I am building a simple Solar system model and trying to set textures on some spheres.
The geometry is properly generated, and I tried a couple different ways to generate the texture coordinates. At present I am relying on glu:quadric-texture for generating the coordinates when glu:sphere is called.
However, the textures never appear - objects are rendered in flat colors.
I went through several OpenGL guides and I do not think I am missing a step, but who knows.
Here is what is roughly happening:
call gl:enable :texture-2d to turn on textures
load images using cl-jpeg
call gl:bind-texture
copy data from image using gl:tex-image-2d
generate texture ids with gl:gen-textures. Also tried generating ids one by one instead of all at once, which had no effect.
during drawing create new quadric, enable texture coordinates generation and bind the texture before generating the quadric points:
(let ((q (glu:new-quadric)))
(if (planet-state-texture-id ps)
(progn (gl:enable :texture-gen-s)
(gl:enable :texture-gen-t)
(glu:quadric-texture q :true)
(gl:bind-texture :texture-2d planet-texture-id)))
(glu:quadric-texture q :false))
(glu:sphere q
planet-diameter
*sphere-resolution*
*sphere-resolution*)
I also tried a more manual method of texture coordinates generation, which had no effect.
Out of ideas here…
make-texture function
texture id generation
quadric drawing
When the program runs, I can see the textures are loaded and texture ids are reserved, it prints
loading texture from textures/2k_neptune.jpg with id 1919249769
Loaded data. Image dimensions: 1024x2048
I don't know if you've discovered a solution to your problem, but after creating a test image, and modifying some of your code, I was able to get the texture to be applied to the sphere.
The problem comes into play with the fact that you are attempting to upload textures to the GPU before you've enabled them. (gl:enable :texture-2d) has to be called before you start handling texture/image data.
I'd recommend putting the let* block with the planets-init that is in the main function after 'setup-gl', and also moving the 'format' function with the planets data to work correctly without an error coming up.
My recommendation is something like:
(let ((camera ...
...
(setup-gl ...)
(let* ((planets...
...
(format ... planet-state)
In your draw-planet function, you'll want to add (gl:bind-texture :texture-2d 0) at the end of it so that the texture isn't used for another object, like the orbital path.
As is, the (gl:color 1.0 ...) before the (gl:quadratic-texture ...) will modify the color of the rendered object, so it may not look like what you're expecting it to look like.
Edit: I should've clarified this, but as your code stands it goes
initialize-planets > make-textures > enable-textures > render
When it should be
enable-textures > init-planets > make-textures > render
You're correct about not missing a step, the steps in your code are just misordered.
i'm rendering single-pixel points into a uint32-texture with a compute shader. the texture is a 3d texture, x and y are viewport coordinates, z has depth information on coordinate 0 and additional attributes on 1. so two manually built rendertargets, if you will. code looks like this:
layout (r32ui, binding = 0) coherent volatile uniform uimage3D renderBuffer;
layout (rgba32f, binding = 1) restrict readonly uniform imageBuffer pointBuffer;
for(int j = 0; j < numPoints / gl_WorkGroupSize.x + 1; j++)
{
vec4 point = imageLoad(pointBuffer, ...)
// ... transform point ...
uint originalDepth = imageAtomicMin(renderBuffer, ivec3(imageCoords, 0), point.depth);
if (originalDepth >= point.depth)
{
// write happened, store the attributes
imageStore(renderBuffer, ivec3(imageCoords, 1), point.attributes);
}
}
while the depth values are correct, i have a few pixels where the attributes flicker between two values.
the order of points in the pointBuffer is random (but i've verified the set of all points is always the same), so my first thought was that two equal depth values might change the output, depending on which one comes first. so i made it that, if originalDepth == point.depth it uses imageAtomicMax to always have the same of the two alternative attributes written, but that changed nothing.
i scattered barrier() and memoryBarrier() all over the place, but that changed nothing. i also removed all diverging control flow for this, changed nothing.
reducing the local work size to 32 removes 90% of the flickering, but some still remains.
any ideas would be greatly appreciated.
edit: before you ask why i do this stuff manually instead of using normal rasterization and fragment shaders, the reason is performance. the rasterizer does not help since i'm rendering single-pixel-points, shared memory greatly speeded things up, and i render each point multiple times, which required me to use a geometry shader which was slow.
