2 ms·
Btw, could you 'just' use no compression on this level in the PNG, and let the transport compression handle it? So on paper (and on disk) your PNG would be lar
by eru 1y ago
Btw, could you 'just' use no compression on this level in the PNG, and let the transport compression handle it?
So on paper (and on disk) your PNG would be larger, but the number of bits transmitted would be almost the same as using Zstd?
EDIT: similarly, your filesystem could handle the on-disk compression.
This might work for something like PNG, but would work less well for something like JPG, where the compression part is much more domain specific to image data (as far as I am aware).
- jchw 1y agoIf there is a particular reason why that wouldn't work, I'm not aware of it. Seems like you would eat a very tiny cost for deflate literal overhead (a few bytes per 65,535 bytes of literal data?) but maybe you would wind up saving a few bytes from also compressing the headers.
- GoblinSlayer 1y ago5 bytes per block or 0.000076 overhead.