W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > whatwg@whatwg.org > June 2014

Re: [whatwg] Proposal: toDataURL “image/png” compression control

From: Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 31 May 2014 22:25:41 -0700
Message-ID: <CAGN7qDD0BJ0HYSjcRSADOW+-nTE6079xK4Ude2dDePjq_4_Asg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Andreas Gal <andreas.gal@gmail.com>
Cc: Justin Novosad <junov@google.com>, Noel Gordon <noel.gordon@gmail.com>, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org>, Nils Dagsson Moskopp <nils@dieweltistgarnichtso.net>, whatwg <whatwg@lists.whatwg.org>, Robert O'Callahan <robert@ocallahan.org>
On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 4:06 PM, <andreas.gal@gmail.com> wrote:

> Does SIMD support in JS change this equation?


Glenn is asking how much more compression there is to gain from this extra
parameter and how much extra processing it requires.

He's not asking how long it would take to do it in JavaScript. I would be
interested though :-)
png likely won't gain as much from simd compared to jpeg.


> > On May 31, 2014, at 18:58, Glenn Maynard <glenn@zewt.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, May 31, 2014 at 4:00 PM, Rik Cabanier <cabanier@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> roc was asking which NEW feature is being added that can be done in
> >> script.
> >
> > He asked which new features have already been added that can be done
> > efficiently in script.  Element.closest() was added less than a week ago.
> >
> > But again, image decoding *can't* be done efficiently in script:
> > platform-independent code with performance competitive with native SIMD
> > assembly is a thing of myth.  (People have been trying unsuccessfully to
> do
> > that since day one of MMX, so it's irrelevant until the day it actually
> > happens.)  Anyhow, I think I'll stop helping to derail this thread and
> > return to the subject.
> >
> > Noel, if you're still around, I'd suggest fleshing out your suggestion by
> > providing some real-world benchmarks that compare the PNG compression
> rates
> > against the relative time it takes to compress.  If spending 10x the
> > compression time gains you a 50% improvement in compression, that's a lot
> > more compelling than if it only gains you 10%.  I don't know what the
> > numbers are myself.
> >
> > --
> > Glenn Maynard
>
Received on Sunday, 1 June 2014 05:26:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wednesday, 22 January 2020 17:00:21 UTC