The problem is this: you have a race condition on writing to renderBuffer. If two different CS invocations map to the same pixel, and both of them decide to write the value, then there is a race on your imageStore call. One may overwrite the other, it may be a partial overwrite, or something else entirely. But in any case, it's not guaranteed to work.
This would be best solved by doing what rasterizers do: break the process down into two separate phases. The first phase does the ... transform point ... part, writing that data out to a buffer. The second phase then goes through the points and writes them to the final image.
In phase 2, each CS invocation performs all of the processing for a particular output pixel. That way, there are no race conditions. Of course, that requires that phase 1 produces data in a way that can be ordered per-pixel.
There are several ways to go about the latter. You could use a linked list, with a list per-pixel. Or your could use a list per-workgroup, where a workgroup represents some X/Y region of pixel space. In that case, you would use local shared memory as your local depth buffer, with all CS invocations reading from/writing to that region. After they all get done processing pixels, you write it out to real memory. Basically, you'd be implementing tile-based rendering manually.
Indeed, if you have a lot of these points, a tile-based solution would allow you to incorporate pipelining, so that you don't have to wait until all of phase 1 is done before starting on some of phase 2. You could break phase 1 down into chunks. You start a couple of phase 1 chunks, then a phase 2 chunk that reads from the first phase 1, then another phase 1, and so forth.
Vulkan with its event system, has better tools for building such an efficient dependency chain than OpenGL.
I've been under the assumption that my gamma correction pipeline should be as follows:
Use sRGB format for all textures loaded in (GL_SRGB8_ALPHA8) as all art programs pre-gamma correct their files. When sampling from a GL_SRGB8_ALPHA8 texture in a shader OpenGL will automatically convert to linear space.
Do all lighting calculations, post processing, etc. in linear space.
Convert back to sRGB space when writing final color that will be displayed on the screen.
Note that in my case the final color write involves me writing from a FBO (which is a linear RGB texture) to the back buffer.
My assumption has been challenged as if I gamma correct in the final stage my colors are brighter than they should be. I set up for a solid color to be drawn by my lights of value { 255, 106, 0 }, but when I render I get { 255, 171, 0 } (as determined by print-screening and color picking). Instead of orange I get yellow. If I don't gamma correct at the final step I get exactly the right value of { 255, 106, 0 }.
According to some resources modern LCD screens mimic CRT gamma. Do they always? If not, how can I tell if I should gamma correct? Am I going wrong somewhere else?
Edit 1
I've now noticed that even though the color I write with the light is correct, places where I use colors from textures are not correct (but rather far darker as I would expect without gamma correction). I don't know where this disparity is coming from.
Edit 2
After trying GL_RGBA8 for my textures instead of GL_SRGB8_ALPHA8, everything looks perfect, even when using the texture values in lighting computations (if I half the intensity of the light, the output color values are halfed).
My code is no longer taking gamma correction into account anywhere, and my output looks correct.
This confuses me even more, is gamma correction no longer needed/used?
Edit 3 - In response to datenwolf's answer
After some more experimenting I'm confused on a couple points here.
1 - Most image formats are stored non-linearly (in sRGB space)
I've loaded a few images (in my case both .png and .bmp images) and examined the raw binary data. It appears to me as though the images are actually in the RGB color space, as if I compare the values of pixels with an image editing program with the byte array I get in my program they match up perfectly. Since my image editor is giving me RGB values, this would indicate the image stored in RGB.
I'm using stb_image.h/.c to load my images and followed it all the way through loading a .png and did not see anywhere that it gamma corrected the image while loading. I also examined the .bmps in a hex editor and the values on disk matched up for them.
If these images are actually stored on disk in linear RGB space, how am I supposed to (programatically) know when to specify an image is in sRGB space? Is there some way to query for this that a more featured image loader might provide? Or is it up to the image creators to save their image as gamma corrected (or not) - meaning establishing a convention and following it for a given project. I've asked a couple artists and neither of them knew what gamma correction is.
