5 ms·

I really dig it, but I'm not yet familiar with BPG. It seems that decoding it would take more processing power, and potentially be slower than JPG. Is this the

I really dig it, but I'm not yet familiar with BPG. It seems that decoding it would take more processing power, and potentially be slower than JPG. Is this the case? Under the "performance" section, decoding speed was not mentioned.

sp332 12y ago
Yes, it's slower and takes more RAM than JPG. I can see a delay of about a second in my browser. (Edit: I assume my browser is caching the data, but if not, some of that time could be re-downloading the data.)
- Xorlev 12y ago
  If the decoder wasn't in JS, that might not be the case. It'd undoubtably be a more efficient native implementation (possibly with hardware support) were it integrated.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- biot 12y ago
  [Edit] I had misunderstood the quoted Mozilla performance claims[0] to be related to processing speed, whereas they refer to performance being a measurement of quality. Thanks sp332 for the correction. [0] http://people.mozilla.org/~josh/lossy_compressed_image_study_july_2014/ http://people.mozilla.org/~josh/lossy_compressed_image_study...
  - sp332 12y ago
    Compression performance does not mean speed. It just means how well it compressed the images. None of the tests on that page even mention speed.