7 ms·

The jpegs might be for the lower-resolution chunks.

• bd 18y ago
  My bad. I checked the source. Downloaded images are JPGs, it's canvas that make them look like PNGs. Whatever you will draw on canvas, it will look on the right click like "data:image/png;base64".
• axod 18y ago
  http:// http:// lovepixelzoom.appspot.com/file/get/lovepixl/(ZOOM)/(X)_(Y).jpg Where (ZOOM) is 11-14 (X) 0-(Depends on zoom) (y) 0-(Depends on zoom) Using jpg for this seems odd, but probably reading way too much into a cool demo :)
  • bd 18y ago
    I checked Deep Zoom Composer, software that was used to create tiles [1]. It allows also PNG tiles export for "SeaDragon Ajax" output type, so it was probably just the decision of the author of this site to use JPGs. I tried to convert one randomly picked tile. It was 58KB JPG (16M colors), 38KB PNG (16M colors), 9KB PNG (256 colors), 13KB GIF (256 colors). So yes, PNGs would make a faster site and save some bandwidth. Though you cannot export 256 color PNGs, so for the best performance, you would need to run something like ImageMagick conversion script on all the tiles (with the danger of getting noticeable seams if neighboring palettes would clash). http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=457b17b7-52bf-4bda-87a3-fa8a4673f8bf&displaylang=en http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?familyid=457...
  • antsyawn 18y ago
    No, you're right - I'm no web expert, and I didn't notice the option in deep-zoom composer to change format. The Seadragon dev told me to try png for this type of image and it cut the data down from 93mb to 25mb - much faster now. (http://lovepixelzoom.appspot.com http://lovepixelzoom.appspot.com)
    • bd 18y ago
      Welcome to Hacker News :). Nice site.