The graphical user interface hides mysterious mechanics under its curtain. It mixes 2D and 3D contexts on a single screen and allows for seamless composition of these two, much different worlds. But in what way and at which level are they actually interleaved?
Practice has shown that an OpenGL context can be embedded into a 2D widget library, and so the whole 2D interface can be backed with OpenGL. Also some applications may explore hardware acceleration while others don't (while being rendered on the same screen). Does the graphic card "know" about 2D and 3D areas on the screen and the window manager creates the illusion of a cohesive front-end? ...one can notice accelerated windows (3D, video) "hopping" to fit into 2D interface when, e.g. scrolling a web page or moving an video player across the screen.
The question seems to be trivial, but I haven't met anybody able to give me a comprehensive answer. An answer, which could enable me to embed an OpenGL context into a GTK+ application and understand why and how it is working. I've tried GtkGlExt and GLUT, but I would like to deeply understand the topic and write my own solution as a part of an academic project. I'd like to know what are the relations between X, GLX, GTK, OpenGL and window manager and how to explore this network of libraries to consciously program it.
I don't expect that someone will write here a dissertation, but I will be grateful for any indications, suggestions or links to articles on that topic.
You're thinking much, much much too complicated. Toolkits like GTK+ or Qt add quite a layer of abstraction over somthing, that's actually rather simple: Your system's graphics device consists of a processor and some memory it can operate on. In the simplemost case the processor is the regular system CPU and the memory is the normal system memory. Modern computers feature a special purpose graphics processor (GPU), though, which has its own, high bandwidth memory.
The memory holds framebuffers. Logically a framebuffer is a 2D array of values. The GPU can be programmed to process the values in the framebuffers in a certain way. That can be used to draw into framebuffers. The monitors, displaying a picture are connected to a special piece of circuitry which continuously feeds the data of a certain framebuffer in the memory to the screen (usually called RAMDAC or CRTC). So in the GPU's memory there's a framebuffer that's directly going to the screen. If you draw there, things will appear on the screen.
A program, like the X11 server can load drivers that "know" how to program the GPU to draw graphical primitives. X11 itself defines certain graphics primitives, and extension modules can add further ones. X11 itself allows to segregate the framebuffers on the GPU memory into logical areas called Drawables. Drawables on the on-screen framebuffer are called Windows. Since logical Windows can overlap the X server also manages Z stacking, which it uses to sort the Windows for redraw. Everytime a Client wants to draw to some Window that X11 server will tell the GPU, that drawing operations will modify only those pixels of the framebuffer, of which the Window drawn to is visible (this is called "Pixel Ownership Test"). The X11 server will also create Drawables (i.e. framebuffers) that are not part of the on-screen framebuffer memory area. Those are called PBuffers or Pixmaps in X11 terminology (also with a special extension its possible to move a Window off-screen as well).
However all those Drawables are just memory. Technically those are Canvas to draw on with something. This something is called "graphics primitives". X11 itself provides a certain set, named X core. Also there's a de-facto standard extension called XRender which provides primitives not found in X core. However neither X11 core nor XRender provide graphics primitives with which the impression of a 3D drawing could be generated. So there's another extension, called GLX which teaches the X11 server another set of graphics primitives, namely in the form of OpenGL.
However X core, XRender and GLX/OpenGL are all just different pens, brushes and pencils that all operate on the same kind of Canvas, namely a simply framebuffer manages by X11.
And what do toolkits like Qt or GTK+ then? Well, they use X11 and the graphics primitives it provides to actually draw widgets, like Buttons, Menus and stuff like that, which X11 doesn't know about.
Related
So I'm building a system based on a raspberry pi 4 running Linux (image created through buildroot) driving a Led matrix (64x32 RGB connectors) and I'm very confused about the software stack of linux. I'd like to be able to use OpenGL capabilities on a small resolution screen that would then be transfered to a driver that would actually drive the Led matrix.
I've read about DRM, KMS, GEM and other systems and I've concluded the best way to go about it would be to have the following working scheme:
User space: App
| OpenGL
v
Kernel space: DRM -GEM-> Led device driver
|
v
Hardware: Led Matrix
Some of this may not make a lot of sense since the concepts are still confusing to me.
Essentially, the app would make OpenGL calls that would generate frames that could be mapped to buffers on the DRM which could be shared with the Led device driver which would then drive the leds in the matrix.
Would something like this be the best way about it?