If I specify my images are sRGB, they are too dark unless I gamma correct in the end (which would be understandable if the monitor output using sRGB, but see point #2).
2 - "On most computers the effective scanout LUT is linear! What does this mean though?"
I'm not sure I can find where this thought is finished in your response.
From what I can tell, having experimented, all monitors I've tested on output linear values. If I draw a full screen quad and color it with a hard-coded value in a shader with no gamma correction the monitor displays the correct value that I specified.
What the sentence I quoted above from your answer and my results would lead me to believe is that modern monitors output linear values (i.e. do not emulate CRT gamma).
The target platform for our application is the PC. For this platform (excluding people with CRTs or really old monitors), would it be reasonable to do whatever your response to #1 is, then for #2 to not gamma correct (i.e. not perform the final RGB->sRGB transformation - either manually or using GL_FRAMEBUFFER_SRGB)?
If this is so, what are the platforms on which GL_FRAMEBUFFER_SRGB is meant for (or where it would be valid to use it today), or are monitors that use linear RGB really that new (given that GL_FRAMEBUFFER_SRGB was introduced 2008)?
--
I've talked to a few other graphics devs at my school and from the sounds of it, none of them have taken gamma correction into account and they have not noticed anything incorrect (some were not even aware of it). One dev in particular said that he got incorrect results when taking gamma into account so he then decided to not worry about gamma. I'm unsure what to do in my project for my target platform given the conflicting information I'm getting online/seeing with my project.
Edit 4 - In response to datenwolf's updated answer
Yes, indeed. If somewhere in the signal chain a nonlinear transform is applied, but all the pixel values go unmodified from the image to the display, then that nonlinearity has already been pre-applied on the image's pixel values. Which means, that the image is already in a nonlinear color space.
Your response would make sense to me if I was examining the image on my display. To be sure I was clear, when I said I was examining the byte array for the image I mean I was examining the numerical value in memory for the texture, not the image output on the screen (which I did do for point #2). To me the only way I could see what you're saying to be true then is if the image editor was giving me values in sRGB space.
Also note that I did try examining the output on monitor, as well as modifying the texture color (for example, dividing by half or doubling it) and the output appeared correct (measured using the method I describe below).
How did you measure the signal response?
Unfortunately my methods of measurement are far cruder than yours. When I said I experimented on my monitors what I meant was that I output solid color full screen quad whose color was hard coded in a shader to a plain OpenGL framebuffer (which does not do any color space conversion when written to). When I output white, 75% gray, 50% gray, 25% gray and black the correct colors are displayed. Now here my interpretation of correct colors could most certainly be wrong. I take a screenshot and then use an image editing program to see what the values of the pixels are (as well as a visual appraisal to make sure the values make sense). If I understand correctly, if my monitors were non-linear I would need to perform a RGB->sRGB transformation before presenting them to the display device for them to be correct.
I'm not going to lie, I feel I'm getting a bit out of my depth here. I'm thinking the solution I might persue for my second point of confusion (the final RGB->sRGB transformation) will be a tweakable brightness setting and default it to what looks correct on my devices (no gamma correction).
First of all you must understand that the nonlinear mapping applied to the color channels is often more than just a simple power function. sRGB nonlinearity can be approximated by about x^2.4, but that's not really the real deal. Anyway your primary assumptions are more or less correct.
If your textures are stored in the more common image file formats, they will contain the values as they are presented to the graphics scanout. Now there are two common hardware scenarios:
The scanout interface outputs a linear signal and the display device will then internally apply a nonlinear mapping. Old CRT monitors were nonlinear due to their physics: The amplifiers could put only so much current into the electron beam, the phosphor saturating and so on – that's why the whole gamma thing was introduced in the first place, to model the nonlinearities of CRT displays.
Modern LCD and OLED displays either use resistor ladders in their driver amplifiers, or they have gamma ramp lookup tables in their image processors.
Some devices however are linear, and ask the image producing device to supply a proper matching LUT for the desired output color profile on the scanout.
