4 ms·
How will FLIF "not make much difference" here? Suppose we're talking about a profile image. The full, lossless file is 40KB. The video on the FLIF site (http://
by nathan_long 9y ago
How will FLIF "not make much difference" here? Suppose we're talking about a profile image. The full, lossless file is 40KB. The video on the FLIF site (http://flif.info/index.html http://flif.info/index.html) shows a blurry-but-useful preview being displayed with the first 0.25% loaded (and possibly before). In this case, that's 100 bytes, which is a fraction of a single TCP packet.
Don't need the full resolution of the 40KB lossless file? OK, sure, stop loading after 20KB, or 10KB, or 1KB, or whatever seems like enough.
Yes, SVG is still better for things like icons, because you get clear, resizable images with a tiny data transfer. But for previewing a photograph, FLIF seems ideal, and doesn't require any additional tools.
- baybal2 9y agoMaybe, people usually just recode avatars to low-res JPGs
- nathan_long 9y agoFLIF makes re-encoding unnecessary. http://flif.info/responsive.html http://flif.info/responsive.html > for every image, only one file is required, ever. The optimization can happen entirely on the client side. > A FLIF image can be loaded in different ‘variations’ from the same source file, by loading the file only partially. This makes it a very appropriate file format for responsive web design. Since there is only one file, the browser can start downloading the beginning of that file immediately, even before it knows exactly how much detail will be needed. The download or file read operations can be stopped as soon as sufficient detail is available, and if needed, it can be resumed when for whatever reason more detail is needed — e.g. the user zooms in or decides to print the page.