3 ms·
If it takes that much longer to encode then I am guessing it takes a lot longer to decode as well which I am going to guess makes it completely out for image se
by Melatonic 4y ago
If it takes that much longer to encode then I am guessing it takes a lot longer to decode as well which I am going to guess makes it completely out for image sequences, film archiving, VFX work, high end photography, etc etc.
- TylerE 4y agoThat is usually not true. The time spent by high quality encoders is generally trying different settings to find optimals... decoding should be unaffected.
- edflsafoiewq 4y agoIt may take less time actually since it can be parallelized. PNG's big problem is it's serial.
- lifthrasiir 4y agoIn fact, Apple introduced its own extension chunk to PNG to enable parallel decoding, by splitting IDAT into two halves, put a zlib sync flush between them and record the offset to the second half [1]. This kind of split is bulit into JPEG XL. [1] https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/895-Connecting-the-iDOTs.html#c4809 https://www.hackerfactor.com/blog/index.php?/archives/895-Co...