On most computers the effective scanout LUT is linear! What does this mean though? A little detour:
For illustration I quickly hooked up my laptop's analogue display output (VGA connector) to my analogue oscilloscope: Blue channel onto scope channel 1, green channel to scope channel 2, external triggering on line synchronization signal (HSync). A quick and dirty OpenGL program, deliberately written with immediate mode was used to generate a linear color ramp:
#include <GL/glut.h>
void display()
{
GLuint win_width = glutGet(GLUT_WINDOW_WIDTH);
GLuint win_height = glutGet(GLUT_WINDOW_HEIGHT);
glViewport(0,0, win_width, win_height);
glMatrixMode(GL_PROJECTION);
glLoadIdentity();
glOrtho(0, 1, 0, 1, -1, 1);
glMatrixMode(GL_MODELVIEW);
glLoadIdentity();
glBegin(GL_QUAD_STRIP);
glColor3f(0., 0., 0.);
glVertex2f(0., 0.);
glVertex2f(0., 1.);
glColor3f(1., 1., 1.);
glVertex2f(1., 0.);
glVertex2f(1., 1.);
glEnd();
glutSwapBuffers();
}
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
glutInit(&argc, argv);
glutInitDisplayMode(GLUT_RGBA | GLUT_DOUBLE);
glutCreateWindow("linear");
glutFullScreen();
glutDisplayFunc(display);
glutMainLoop();
return 0;
}
The graphics output was configured with the Modeline
"1440x900_60.00" 106.50 1440 1528 1672 1904 900 903 909 934 -HSync +VSync
(because that's the same mode the flat panel runs in, and I was using cloning mode)
gamma=2 LUT on the green channel.
linear (gamma=1) LUT on the blue channel
This is how the signals of a single scanout line look like (upper curve: Ch2 = green, lower curve: Ch1 = blue):
You can clearly see the x⟼x² and x⟼x mappings (parabola and linear shapes of the curves).
Now after this little detour we know, that the pixel values that go to the main framebuffer, go there as they are: The OpenGL linear ramp underwent no further changes and only when a nonlinear scanout LUT was applied it altered the signal sent to the display.
Either way the values you present to the scanout (which means the on-screen framebuffers) will undergo a nonlinear mapping at some point in the signal chain. And for all standard consumer devices this mapping will be according to the sRGB standard, because it's the smallest common factor (i.e. images represented in the sRGB color space can be reproduced on most output devices).
Since most programs, like webbrowsers assume the output to undergo a sRGB to display color space mapping, they simply copy the pixel values of the standard image file formats to the on-screen frame as they are, without performing a color space conversion, thereby implying that the color values within those images are in sRGB color space (or they will often merely convert to sRGB, if the image color profile is not sRGB); the correct thing to do (if, and only if the color values written to the framebuffer are scanned out to the display unaltered; assuming that scanout LUT is part of the display), would be conversion to the specified color profile the display expects.
But this implies, that the on-screen framebuffer itself is in sRGB color space (I don't want to split hairs about how idiotic that is, lets just accept this fact).
How to bring this together with OpenGL? First of all, OpenGL does all it's color operations linearly. However since the scanout is expected to be in some nonlinear color space, this means, that the end result of the rendering operations of OpenGL somehow must be brougt into the on-screen framebuffer color space.
This is where the ARB_framebuffer_sRGB extension (which went core with OpenGL-3) enters the picture, which introduced new flags used for the configuration of window pixelformats:
New Tokens
Accepted by the <attribList> parameter of glXChooseVisual, and by
the <attrib> parameter of glXGetConfig:
GLX_FRAMEBUFFER_SRGB_CAPABLE_ARB 0x20B2
Accepted by the <piAttributes> parameter of
wglGetPixelFormatAttribivEXT, wglGetPixelFormatAttribfvEXT, and
the <piAttribIList> and <pfAttribIList> of wglChoosePixelFormatEXT:
WGL_FRAMEBUFFER_SRGB_CAPABLE_ARB 0x20A9
Accepted by the <cap> parameter of Enable, Disable, and IsEnabled,
and by the <pname> parameter of GetBooleanv, GetIntegerv, GetFloatv,
and GetDoublev:
FRAMEBUFFER_SRGB 0x8DB9
So if you have a window configured with such a sRGB pixelformat and enable sRGB rasterization mode in OpenGL with glEnable(GL_FRAMEBUFFER_SRGB); the result of the linear colorspace rendering operations will be transformed in sRGB color space.
