3 ms·

I guess nowadays you could even shim this (if you've got many pictures and do do it correctly, trading bandwidth against user's CPU time).

• 21 8y ago
  But you lose hardware acceleration. On a mobile this can matter.
  • amaranth 8y ago
    Maybe but I wouldn't be so sure. Mobile browsers today don't use JPEG hardware decoders and for a single frame HEVC isn't _that_ expensive to decode. I believe the argument is that hardware decoders are inconsistent (what you can decode successfully depends on what platform you're running on) and have high latency due to needing to pass the data back and forth to another chip in the system. For something like HEIF which also lets you store short videos as a replacement for animated GIFs you'd still want hardware decoding at least some of the time though.
• wongarsu 8y ago
  The website claims >Supported by most Web browsers with a small Javascript decoder (gzipped size: 56 KB). 56kb isn't particularly small, but for an image galary it might be worth it.
  • talloaktrees 8y ago
    When some websites are 5mb after all ad.content is loaded. It's doesn't seem that much
    • SahAssar 8y ago
      It isn't the size that is the problem as much as that it is on the critical path for every image that uses it and that it does not support progressive rendering or rendering parts of the image as the file is downloaded. go to https://bellard.org/bpg/lena.html https://bellard.org/bpg/lena.html and set your browser to throttle to GPRS speeds and you will see a pretty huge difference.