I am writing a web visualization tool which involves displaying a processed image ~30 times a second.
I have been using the standard canvas tag and using functions such as getImageData/putImageData to perform some pixel manipulation along with drawing circles, squares and paths using beginPath() and bezierCurveTo(), stroke(), etc
Everything is working great but I am getting horrible performance even with hardware acceleration.
Is canvas inherently slow at these types of operations?
I have been researching into using WebGL/THREE.JS for performance, but all I need is to do pixel manipulation with some basic shape drawing. Is WebGL overkill for this? Is there a better alternative?
Ideally I believe I want something that wraps the canvas API but displays it using the WebGLRenderer for performance.
Related
These days, I need to draw many images on a canvas. The canvas size is 800x600px, and I have many images of 256x256px(some is smaller) to draw on it, these small images will compose a complete image on the canvas. I have two ways to implement this.
First, if I use canvas 2D context, that is context = canvas.getContext('2d'), then I can just use context.drawimage() method to put every image on the proper location of the canvas.
Another way, I use WebGL to draw these images on the canvas. On this way, for every small image, I need to draw a rectangle. The size of the rectangle is the same as this small image. Besides, the rectangle is on the proper location of the canvas. Then I use the image as texture to fill it.
Then, I compare the performance of these two methods. Both of their fps will reach 60, and the animation(When I click or move by the mouse, canvas will redraw many times) looks very smooth. So I compare their CPU usage. I expect that when I use WebGL, the CPU will use less because GPU will assure many work of drawing. But the result is, the CPU usage looks almost the same. I try to optimize my WebGL code, and I think it's good enough. By google, I found that browser such as Chrome, Firefox will enable Hardware acceleration by default. So I try to close the hardware acceleration. Then the CPU usage of the first method becomes much higher. So, my question is, since canvas 2D use GPU to accelerate, is it necessary for me to use WebGL just for 2D rendering? What is different between canvas 2D GPU acceleration and WebGL? They both use GPU. Maybe there is any other method to lower the CPU usage of the second method? Any answer will be appreciate!
Canvas 2D is still supported more places than WebGL so if you don't need any other functionality then going with Canvas 2D would mean your page will work on those browsers that have canvas but not WebGL (like old android devices). Of course it will be slow on those devices and might fail for other reasons like running out of memory if you have a lot of images.
Theoretically WebGL can be faster because the default for canvas 2d is that the drawingbuffer is preserved whereas for WebGL it's not. That means if you turn anti-aliasing off on WebGL the browser has the option to double buffer. Something it can't do with canvas2d. Another optimization is in WebGL you can turn off alpha which means the browser has the option to turn off blending when compositing your WebGL with the page, again something it doesn't have the option to do with canvas 2d. (there are plans to be able to turn off alpha for canvas 2d but as of 2017/6 it's not widely supported)
But, by option I mean just that. It's up to the browser to decide whether or not to make those optimizations.
Otherwise if you don't pick those optimizations it's possible the 2 will be the same speed. I haven't personally found that to be the case. I've tried to do some drawImage only things with canvas 2d and didn't get a smooth framerate were as I did with WebGL. It made no sense to be but I assumed there was something going on inside the browser I was un-aware off.
I guess that brings up the final difference. WebGL is low-level and well known. There's not much the browser can do to mess it up. Or to put it another way you're 100% in control.
With Canvas2D on the other hand it's up to the browser what to do and which optimizations to make. They might changes on each release. I know for Chrome at one point any canvas under 256x256 was NOT hardware accelerated. Another example would be what the canvas does when drawing an image. In WebGL you make the texture. You decide how complicated your shader is. In Canvas you have no idea what it's doing. Maybe it's using a complicated shader that supports all the various canvas globalCompositeOperation, masking, and other features. Maybe for memory management it splits images into chucks and renders them in pieces. For each browser as well as each version of the same browser what it decides to do is up to that team, where as with WebGL it's pretty much 100% up to you. There's not much they can do in the middle to mess up WebGL.
FYI: Here's an article detailing how to write a WebGL version of the canvas2d drawImage function and it's followed by an article on how to implement the canvas2d matrix stack.
We are developing a web-based game. The map has a fixed size and is procedually generated.
At the moment, all these polygons are stored in one array and checked whether they should be drawn or not. This requires a lot of performance. Which is the best rendering / buffering solution for big maps?
What I've tried:
Quadtrees. Problem: Performance still not as great because there are so many polygons.
Drawing sections of the map to offscreen-canvases. A test run: http://norizon.ch/repo/buffered-map-rendering/ Problem: The browser crashes when trying to buffer that much data and such big images (maybe 2000x2000) still seem to perform badly on a canvas.
(posting comments as an answer for convenience)
One idea could be, when the user is translating the map, to re-use the part that will still be in view, and to draw only the stripe(s) that are no longer corrects.
I believe (do you confirm ?) that the most costly operation is the drawing, not to find which polygon to draw.
If so, you should use your QuadTree to find the polygons that are within the strips. Notice that, given Javascript's overhead, a simple 2D bucket that contains the polygons that are within a given (x,y) tile might be faster to use (if the cost of the quadtree is too high).
