From: Sven L. <lu...@dp...> - 2001-04-03 07:47:33
|
On Tue, Apr 03, 2001 at 08:17:41AM +0200, Geert Uytterhoeven wrote: > On Mon, 2 Apr 2001, Scott A McConnell wrote: > > I assume the Transp is for Alpha blending. > > It appears that the API can support Alpha blending at the pixel level. > > > > What about support at the rectangular level? > > > > Not that they are an authority.... ;-) > > > > http://www.pcwebopedia.com/TERM/a/alpha_channel.html > > > > "Typically, you wouldn't define the alpha channel on a pixel-by-pixel > > basis, but rather per object. Different parts of the object would have > > different levels of transparency depending on how much you wanted the > > background to show through. This allows you to > > create rectangular objects that appear as if they are irregular in shape > > -- you define the rectangular edges as transparent so that the > > background shows through. This is especially important for animation, > > where the background changes from one frame to the next. " > > That's something different. `transp' in fbdev is about transparency of the > screen (for a video underlay or so), not about transparency of objects to be > blended together on the screen. What about anti-aliasing ? > > Wouldn't we want an Alpha/Transp value to be passed to the three > > accelerated functions? > > No, we don't want transparant text consoles :-) Why not, it could be fun, with a big pengouin display behind ? Alternatively, we could have a framework for userland set themable display engines, or something such. (not really serious here, so don't take it so) Friendly, Sven Luther |