Now that <BevelBitmapEffect> (amongst other effects) has been depreciated, I'm looking to see how I could re-create the exact same thing in a Shader Effect (including it's properties of BevelWidth, EdgeProfile, LightAngle, Relief and Smoothness).
I'm somewhat familar with pixel shading, mostly just colors manipulation of the whole image/element in Shazzam, but how to create a bevel elludes me. Is this a vertex shader and if so, how would I get started? I have searched high and low on this but can't seem to find an inkling of information that would allow me to get started in reproducing <BevelBitmapEffect> in a custom Effect.
Or, based on a comment below, is this 3D in WPF and if so, are there code libraries out there for recreating a <BevelBitmapEffect> that mimics the one that came with previous versions of WPF?
To create the bevel you need to know the distance from the edge for each pixel (search in all directions until alpha=0). From this you can calculate the normal then shade it (see silverlight example). As you mentioned there isn't much content about bevels but there are some good resources if you search for bump mapping/normal mapping to which the shading is similar. In particular this thread has a Silverlight example using a pre-calculated normal map.
To do everything in hardware ideally you would use a multipass shader, WPF's built-in effects are multipass but it doesn't allow you to write your own.
To workaround this limitation:
You could create multiple shaders and nest your element in multiple controls applying a different effect to each one.
Target WPF 4.0 and use Pixel Shader 3.0, for the increased instruction count. Although this may be a too high a hardware requirement and there is no software fallback for PS 3.0
Do some or all of the steps in software.
Without doing one of these you'd be lucky to do a 3 or 4 pixel bevel before you reach the instruction limit as the loops needed to find the distance increase the instruction count quickly.
New Sample
Download. Here is an example that uses PixelShader 3.0. It uses one shader to find the distance (aka height) to the edge, another (based on the nvidia phong shaders) is used to shade it. Bevel profiles are created by adjusting input height either with code or a custom profile can be used by supplying a special texture. There are some other features to add but it seems easily performant enough to animate the properties. Its lacking in comments but I can explain parts if needed.
There's a great article by Rod Stephens on DevX that shows how to use System.Drawing to create the WPF effects (the ones that used to exist, such as Bevel) and more. You've gotta register to view the article though, it's at http://www.devx.com/DevXNet/Article/45039. Downloadable source code too.
Related
I'm trying to write an CAD-like application in WPF(.NET 4.0) that needs to be able to display a lot of 2D points/lines. It will be used to display CAD-plans of entire cities with zoom, pan, rotate and point snapping on mouseover.
Right now I purely use WPF. I read the objects from the CAD file draw them into a StreamGeometry, use it as stroke of a new Path and add it to a Canvas, with several transforms.
My problem is that this solution doesn't scale well enough. It works fine with small CAD-files, but when I want to display like half a city(with houses and land boundaries) it is very very delayed.
I also tried to convert my CAD-file to an image, but
- a resolution a 32000x32000 is sometimes not enough
- when zooming out the lines are too thin.
In the end I need to be able to place this on a Canvas(2D/3D) as background.
What are my best options here?
Thanks,
Niklas
wpf is not good for a large 3d models. im afraid it is too slow. Your best bet is direct 3d or openGL
However, even with the speed of direct3d,openGL you will still need to work out how to cull as many polygons/vertices as possible before the rendering of the scene if you are trying to show an entire city.
there is a large amount of information on this (generally under game development)
there are a few techniques including frustrum culling, near and far plane culling.
also, since you probably have a static scene you may be able to use binary spacial partitioning.
As I understand the subject is 2D CAD system within WPF.
Great! I use it...
OpenGL and DirectX are in infinite loop OnDraw always. The CPU works all the time.
WPF/Silverlight 2D is smart model.
Yes, total amount of elements (for example, primitives inherited from Shape) must be not so much. But how many?
I tested own app (Silverlight). WPF will be a bit faster I hope...
