4 ms·

Are you sure you're not thinking of interlaced GIF? That was used pretty widely for images in the days when the processing for jpeg could actually be serious wo

Are you sure you're not thinking of interlaced GIF? That was used pretty widely for images in the days when the processing for jpeg could actually be serious work for a pc.

flukus 9y ago
Possibly, I just remember being a grateful teenager when my adult images loaded progressively. Wouldn't gif have been a poor format for that even with progressive loading?
- fencepost 9y ago
  Probably, but the last time I really cared about load times enough that interlacing or progressive downloading was an issue would have been back in the early 90s on dialup and well before progressive JPEG was even a thing. IIRC, watching a JPEG paint on a 386/25 or maybe an early 486 was something that could likely be measured in full seconds or tens of seconds, not tenths of seconds.
ClassyJacket 9y ago
Progressive JPEG is a thing and was widely used in the 90s and early 2000s. Remember when images would load all pixellated at first, and then appear clearly? https://www.thewebmaster.com/dev/2016/feb/10/how-progressive-jpegs-can-speed-up-your-website/ https://www.thewebmaster.com/dev/2016/feb/10/how-progressive...
masklinn 9y ago
> Are you sure you're not thinking of interlaced GIF? Yes, interlaced JPEG has that property: each "pass" in the file adds detail, you can stop at any point. They're more expensive to process but compress better than non-progressive JPEG. PNG also has an interlaced mode, however it compresses less well than non-interlaced. Because of the way jpeg works, it also looks better early on, especially when the PNG renderer does no interpolation on the early interlacing phases. Interlaced GIF is actually pretty crappy as it's one-dimensional, so it has a "blinds" effect both during initial rendering and during refresh phases: https://nuwen.net/png.html https://nuwen.net/png.html

4 ms·

Are you sure you're not thinking of interlaced GIF? That was used pretty widely for images in the days when the processing for jpeg could actually be serious wo

by fencepost 9y ago

Are you sure you're not thinking of interlaced GIF? That was used pretty widely for images in the days when the processing for jpeg could actually be serious work for a pc.

flukus 9y ago
Possibly, I just remember being a grateful teenager when my adult images loaded progressively. Wouldn't gif have been a poor format for that even with progressive loading?
- fencepost 9y ago
  Probably, but the last time I really cared about load times enough that interlacing or progressive downloading was an issue would have been back in the early 90s on dialup and well before progressive JPEG was even a thing. IIRC, watching a JPEG paint on a 386/25 or maybe an early 486 was something that could likely be measured in full seconds or tens of seconds, not tenths of seconds.
ClassyJacket 9y ago
Progressive JPEG is a thing and was widely used in the 90s and early 2000s. Remember when images would load all pixellated at first, and then appear clearly? https://www.thewebmaster.com/dev/2016/feb/10/how-progressive-jpegs-can-speed-up-your-website/ https://www.thewebmaster.com/dev/2016/feb/10/how-progressive...
masklinn 9y ago
> Are you sure you're not thinking of interlaced GIF? Yes, interlaced JPEG has that property: each "pass" in the file adds detail, you can stop at any point. They're more expensive to process but compress better than non-progressive JPEG. PNG also has an interlaced mode, however it compresses less well than non-interlaced. Because of the way jpeg works, it also looks better early on, especially when the PNG renderer does no interpolation on the early interlacing phases. Interlaced GIF is actually pretty crappy as it's one-dimensional, so it has a "blinds" effect both during initial rendering and during refresh phases: https://nuwen.net/png.html https://nuwen.net/png.html