3 ms·
Doesn't that example show that a 256-step gradient takes 256 bytes? A 256-step run of the same colour takes just a couple of bytes due to RLE, doesn't it? (Not
by chrisseaton 4y ago
Doesn't that example show that a 256-step gradient takes 256 bytes? A 256-step run of the same colour takes just a couple of bytes due to RLE, doesn't it? (Not an expert.)
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- MauranKilom 4y agoI debated about adding "after the first row", but didn't (because it doesn't make sense for gradients in the other direction). Either way, both my and Wikipedia's point is that a simple gradient filling a 2D surface costs only a "1D amount" of bytes, which is going to beat JPEG (at "can still read text" levels of quality).