The below link contains my guidance in response to whether it is best to use PNG or JPEG as the format for wallpaper image files.
4 Likes
That post is so perfect, straight-to-the-point and complete that I hope you don't mind me quoting it here ad verbatim because it might be helpful to others:
Basically, whether you use
- a “raw” format like PNG, or
- a “compressed” format like JPEG,
there is no in-memory performance difference, once it is loaded!
- They will BOTH use up exactly the same total memory bits to correspond to the image pixel count (xxxx wide by yyyy tall).
The only difference, performance-wise, is the load time, which is a single hit at initial load. The larger the file, the longer to load from disk to memory. The other consideration is that a compressed image, depending on complexity, could itself also take a long time to be processed to transfrom from compressed to decompressed (a.k.a. “raw”) form which is then kept as “persistent” memory-resident format. The disadvantage of a compressed image has nothing to do with performance … and all to do with re-composition quality.
So in the end, it only boils down to whichever format is simpler for you to manage, based on your prioritizing and doing the trade-off of
- image file quality at display, vs
- storage size on disk.
I also second what you mentioned earlier in that post
- load time (specifically when creating a background image based slideshow on a slow rig)
2 Likes