Now i have a doubt about the precise way you should do that, i'm afraid you'll have to experiment / benchmark, and maybe choose a prefered browser.
Problems :
• Copying a canvas on itself can be very slow depending on devices/Browsers. (might require to do 2 copy, in fact)
• Using an offscreen canvas can be very slow depending on devices/Browsers. (might not use hardware acceleration when off-screen).
If you are drawing things on top of the map, you can either use a secondary canvas on top of the map canvas, or you'll be forced to use an off-screen canvas that you'll copy on each frame.
I have tried a lot of things and this solution turned out to be the best for us.
Because our map has a fixed size, it is calculated server-side.
One big image atlas with all the required tiles will be loaded at the beginning of the game. For each image on the atlas, a seperate canvas is created. The client loads the whole map data into one two-dimensional array. The values determine, which tile has to be loaded. Maybe it would be even better if the map was drawn on a seperate canvas, so that only the stripes have to be painted. But the performance is really good, so we won't change that.
Three conclusions:
Images are fast. GetImageData is not!
JavaScript has not yet great support for multi threading, so we don't calculate the map client-side in game-time.
Quadtrees are fast. Arrays are faster.
I want to build a simple modelviewer. In fact that most 3D Engines for javascript/canvas out there are way too complex for my purpose I'd prefer building a small one on my own. By writing a z-buffer I'd like to check wether canvas API should draw a pixel over the existing image. At the moment I am using the method fill() to draw triangles. I do so because I'd like to avoid writing my own anti-aliasing stuff. Are there any callbacks or is there any other way I can implement my check into the native script?
In fact that's going to be in Adobe AIR, are there any native ressources I could use to speed up(molehill/Stage3D WebGL? Dunno). Or are there any ways in combination of Flash? Actually I'd prefer Javascript but if there are native solutions I'd also like to check them as long as I can implemenet them into my HTML mock-up.
EDIT: A more simply question: Is it possible to implement a check for each pixel the canvas API should draw to abort drawing the pixel if it doesn't fit some conditions? I don't think that the chance is high that the question becomes affirmed but its really woth it.
I'm completely new to HTML 5 Canvas, so I apologize in advance if I'm asking stupid question...
I've studied some basic example for implementing animations. All of those are not "object oriented" examples, meaning that there is a central draw() method which is called at regulr interval and clears & redraws everything each time.
From the knowledge I have in graphic programming with other languages / toolkits, a more efficient way should be using an "object oriented" approach where every "object" on the stage has its own draw method which checks if the object actually need to be redrawn against an invalidated clipping region.
Does it make sense with canvas too in terms of performance and CPU load? Is there another more efficient approach (examples)?
Not sure if it is efficient performance wise, but Dojo GFX is very efficient development wise. It is a proxy between your shape objects and their visual representation using different rendering facilities including HTML5 Canvas.
With GFX you will surely not require a central draw method clearing and redrawing everything each time you need to make a transformation to some of the shapes.
I need to choose a library for "standard" charting: pies, lines and bars.
From what I've read, it seems to me that the best format is SVG/VML, like Highcharts for example. SVG is becoming standard across all major browsers, now that IE 9 accepts it. It seems easier to rescale and export than Canvas.
Still, I see that several charting libraries rely on Canvas. Am I missing something? Is there any reason for considering Canvas over SVG for such applications?
You can generally achieve the same results with either. Both end up drawing pixels to the screen for the user. The major differentiators are that HTML5 Canvas gives you pixel-level control over the results (both reading and writing), while SVG is a retained-mode graphics API that makes it very easy to handle events or manipulate the artwork with JavaScript or SMIL Animation and have all redrawing taken care of for you.
In general, I'd suggest using HTML5 Canvas if you:
need pixel-level control over effects (e.g. blurring or blending)
have a very large number of data points that will be presented once (and perhaps panned), but are otherwise static
Use SVG if you:
want complex objects drawn on the screen to be associated with events (e.g. move over a data point to see a tooltip)
want the result to print well at high resolution
need to animate the shapes of various graph parts independently
will be including text in your output that you want to be indexed by search engines
want to use XML and/or XSLT to produce the output
Canvas isn't needed unless you want heavy manipulation/animation or are going to have 10,000+ charts. More on performance analysis here.
It is also important to make the distinction: Charting and diagramming are two different things. Displaying a few bar charts is very different from (for instance) making diagramming flowcharts with 10,000+ movable, link-able, potentially-animated objects.
Every SVG element is a DOM element, and adding 10,000 or 100,000 nodes to the DOM causes incredible slowdown. But adding that many elements to Canvas is entirely doable, and can be quite fast.
In case it may have confused you: RaphaelJS (in my opinion the best charting SVG Library) makes use of the word canvas, but that is no way related to the HTML <canvas> element.
In the past two years, my preference has been to use svg, as I mainly deal with relatively small datasets to build pies, column charts or maps.
However one advantage I have found with canvas is the ability to save the chart as an image thanks to the toDataURL method. I haven't found an equivalent for svg, and it seems that the best way to save an svg chart client side is to convert it to canvas first (using for example canvg).