-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 23
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
[tri_homecart] Add KTX2 textures as extensionsUsed #37
[tri_homecart] Add KTX2 textures as extensionsUsed #37
Conversation
3072e4d
to
253430e
Compare
+@SeanCurtis-TRI for both reviews, please. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reviewed 3 of 3 files at r1, all commit messages.
Reviewable status: 1 unresolved discussion, platform LGTM from [seancurtis-tri] (waiting on @jwnimmer-tri)
a discussion (no related file):
The image below highlights the potential cost of ktx2 conversion.
The image on the left is the ktx2 texture image. Note the red splotches on the cutting board (absent from the original png on the right).
I mention it, not because it torpedos this PR but to highlight the care that needs to be taken and to document the need to refine the conversion process and revisit these textures. Or, failing that, come up with a sense of what kind of policy we want to adopt relative to these kinds of artifacts. We can assume that we're ok with meshcat
having those artifacts because they won't show up in our render engines. I think there are multiple options available to us. Just as long as we actively choose them. Whatever we do, this might inform the documentation written in #21193.
I'll be playing with this later today anyways. It may well be that a tweak of process gives us loading benefits while preserving a greater amount of image fidelity.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reviewable status: 1 unresolved discussion, platform LGTM from [seancurtis-tri] (waiting on @jwnimmer-tri)
a discussion (no related file):
Previously, SeanCurtis-TRI (Sean Curtis) wrote…
The image below highlights the potential cost of ktx2 conversion.
The image on the left is the ktx2 texture image. Note the red splotches on the cutting board (absent from the original png on the right).
I mention it, not because it torpedos this PR but to highlight the care that needs to be taken and to document the need to refine the conversion process and revisit these textures. Or, failing that, come up with a sense of what kind of policy we want to adopt relative to these kinds of artifacts. We can assume that we're ok with
meshcat
having those artifacts because they won't show up in our render engines. I think there are multiple options available to us. Just as long as we actively choose them. Whatever we do, this might inform the documentation written in #21193.I'll be playing with this later today anyways. It may well be that a tweak of process gives us loading benefits while preserving a greater amount of image fidelity.
From the PR number, I'm assuming that this was prepped a while ago. I ran the merged gltf_add_ktx2.py
script this morning on the gltf and got a much better .ktx2 file. One without the red splotches (and one that happens to be ever so slightly smaller). Perhaps the new settings have already manifested an improvement?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reviewable status: 1 unresolved discussion, platform LGTM from [seancurtis-tri] (waiting on @SeanCurtis-TRI)
a discussion (no related file):
Previously, SeanCurtis-TRI (Sean Curtis) wrote…
From the PR number, I'm assuming that this was prepped a while ago. I ran the merged
gltf_add_ktx2.py
script this morning on the gltf and got a much better .ktx2 file. One without the red splotches (and one that happens to be ever so slightly smaller). Perhaps the new settings have already manifested an improvement?
Yeah, that was on my mind as well.
Would you be so kind as to push the current output of the conversion tool into this PR? Including any new gltf edits, if relevant.
We'll squash-merge onto master when finished.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Reviewable status: complete! all discussions resolved, platform LGTM from [seancurtis-tri] (waiting on @jwnimmer-tri)
a discussion (no related file):
Previously, jwnimmer-tri (Jeremy Nimmer) wrote…
Yeah, that was on my mind as well.
Would you be so kind as to push the current output of the conversion tool into this PR? Including any new gltf edits, if relevant.
We'll squash-merge onto master when finished.
I may have made a mistake...I'm observing some weird stuff.
We can go ahead and merge this as is and if I figure out what's going on, I can submit an update.
Works for me. |
This change is