bleroy

12 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by bleroy 10y ago

   It doesn't make a difference in the relative performance of the libraries on the metrics in the post, it only makes the benchmarks slower to run. This being said, the code is available, so this is easy for anyone to check. If I ever ge
2. 2.▲
   by bleroy 10y ago

   Thanks, I'll check it out.
3. 3.▲
   by bleroy 10y ago

   Yes, but that doesn't have a .NET Core library, and as such wasn't included in the post.
4. 4.▲
   by bleroy 10y ago

   The legend is below each chart, with a table of the numeric results, with standard deviation. The code to reproduce the test is also provided, as well as the sample images.
5. 5.▲
   by bleroy 10y ago

   What do you mean? The test is doing resize and JPEG compression. If you're interested in isolating the compression part, the code on GH should be super easy to modify to your particular requirements.
6. 6.▲
   by bleroy 10y ago

   Unfortunately that's not possible. Each library makes choices and tradeoffs on their defaults. Each time, I set whatever quality dials existed to the highest available, and I standardized on 75 JPEG compression. There is no way to get
7. 7.▲
   by bleroy 10y ago

   Because it's not Skia that is tested, but SkiaSharp, which is a .NET / Mono wrapper for Skia. It was included because the work to make it compatible with .NET Core is close to completion and because it's promising work. I hop