2 ms·
for web-sized-pics and (instagram like) filter-effects (even effects stacked upon each other) they are cheap enough, but yeah, that question will only be solved
by franze 15y ago
for web-sized-pics and (instagram like) filter-effects (even effects stacked upon each other) they are cheap enough, but yeah, that question will only be solved with real world performance tests.
from my point of view: most of the canvas (effect) libs smell like premature optimization to me. could be wrong, though.
- Arelius 15y agoThe context is within an thread on Animation. Yes, of course it's cheap enough for an effect you are just generating a still of, but it is a measurably slow approach for anything that needs animation. And couldn't you create the kind of library you wanted by simply making a wrapper that called did something like function X(canvas, ...) { var C = canvas.clone(); oldX(C, ...); return canvas } You can't really do the opposite and get the performance advantages.