Here my 2D CAD results. Performance is still great. Each beam consists of multiple primitives.
Use a VirtualCanvas like this one from Chris Lovett.
I am looking to style my application with some graphic elements. Icons and other thinks.
Is it better from performance and best practise point of view to use vektor graphics (XAML) or turn my graphic to a PNG?
And Why?
I am aware of the fact that vector graphics are scaleable... this is just a performance questions on large xaml based apps.
You have to weigh your own needs. If it's solely performance, then I'd say that depends on the number of images. If they're a large number then XAML would indeed be more performant, otherwise it would be negligible.
But I have to say for sheer maintainability, especially since you're talking about icons and such, you're far better off with bitmaps and I'll tell you why. Anyone and their brother can edit an icon. You can't say the same with vector graphics. If you want to replace your icons at some point, you simply replace the image. You don't have to go through the hassle of either creating and/or finding vector images and then (most likely) having to convert them to XAML through an export filter. Additionally, there are literally millions of CC licensed icons in bitmap form that you could use for nothing more than attribution.
Yes, there are some hassles with bitmaps (such as some quirks dealing with the ActualWidth/ActualHeight) from time-to-time, but those are minor, in my opinion.
ADDED: Yi-Lun Luo from Microsoft stated vectors are faster back in 2008. With the release of version 3 in 2009, Silverlight has taken advantage of the GPU which makes vectors even faster, if you enable it as well as if you also use BitmapCache. So on from a purely performance standpoint, vectors would be faster, theoretically.
Advantages of XAML over PNG:
Scaling - XAML drawings are made of vectors so are able to scale. Scaling beyond a factor 2 can cause issues (rounding off errors when scaling down and too little detail when scaling up).
Dynamic coloring/animations - You can easily manipulate the colors and points or even curves in the drawing using animations.
Advantages of PNG over XAML:
Speed in loading/caching - PNG can be cached on the GPU. Never more bytes on disk than 4 bits per pixel (+ some overhead)
Pixel perfect - what the designer draws is shown in the app. This is a lot harder when using vectors.
You pick depending on your needs and measurements of performance, load and files sizes.
As I said on the title.
I just want to know which is better between using image files and drawing vector shapes (or path).
I know that using vector is better for appearance but what about performance.
And if this depends on cases. Can anyone explain.
(This question may include WP7, Silverlight, WPF or even in general cases.)
Here is a general answer to compare pros/cons of Bitmap (what I think you mean by "image file") vs. Vector.
Bitmap-based images (gif, tiff, jpeg, png, bmp) are essentially the concept of mapping colours (and other data such as alpha layer) to a pixel grid. Different file formats offer variations of what is supported and levels of compression but this is the high-level concept. The complete map of pixels and data is stored in the file as a matrix/table.
Vector-based images, as you say, are path based. Instead of storing information by pixels, the file format will store geometric points and data.
The pros for bitmaps are:
They usually render faster than a vector. This is because there is minimal computation involved in presenting the image (just take the pixel map and display).
They handle "photographic" content better than a vector.
They are more portable than vector. GIF, JPEG, PNG, BMP are more standard than any vector format (where usually Adobe has the market)
The cons for bitmaps are:
They don't scale without degradation (pixelization)
Manipulation (i.e. resizing, blurring, lighting, etc) of a bitmap is more processor expensive than a vector
The files are usually much larger than vector-based files
The pros for vectors are:
Flexible for scaling and manipulation
Smaller file formats than vector
Ideal for print and animation (i.e. manipulating a shape to produce the animation effect)
The cons for vectors are:
Render time, depending on the complexity of the vector, can be longer
Portability most formats are highly proprietary
Work for "graphic" based images but not useful for photorealism
Hope this helps.
Jeremiah Morrill gave a great overview of WPF rendering that basically shows a vector will always be more expensive to render than an image. Basically an image gets treated as a directx texture...no matter the size, scaling or whatever, there is a set constant cost for rendering an image. As Jer's overview shows, even the simplest vector image takes a number of operations to render in WPF. The moral of the story is that when giving an option, go for the image instead of vector.