I could just program some dumb buffer cpu implementation but I'd rather take this as a learning experience.
OpenGL renders into a buffer (called "framebuffer" that is usually displayed onto the screen. But rendering into an off screen buffer (as the name implies) does not render onto the screen but into an array, which can be read by C/C++. There is one indirection on modern operating systems. Usually you have multiple windows visible on your screen. Therefore the application can't render onto the screen itself but into a buffer maneged by the windowing system, which is then composited into one final image. Linux uses Wayland, multiple Wayland clients can create and draw into the Wayland compositor's buffers.
If you only want to display your application just use a off screen buffer.
If you want to display another application read it's framebuffer by writing your own Wayland compositor. Note this may be hard (I've never done that) if you want to use hardware acceleration.
Is it possible yet to draw CUDA/OPENCL results directly to the screen with any existing API (opengl, directx, something else)? Skipping the typical drawing a textured quad method.
Even with registering resources and using modern CUDA interop methods, we still have to march through entire rendering pipelines just to render an array of colors. For applications like mine where every ms counts, this is a problem.
There's no way to draw directly on the screen with OpenCL or CUDA.
It is a solvable problem, but as far as I know, NVIDIA has not provided the needed APIs because they would be very complicated both to implement and to use, and the performance benefits would be limited at best.
The two main issues are:
1) the differing layouts of the buffers used for rendering (i.e. you'd have to use surface load/store functionality - a mapping into CUDA's address space is not suitable for graphics because the pitch-linear layout has poor performance in that context) and
2) the platform-specific details of incorporating your CUDA/OpenCL output into the presentation model (be it the desktop or a page-flipped full-screen experience, like a Direct3D game, or incorporating your app's output into the desktop). Bear in mind that most desktops these days are themselves page-flipped, so scribbling on the front buffer is frowned upon in any case.
I very much doubt that there is any performance lost in drawing pixels using a textured quad but you can draw pixels directly on the framebuffer with glDrawPixels.
How can I draw a pixel array very fast in c++?
I've seen many questions like this on stackoverflow,
they are all answered with:
use gdi (windows)
use opengl
...
but there must be a way, how opengl is doing it!
I'm writing a little raytracer and need to draw every pixel
many times per second.
opengl is able to do it, platform independent and fast,
so how can i achieve that without opengl?
And "without opengl" dos not mean
use sdl (slow)
use this / that library
Please only suggest the platform native methods
or the library closest to that.
If it is possible (i know it is)
how can I do this?
platform independent solutions are preferred.
Drawing graphics on Linux you either have to use X11, or OpenGL. (And in the near future Wayland may be another option). In Linux there is no "native" way of doing graphics, because the Linux kernel doesn't care about graphics APIs. It provides a interfaces (DRM) using which graphics systems are then implemented in user space. If you just want to splat pixels on the screen, without caring about windows then you could also mmap /dev/fbdev – but you normally don't want that, because nobody wants his screen being clobbered by some program he can't move or hide.
Drawing single points is inefficient, no matter which API being uses, due to the protocol overhead.
So X11 it is. So the best bet is to use the MIT-SHM extension which you use to alter pixels in a buffer, which is then blitted in whole by the X11 server. Of course doing this using the pure X11 Xlib functions is annoyingly cumbersome. So this is what SDL effectively nicely wraps up for you.
The other option is OpenGL. OpenGL is not a library! It's a system level API, that gives you almost direct access to the GPU. And it integrates nicely with X11. Yes, the API is provided through a library that's being loaded, but technically that library is just a "wrapper" or "interface" to the actual driver. Drawing single points with OpenGL makes no sense. But you can "batch up" several points into a list (using a vertex array) and then process that list. So the idea is to collect all the incoming points between two display refresh intervals and draw them in one single batch.
platform independent solutions are preferred.
Why are you asking about native APIs then? By definition there can be no plattform independent native API. Either you're native, or you're plattform independent.
And in your particular scenario I think SDL would be the best solution, because it offers just the right kind of abstraction and program side interface for a raytracer. Just FYI: Virtual Machines like QEmu use SDL.
Or you use OpenGL which is a real plattform neutral API widely supported.
Drawing graphics on Linux you either have to use X11, or OpenGL.
This is absolutely false! Counterexample: there's platforms that don't run X11, yet they display pixels (eg. fonts).
Sidenote. OpenGL usually depends on X11 (it's possible, albeit hard, to run OpenGL without X11).
