4 ms·
Appears to be another "the whole world uses Google Chrome" bits of advice. I bet other browsers have different performance profiles if this even works...
by kryten 13y ago
Appears to be another "the whole world uses Google Chrome" bits of advice.
I bet other browsers have different performance profiles if this even works...
- davidjohnstone 13y agoI'd take you up on that bet — the blur filter is always going to be computationally expensive given that has to do Gaussian blur according to the spec. There are faster ways to blur, but they're not as "good".
- thezilch 13y agoOnly Chrome (or webkit-based) support [0], and like the other poster said, blur will be slow unless harnessing the GPU. [0] https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/filter#Browser_compatibility https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/CSS/filter#Brow...
- viraptor 13y agoLatest released FF (from arch) didn't have any problems handling the page. It was quite smooth, but I didn't check the detailed profile.
- kalleboo 13y agoBut is it applying the (slow) CSS blur filter? The article claims the filter is currently only supported by WebKit. Of course it'll render fast if it's not actually rendering anything.
- viraptor 13y agoIt's definitely blurred. Not sure if it's from the filter, or just a specific way that FF does upscaling.
- thezilch 13y agoFF does not support any of three filters nor many others.