3 ms·
Isn't sending both the blurred and non-blurred picture over the network the way we did it since two decades in web dev? With (many!) high resolution pictures th
by ktpsns 2y ago
Isn't sending both the blurred and non-blurred picture over the network the way we did it since two decades in web dev? With (many!) high resolution pictures this is definetly less performant then a local computation, given that real networks have finite bandwiths, in particular mobile clients on spots with bad wireless coverage. It is astonishing what can be done with CSS/WebGL only these days. We needed a lot of hacks and workarounds in the past for that.
- djmips 2y agoA blurred image shouldn't be very much extra over the high resolution image considering it's information content is much smaller.
- pdimitar 2y agoI don't have much data myself but when I was doing scraping some time ago I had thousands of examples where f.ex. the full-res image was something like 1.7MB and the blurred image was in the range of 70KB - 200KB, so more or less 7% - 11% of the original. And I might be lying here (it's been a while) but I believe at least 80% of the blurred images were 80KB or less. Technically yes you could make some savings but since images were transferred over an HTTP-1.1 Keep-Alive connection, I don't feel it was such a waste. Would love to get more data if you have it, it's just that from the limited work I did in the area it did not feel very worth of only downloading the high-res image and do the blur yourself... especially in scenarios when you just need the blurred image + dimensions first, in order to prevent the constant annoying visual reflow as images are downloaded -- something _many_ websites suffer from even today.