Hacker News Reader

Both formats are trying to encode the parameters of cosine functions except jpg is implemented natively in web browsers, likely with SIMD instructions. Is the ~200 bytes in savings per image really worth the extra computation cost you're passing onto your users?

View on HN

I wonder if you could use Javascript to convert the hash into a full JPEG and get the best of both?

It's unlikely since the smallest possible jpg 10x10 jpg is just under 300 bytes. You might be able to squeeze out a few dozen bytes if you tried multiple browser supported formats (e.g. jpg, webp, png, gif) and pick the smallest one since they might be better at encoding blurhash's gradient effect.

I'm sorry, I wasn't clear about what I meant. The idea was to convert the hash to JPEG once it reached the client, so that the browser's native JPEG support could be used to display and cache the image.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com