just a matter of setting the "colour" of each object to black and
rendering with a very low quality setting. (erm, or maybe I did it in
white-on-black and inverted it ... in any case the same result)

This process gave me a white mask (b) for the background which could
then be multiplied with whatever image (i) I wanted "behind" the
PovRay scene. Adding this (b*i) to the premultiplied alpha image from
PovRay gave the correct visual result. Actually, come to think of it,
I didn't render the high-quality scene with any alpha at all. The
addition did it.

Cheers,

Tom

-- 
--   Tom Rathborne [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.aceldama.com/~tomr/
--  "We promise according to our hopes, and perform according to our fears."
-- -- Francois, Duc de la Rochefoucauld



Re: 32-bit images in gimp - Alpha handling wrong?

2000-07-16 Thread David Hodson

"Steinar H. Gunderson" wrote:

 GIMP already does this (32-bit = RGBA, the `extra' 8 bits is an alpha channel,
 used for transparency information), and has done for a long time now.

OK, this has been bugging me for some time. I'm convinced that Gimp's
alpha handling is wrong, in more than a few places.

(Minor disclaimer - I don't have the code in front of me right now, so
I'm not going back to check details. And I'm not an expert on the Gimp,
but I do know a fair amount about image processing.)

To start with, there should be a clear distinction between alpha, which
is a transparency channel in an image and should always scale the pixel
colour values; and masks, which serve to select areas of an existing
image. (Yes, I know not all rgba images are pre-multiplied. They should
be.) At the moment, as far as I can tell, the Gimp cannot handle
pre-multiplied rgba images. Example: render an rgba image. (I was using
some PovRay output; I presume it does a reasonable job.) Now create a
flat colour background in the Gimp, lay the rgba image on top, and try
to get a clean composite without black fringing. I don't think it can
be done, though I'd love to be proven wrong. (There could be issues
here with different gamma handling between PovRay and the Gimp, but I
suspect the problem is simply a failure to handle rgba properly.)

At the same time, much of the code for handling alpha data seems to
unscale and rescale the colour channels. This may be necessary for
colour manipulations on pre-scaled rgba images, but for anything else
(transforms, blurs etc.) it is unnecessary for either alpha or masks.
Example: take the example above, but rotate the rgba image first. The
result is fairly ugly.


Any comments?


-- 
David Hodson  --  [EMAIL PROTECTED]  --  this night wounds time