|
|
|
|
|
|
by jedimastert
1680 days ago
|
|
|
Lesson learned: test your optimizations. I will admit I'm surprised by the results. I assume there's not really a rendering perf hit from WebP vs jpg? Also, the preposition that lowering the file-size, and therefore transfer time, is the most important factor in environmental impact is, I think, a little under-supported. That being said, the original Low Tech Magazine article's perf claim is back up from the data, but they also use very low resolution images. I'd be curious if dithering could be optimized to a particular algorithm. For example, jpeg's quantization is based on the assumption that images are mostly made of low frequency data and higher frequency can be removed without changing the quality of the over all image too much. With dithering, this is almost the exact opposite and all low frequency information is replaced with high frequency information, meaning it won't be nearly as effective. |
|
|
"""Compressed through this dithering plugin, images featured in the articles add much less load to the content: compared to the old website, the images are roughly ten times less resource-intensive."""
There's an assertion which implies data, but no data.
But accepting that there was SOME comparison to specifically their "old" image method, the takeaway could be "re-evaluate your optimizations"
Another take with low-tech mag is an aim of describing and utilizing old techniques that did the job just fine (a sentiment I take from a lot of their articles). So, using the latest compression algorithm literally doesn't tick as many of their boxes as dithering.