Hacker News Reader

Comment by milestinsley | Hacker News Reader

Yes, that's true. I think, generally speaking, base64 encoded images will result in more bytes than the original. I guess it's probably around 10%-20%.

I think, in the case of spriting, it would be fair to say that the overhead of loading many images/http requests (and their individual headers) pretty much nullifies the effects of bloating from the encoding.

View on HN

Don't forget that since the resultant file is sent over the wire gzipped, a lot of that is undone by the fact that you are gzipping all the images together instead of separately.

Base64 will inflate a list of bytes by 33%. For every three bytes that go in, 4 bytes are returned. Wikipedia has a very good explanation of why this is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Base64

While we're on the subject, Ascii85 is kind of a cool alternative. By increasing the number of characters used for the encoded string and breaking a 32 bit integer apart in an interesting way, it is able to reduce the expansion down to 25%. For every 4 characters in, 5 come out. Again, more info is available on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ascii85

Incidentally, here's some javascript codecs I wrote for both base64 and ascii85, if anyone wants to play with using them on their sites:

http://pastie.textmate.org/695197

My base64 codec turns out to be quite similar to the Cappucino one; oddly, most of the javascript base64 codecs with decent google juice are actually horrible implementations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com