Another way would be to render everything into an off-screen FBO and to the color conversion in a postprocessing shader.
But that's only the output side of rendering signal chain. You also got input signals, in the form of textures. And those are usually images, with their pixel values stored nonlinearly. So before those can be used in linear image operations, such images must be brought into a linear color space first. Lets just ignore for the time being, that mapping nonlinear color spaces into linear color spaces opens several of cans of worms upon itself – which is why the sRGB color space is so ridiculously small, namely to avoid those problems.
So to address this an extension EXT_texture_sRGB was introduced, which turned out to be so vital, that it never went through being ARB, but went straight into the OpenGL specification itself: Behold the GL_SRGB… internal texture formats.
A texture loaded with this format undergoes a sRGB to linear RGB colorspace transformation, before being used to source samples. This gives linear pixel values, suitable for linear rendering operations, and the result can then be validly transformed to sRGB when going to the main on-screen framebuffer.
A personal note on the whole issue: Presenting images on the on-screen framebuffer in the target device color space IMHO is a huge design flaw. There's no way to do everything right in such a setup without going insane.
What one really wants is to have the on-screen framebuffer in a linear, contact color space; the natural choice would be CIEXYZ. Rendering operations would naturally take place in the same contact color space. Doing all graphics operations in contact color spaces, avoids the opening of the aforementioned cans-of-worms involved with trying to push a square peg named linear RGB through a nonlinear, round hole named sRGB.
And although I don't like the design of Weston/Wayland very much, at least it offers the opportunity to actually implement such a display system, by having the clients render and the compositor operate in contact color space and apply the output device's color profiles in a last postprocessing step.
The only drawback of contact color spaces is, that there it's imperative to use deep color (i.e. > 12 bits per color channel). In fact 8 bits are completely insufficient, even with nonlinear RGB (the nonlinearity helps a bit to cover up the lack of perceptible resolution).
Update
I've loaded a few images (in my case both .png and .bmp images) and examined the raw binary data. It appears to me as though the images are actually in the RGB color space, as if I compare the values of pixels with an image editing program with the byte array I get in my program they match up perfectly. Since my image editor is giving me RGB values, this would indicate the image stored in RGB.
Yes, indeed. If somewhere in the signal chain a nonlinear transform is applied, but all the pixel values go unmodified from the image to the display, then that nonlinearity has already been pre-applied on the image's pixel values. Which means, that the image is already in a nonlinear color space.
2 - "On most computers the effective scanout LUT is linear! What does this mean though?
I'm not sure I can find where this thought is finished in your response.
This thought is elaborated in the section that immediately follows, where I show how the values you put into a plain (OpenGL) framebuffer go directly to the monitor, unmodified. The idea of sRGB is "put the values into the images exactly as they are sent to the monitor and build consumer displays to follow that sRGB color space".
From what I can tell, having experimented, all monitors I've tested on output linear values.
How did you measure the signal response? Did you use a calibrated power meter or similar device to measure the light intensity emitted from the monitor in response to the signal? You can't trust your eyes with that, because like all our senses our eyes have a logarithmic signal response.
Update 2
To me the only way I could see what you're saying to be true then is if the image editor was giving me values in sRGB space.
That's indeed the case. Because color management was added to all the widespread graphics systems as an afterthought, most image editors edit pixel values in their destination color space. Note that one particular design parameter of sRGB was, that it should merely retroactively specify the unmanaged, direct value transfer color operations as they were (and mostly still are done) done on consumer devices. Since there happens no color management at all, the values contained in the images and manipulated in editors must be in sRGB already. This works for so long, as long images are not synthetically created in a linear rendering process; in case of the later the render system has to take into account the destination color space.
I take a screenshot and then use an image editing program to see what the values of the pixels are
Which gives you of course only the raw values in the scanout buffer without the gamma LUT and the display nonlinearity applied.
I wanted to give a simple explanation of what went wrong in the initial attempt, because although the accepted answer goes in-depth on colorspace theory, it doesn't really answer that.
