3 ms·
This guy is not wrong, but on my site I decided that for photographs it probably doesn't matter much and just provide a single image resolution. Chrome does a t
by AndrewStephens 9y ago
This guy is not wrong, but on my site I decided that for photographs it probably doesn't matter much and just provide a single image resolution. Chrome does a terrible job of resizing images but even it is acceptable. Maybe if you run a high-end stock-photo site you have other opinions, but I don't.
Logos and illustrations are a different matter, but the answer is not to turn on an obscure rendering option via css. You either supply images in all sizes your site requires, or use the format that was explicitly designed for such things: SVG.
- ajross 9y agoThat's exactly how I felt reading that site. "See this other image? It sucks" ... It does? OK, I can see some differences in filtering I guess. And it stands to reason that PS would be willing to do better downsampling (in the frequency space maybe using an FFT, or with some fancy kernel in the spacial domain) where a browser is probably just going to use a box filter, or have the GPU do it using whatever mipmap generator they provide. But so what? If you have a site that cares about sampling at that level, you're never going to be happy letting someone else scale your precious pixels. Do it yourself.