As #datenwork says, there's at least 2 other ways to draw pixels:
The framebuffer device (fbdev), an abstraction to interface with graphics hardware. Very old, designed by Martin Schaller, see the kernel docs. Source code is here. Also see here. Here's the simplest possible framebuffer driver.
The Direct Rendering Manager (DRM), a kernel subsystem that provides an API for userland apps to send commands/data directly to the GPU. (Seems suspiciously similar to what OpenGL does, but idk!). Source code is here. Here's a DRM example that inititializes a simple display pipeline.
Both of these are part of the kernel, so they're lower-level than X11, which is not part of the kernel. Both can draw arbitrary pixels (eg. penguins). I'd guess both of these are platform-independent (like OpenGL).
See this for more on how to draw stuff on Linux.
I realize this is probably a ridiculous question, but before trying to figure out what libraries to use for which projects, I think it makes sense to really understand the purpose of such libraries first.
A lot of video games use libraries like OpenGL. All the tutorials I've seen of such libraries demonstrate how to write code that tells the computer to draw something. Thing is, in games these days everything is modeled using software such as Zbrush, Maya, or 3ds Max. The models are textured and are good to go. It seems like all you'd need to do is write an animation loop that draws the models and updates repeatedly rather than actually program the code to draw every little thing. That would be both extremely time consuming and would make the models useless. So where does OpenGL or Direct 3D come in in relation to video games and 3d art? What is so crucial about them when all the graphics are already created and just need to be loaded and drawn? Are they used mainly for shaders and effects?
This question may just prove how new I am to this, but it's one I've never heard asked. I'm just starting to learn programming and I'm understanding the code and logic fairly well, but I don't understand graphics libraries or certain frameworks at all and tutorials are not helping.
It seems like all you'd need to do is write an animation loop that draws the models and updates repeatedly rather than actually program the code to draw every little thing.
Everything that happens in a computer does so because a program of some form tells it exactly what to do. The letters that this message is composed of only appear because your web-browser of choice downloaded this file via TCP/IP over an HTTP protocol, decoded its UTF-8-encoded text, interpreted that text as defined by the XML, HTML, JavaScript, and so forth standards, and then displayed the visible portion as defined by the Unicode standard for text layout and in accord with HTML et al, using the displaying and windowing abilities of your OS or window manager or whatever.
Every single part of that operation, from the downloading of the file to its display, is governed by a piece of code. Every pixel you are looking at on the screen is where it is because some code put it there.
HTML alone doesn't mean anything. You cannot just take an HTML file and blast it to the screen. Some code must interpret it. You can interpret HTML as a text file, but if you do, it loses all formatting, and you get to see all of the tags. A web browsers can interpret it as proper HTML, in which case you get to see the formatting. But in every case, the meaning of the HTML file is determined by how it is used.
The "draws the model" part of your proposed algorithm must be done by someone. If you don't write that code, then you must be using a library or some other system that will cause the model to appear. And what does that library do? How does it cause the model to appear?
A model, like an HTML web page, is meaningless by itself. Or to put it another way, your algorithm can be boiled down to this:
Animate the model.
????
Profit!
You're missing a key component: how to actually interpret the model and cause it to appear on the screen. OpenGL/D3D/a software rasterizer/etc is vital for that task.
A lot of video games use libraries like OpenGL.
First and foremost: OpenGL is not a library per-se, but an API (specification). The OpenGL API may be implemented in form as a software library, but these days is much more common to implement OpenGL in form of a driver that turns OpenGL function calls into control commands to a graphics processor sitting on a graphics card (GPU).
All the tutorials I've seen of such libraries demonstrate how to write code that tells the computer to draw something.
Yes. This is because things need to be drawn to make any use of them.
Thing is, in games these days everything is modeled using software such as Zbrush, Maya, or 3ds Max.
At this point the models just consist of a large list of numbers, and further numbers that tell, how the other numbers form some sort of geometry. Those numbers are not some sort of ready to use image.
The models are textured and are good to go.
They are a bunch of numbers, and what they have is some additional numbers controlling texturing. The textures themself are in turn just numbers.
It seems like all you'd need to do is write an animation loop that draws the models
And how do you think this drawing is going to happen? There's no magic "here you have a model, display it" function. Because for one the way in which the numbers making up a model may have any kind of meaning. So some program must give meaning to those numbers. And that is a renderer.
and updates repeatedly rather than actually program the code to draw every little thing.