Based on our experience with Windows Phone 7 (Non-mango) apps, we find using Images instead of using drawing produces a far more responsiveness hence UX Performance for continuous animation in pages. (YMMV)
I would initially say that images render faster than vectors. The complexer the vector, more time it takes to render. The bigger the image, more time to render.
I'm going to speculate that (in Silverlight terms) most of the current video hardware is capable of directly handling the images rendering getting so a boost in the performance. I'm not sure if calculations for vectors can be done at video hardware level.
From the point of view of Windows Phone 7, you'll typically get faster rendering of images/bitmaps rather than paths/vectors. As a general rule for mobile development, due to the constrained resources on the device and the increased need to consider performance, if you can do something once, such as preparing an image, at design (or compile) time that definitely preferable to doing it multiple times on each client.
Be very careful of applying rules across platforms (WPF, Silverlight & WP7) as they are used for different things in different situations and are under different constraints. Things you have to consider on the phone may not be as much of an issue in a WPF app running on an high powered PC.
i need to make a program where i have to detect the edge of a subimage (like a face in a portrait) using canny detector. then i need to filter that portion out and paste it in another background. it is like mixing 2 layers. can anybody give me any algorithm for this? or any idea about the process?
You are probably aware that the task of selecting a subimage is most known Region of Interest (ROI).
Edge detection with canny shouldn't be a problem since OpenCV implements it as cvCanny().
For what I understand you want to overlap two images. I suppose you want to add one image on top of each other? Take a look at step 2 on the first link I suggest: Adding Two Images with Different Size
If you want to BLEND them, then check these instructions. I have used them before to draw over the webcam window.
I have a sequence of images taken from a camera. The images consists of hand and surroundings. I need to remove everything except the hand.
I am new to Image processing. Would anyone help me in regard with the above Question. I am comfortable using C and Matlab.
A really simple approach if you have a stationary background and a moving hand (and quite a few images!) is simply to take the average of the set of images away from each image. If nothing else, it's a gentle introduction to Matlab.
The name of the problem you are trying to solve is "Image Segmentation". The Wikipedia page here: wiki is a good start.
If lighting consistency isn't a problem for you, I'd suggest starting with simple RGB thresholding and see how far that gets you before trying anything more complicated.
Have a look at OpenCV, a FOSS library for computer vision applications. Specifically, see the Video Surveillance module. For a walk through of background subtraction in MATLAB, see this EETimes article.
Can you specify what kind of images you have. Is the background moving or static? For a static background it is a bit straightforward. You simply need to subtract the incoming image from the background image. You can use some morphological operations to make it look better. They all depend on the quality of images that you have. If you have moving background I would suggest you go for color based segmentation. Convert the image to YCbCr then threshold appropriately. I know there are some papers available on it(However I dont have time to locate them). I suggest reading them first. Here is one link which might help you. Read the skin segmentation part.
http://www.stanford.edu/class/ee368/Project_03/Project/reports/ee368group08.pdf
background subtraction is simple to implement (estimate background as average of all frames, then subtract each frame from background and threshold resulting absolute difference) but unfortunately only works well if 1. camera has manual gain and exposure 2. lighting conditions do not change 3.background is stationary. 4. the background is visible for much longer than the foreground.
given your description i assume these are not the case - so what you can use - as already pointed out - is colour as a means of segmenting foreground from background. as it's a hand you are trying to isolate best bet is to learn the hand colour. opencv provides some means of doing this. if you want to do this yourself you just get the colour of some of the hand pixels (you would need to specify this manually for at least one frame) and convert them to HUE (which encapsulates the colour in a brightness independen way. skin colour has a very constant hue) and then make a HUE histogram. compare this to the rest of the pixels and then decided if the hue is simmilar enough.