Progressive rendering -- seems like a good idea, but.. isn't. https://www.smashingmagazine.com/2015/06/efficient-image-resizing-with-imagemagick/#progressive-rendering …pic.twitter.com/am1WEfmfeZ
-
-
Replying to @codinghorror
For "isn't" there's only a single argument, based on marketing material by Radware containing noisy metrics and inconclusive results.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @kornelski
pointless. you already get top to bottom rendering for free with zero file size increase.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @codinghorror
In JPEG progressive makes file size lower (data grouped by frequency compresses better + each scan gets own huffman table + jpegrescan hack)
2 replies 1 retweet 10 likes
Replying to @kornelski @codinghorror
This seems plausible. Plus if your jpegs are all progressive you can avoid need to save thumbnails at all (trivial IO needs for DC-only).
2:52 PM - 26 Jun 2017
0 replies
0 retweets
0 likes
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.