Again, there is no magic "draw it" function. Drawing a model involves going through each of its numbers, it consists of, and turning those into drawing commands to the GPU.
That would be both extremely time consuming and would make the models useless.
How are the models useless, when they are what is controlling the issuing of commands to OpenGL. Or do you think OpenGL is used to actually "create" models?
So where does OpenGL or Direct 3D come in in relation to video games and 3d art?
It is used to turn the numbers a 3D model, as it is saved away from a modeller, into something pleasant to look at.
What is so crucial about them when all the graphics are already created
The graphics is not yet created, when the model is done. What's created is a model, and some auxilliary data in form of textures and shaders, which are then turned into graphics in realtime, at the execution time of the program.
and just need to be loaded and drawn?
Again, after being loaded, a model is just a bunch of numbers. And drawing means, turning those numbers into something to look at, which requires sending drawing commands to the graphics processor (GPU), which happens using a API like OpenGL or Direct3D
Are they used mainly for shaders and effects?
They are used to turn the numbers generated by a 3D modelling program (Blender, Maya, ZBrush) into an actual picture.
You have data. Like a model, with vertices, normals, and textures. As #datenwolf stated above, those are all just numbers sitting on the hard drive or in RAM, not colors on the screen.
Your CPU (which is where the program you write runs) can't talk to the screen directly. Instead, you send the data you want to draw to the GPU. The GPU then draws the data. Graphics APIs like OpenGL and Direct3D allow programs running on the CPU to send data to the GPU and customize how the GPU draws it. This is a gross simplification, but it sounds like you just need an overview.
Ultimately, every graphics program must go through a graphics API. When you draw an image, for example, you send the GPU the image, and the GPU draws it on the screen. Draw some text? Send the data to the GPU. The GPU draws it. Remember, your code can't talk to the screen. It CAN talk to the GPU through OpenGL or Direct3D, and the GPU then draws the data.
Before OpenGL and DirectX, the games had to use special instructions depending on what graphics card you had. When you bought a new game, you had to check carefully if your card was supported, or you couldn't use the game.
OpenGL and DirectX is a standardized API to the grapics cards. A library is delivered by the manufacturer of the card. If they follow the specification, you are guaranteed that games will work (if they also follow the same specification).
Open Graphics Library (OpenGL) is a cross-language, cross-platform application programming interface (API) for rendering 2D and 3D vector graphics. The API is typically used to interact with a graphics processing unit (GPU), to achieve hardware-accelerated rendering.
If we want to make an application like MS Paint, should we use OpenGL for render graphics?
I want to mention about performance if using traditional GDI vs. OpenGL.
And if there are exist some better libs for this purpose, please see me one.
GDI, X11, OpenGL... are rendering APIs, i.e. you usually don't use them for image manipulation (you can do this, but it requires some precautions).
In a drawing application like MS Paint, if it's pixel based, you'll normally manipulate some picture buffer with customary code, or a special image manipulation library, then send the full buffer to the rendering API.
If your data model consists of strokes and individual shapes, i.e. vector graphics, then OpenGL makes a quite good backend. However it may be worth looking into some other API for vector graphics, like OpenVG (which in its current implementations sits on top of OpenGL, but native implementations operating directly on the GPU may come).
In your usage scenario you'll not run into any performance problems on current computers, so don't choose your API from that criteria. OpenGL is definitely faster than GDI when it comes to texturing, alpha blending, etc. However depending on system and GPU pure GDI may outperform OpenGL for so simple things like drawing an arc or filling a complex self intersecting polygon with complex winding rules.
There is no good reason not to use OpenGL for this. Except maybe if you have years of experience with GDI but don't know a single thing about OpenGL.
On the other hand, OpenGL may very well be superior in many cases. Compositing layers or adjusting hue/saturation/brightness/contrast in a GLSL shader will be several orders of magnitude faster (in fact, pretty much "instantly") if there is a reasonably new card in the computer. Stroking a freedraw path with a "fuzzy" pen (i.e. blending a sprite with alpha transparency over and over again) will be orders of magnitude faster. On images with somewhat reasonable dimensions, most filter kernels should run close to realtime. Rescaling with bilinear filtering runs in hardware.
Such things won't matter on a 512x512 image, as pretty much everything is instantaneous at such resolutions, but on a typical 4096x3072 (or larger) image from your digital camera, it may be very noticeable, especially if you have 4-6 layers.