3 ms·
JPEG's design is brilliant, that is very true, but it also complicated. It uses a lot of CPU cycles to calculate the FFTs of the signal, and that is where the s
by SkeuomorphicBee 4y ago
JPEG's design is brilliant, that is very true, but it also complicated. It uses a lot of CPU cycles to calculate the FFTs of the signal, and that is where the simplicity of QOK shines, by operating on the signal itself (instead of expensively transforming it to frequency space) it can be order(s) of magnitude faster.
The discussion is not about the quality of the API, but the amount of work an actual machine will have to do to compress/decompress.
- pornel 4y agoDCT is relatively expensive compared to just RLE, but keep in mind that JPEG has been standardized in early 1990s when 33Mhz CPUs were fast. Today a few multiplications are nothing for CPUs. We have fast SIMD implementations. Nowadays Huffman is the bottleneck and could have been improved with tANS coding.