opengl-es-2.0 - opengl texture mapping off by 5-8 pixels

Question

I've got a bunch of thumbnails/icons packed right up next to each other in a texture map / sprite sheet. From a pixel to pixel relationship, these are being scaled up from being 145 pixels square to 238 screen pixels square. I was expecting to get +-1 or 2 pixel accuracy on the edges of the box when accessing the texture coordinates, so I'm also drawing a 4 pixel outline overtop of the thumbnail to hide this probable artifact. But I'm seeing huge variations in accuracy. Sometimes it's off in one direction, sometimes the other.

I've checked over the math and I can't figure out what's happening.

The the thumbnail is being scaled up about 1.64 times. So a single pixel off in the source texture coordinate could result in around 2 pixels off on the screen. The 4 pixel white frame over top is being drawn at a 1-1 pixel to fragment relationship and is supposed to cover about 2 pixels on either side of the edge of the box. That part is working. Here I've turned off the border to show how far off the texture coordinates are....

I can tweak the numbers manually to make it go away. But I have to shrink the texture coordinate width/height by several source pixels and in some cases add (or subtract) 5 or 6 pixels to the starting point. I really just want the math to work out or to figure out what I'm doing wrong here. This sort of stuff drives me nuts!

A bunch of crap to know.

• The shader is doing the texture coordinate offsetting in the vertex shader...

  v_fragmentTexCoord0 = vec2((a_vertexTexCoord0.x * u_texScale) + u_texOffset.s, (a_vertexTexCoord0.y * u_texScale) + u_texOffset.t);
  gl_Position = u_modelViewProjectionMatrix * vec4(a_vertexPosition,1.0);
  

• This object is a box which is a triangle strip with 2 tris.

• Not that it should matter, but matrix applied to the model isn't doing any scaling. The box is to screen scale. The scaling is happening only in the texture coordinates that are being supplied.

• The texture coordinates of the object as seen above are 0.00 - 0.07, then in the shader have an addition of an offset amount which is different per thumbnail. .07 out of 2048 is like 143. Originally I had it at .0708 which should be closer to 145 it was worse and showed more like 148 pixels from the texture. To get it to only show 145 source pixels I have to make it .0.06835 which is 140 pixels.

• I've tried doing the math in a calculator and typing in the numbers directly. I've also tried doing like =1305/2048. These are going in to GLfloats not doubles.

• This texture map image is PNG and is loaded with these settings:

  glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D,GL_TEXTURE_MIN_FILTER,GL_NEAREST);
  glTexParameteri(GL_TEXTURE_2D,GL_TEXTURE_MAG_FILTER,GL_NEAREST);
  
  glTexParameteri( GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_WRAP_S, GL_CLAMP_TO_EDGE );
  glTexParameteri( GL_TEXTURE_2D, GL_TEXTURE_WRAP_T, GL_CLAMP_TO_EDGE );
  

but I've also tried GL_LINEAR with no apparent difference.

• I'm not having any accuracy problems on other textures (in the same texture map) where I'm not doing the texture scaling.

• It doesn't get farther off as the coords get higher. In the image above the NEG MAP thumb is right next to the HEAT MAP thumb and are off in different directions but correct at the seam.

• here's the offset data for those two..

  filterTypes[FT_gradientMap20].thumbTexOffsetS = 0.63720703125;
  filterTypes[FT_gradientMap20].thumbTexOffsetT = 0.1416015625;
  filterTypes[FT_gradientMap21].thumbTexOffsetS = 0.7080078125;
  filterTypes[FT_gradientMap21].thumbTexOffsetT = 0.1416015625;
  

==== UPDATE ====

A couple of things off the bat I realized I was doing wrong and are discussed over here: OpenGL Texture Coordinates in Pixel Space

The width of a single thumbnail is 145. But that would be 0-144, with 145 starting the next one. I was using a width of 145 so that's going to be 1 pixel too big. Using the above center of pixel type math, we should actually go from the center of 0 to the center of 144. 144.5 - 0.5 = 144.

Using his formula of (2i + 1)/(2N) I made new offset amounts for each of the starting points and used the 144/2048 as the width. That made things better but still off in some areas. And again still off in one direction sometimes and the other other times. Although consistent for each x or y position.

Using a width of 143 proves better results. But I can fix them all by just adjusting the numbers manually to work. I want to have the math to make it work out right.

... or.. maybe it has something to do with min/mag filtering - although I read up on that and what I'm doing seems right for this case.

Answer 1

After a lot of experiments and having to create a grid-lined guide texture so I could see exactly how far off each texture was... I finally got it!

It's pretty simple actually.

uniform mat4 u_modelViewProjectionMatrix;
uniform mediump vec2 u_texOffset;
uniform mediump float u_texScale;
attribute vec3 a_vertexPosition;
attribute mediump vec2 a_vertexTexCoord0;

The precision of the texture coordinates. By specifying mediump it just fixed itself. I suspect this also would help solve the problem I was having in this question:

Why is a texture coordinate of 1.0 getting beyond the edge of the texture?

Once I did that, I had to go back to my original 145 width (which still seems wrong but oh well). And for what it's worth I ended up then going back to all my original math on all the texture coordinates. The "center of pixel" method was showing more of the neighboring pixels than the straight /2048 did.