The setup of the pipeline was exactly right: use GL_SRGB8_ALPHA8 for textures, GL_FRAMEBUFFER_SRGB (or custom shader code) to convert back to sRGB at the end, and all your intermediate calculations will be using linear light.
The last bit is where you ran into trouble. You wanted a light with a color of (255, 106, 0) - but that's an sRGB color, and you're working with linear light. To get the color you want, you need to convert that color to the linear space, the same way that GL_SRGB8_ALPHA8 is doing for your textures. For your case, this would be a vec3 light with intensity (1, .1441, 0) - this is the value after applying gamma-compression.
I would like to create a fake "explosion" effect in SDL. For this, I would like the screen to go from what it is currently, and fade to white.
Originally, I thought about using SDL_FillRect like so (where explosionTick is the current alpha value):
SDL_FillRect(screen , NULL , SDL_MapRGBA(screen->format , 255, 255 , 255, explosionTick ));
But instead of a reverse fading rectangle, it shows up completely white with no alpha. The other method I tried involved using a fullscreen bitmap filled with a transparent white (with an alpha value of 1), and blit it once for each explosionTick like so:
for(int a=0; a<explosionTick; a++){
SDL_BlitSurface(boom, NULL, screen, NULL);
}
But, this ended up being to slow to run in real time.
Is there any easy way to achieve this effect without losing performance? Thank you for your time.
Well, you need blending and AFAIK the only way SDL does it is with SDL_Blitsurface. So you just need to optimize that blit. I suggest benchmarking those:
try to use SDL_SetAlpha to use per-surface alpha instead of per-pixel alpha. In theory, it's less work for SDL, so you may hope some speed gain. But I never compared it and had some problem with this in the past.
you don't really need a fullscreen bitmap, just repeat a thick row. It should be less memory intensive and maybe there is a cache gain. Also you can probably fake some smoothness by doing half the lines at each pass (less pixels to blit and should still look like a global screen effect).
for optimal performance, verify that your bitmap is at the display format. Check SDL_DisplayFormatAlpha or possibly SDL_DisplayFormat if you use per-surface alpha
I have completely re-written this first post to better show what the problem is.
I am using ps v1.4 (highest version I have support for) and keep getting an error.
It happens any time I use any type of function such as cos, dot, distance, sqrt, normalize etc. on something that was passed into the pixelshader.
For example, I need to do "normalize(LightPosition - PixelPosition)" to use a point light in my pixelshader, but normalize gives me an error.
Some things to note-
I can use things like pow, abs, and radians with no error.
There is only an error if it is done on something passed from the vertex shader. (For example I could take the sqrt of a local pixelshader variable with no error)
I get the error from doing a function on ANY variable passed in, even text coords, color, etc.
Inside the vertex shader I can do all of these functions on any variables passed in with no errors, it's only in the pixelshader that I get an error
All the values passing from the vertex to pixel shader are correct, because if I use software processing rather than hardware I get no error and a perfectly lit scene.
Since normalizing the vector is essentially where my error comes form I tried creating my own normalizing function.
I call Norm(LightPosition - PixelPosition) and "Norm" looks like this -
float3 Norm(float3 v)
{
return v / sqrt(dot(v, v));
}
I still get the error because I guess technically I'm still trying to take a sqrt inside the pixelshader.
The error isn't anything specific, it just says "error in application" on the line where I load my .fx file in C#
I'm thinking it could actually be a compiling error because I have to use such old versions (vs 1.1 and ps 1.4)
When debugged using fxc.exe it tells me "can not map instruction to pixel shader instruction set"
Old GPU:s didn't always support any instruction, especially in the pixel shader.
You might get away with a sqrt in the vertex shader but for a so old version (1.1 !!) the fragment shader might be extremely limited.
I.e this might not be a bug.
The work around could be to skip the hlsl and write your own assembler (but you might stumble onto the same problem there) and simulate the sqrt (say with a texture lookup and / or interpolations if you can have 2 textures in 1.0 :-p )
You can of course try to write a sqrt-lookup/interpolation in hlsl but it might be too big too (I don't remember but IIRC 1.1 don't let you write very long shaders).