Benchmark: PutImageData vs DrawImage without GetImageData

HTML Preparation code:

<canvas id='master' width='100' height='100'></canvas>
<canvas id='pid' width='100' height='100'></canvas>
<canvas id='di' width='100' height='100'></canvas>

Script Preparation code:

var master = document.getElementById('master');
var masterctx = master.getContext('2d');
var pid = document.getElementById('pid').getContext('2d');
var di = document.getElementById('di').getContext('2d');

masterctx.fillRect(0,0,50,50);
masterctx.fillStyle = "red";
masterctx.fillRect(50,50,100,100);

var imgDataFull = masterctx.getImageData(0,0,100,100);
var imgDataHalf = masterctx.getImageData(25,0,75,100);

Tests:

DrawImage whole master into di canvas
di.drawImage(master,0,0);
PutImageData whole master into pid canvas
pid.putImageData(imgDataFull,0,0);
DrawImage half master into di canvas
di.drawImage(master,25,0,50,100,25,0,50,100);
PutImageData half master into pid canvas
pid.putImageData(imgDataHalf,25,0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
DrawImage whole master into di canvas
PutImageData whole master into pid canvas
DrawImage half master into di canvas
PutImageData half master into pid canvas

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: one month ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10_15_7) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/131.0.0.0 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 131 on Mac OS X 10.15.7

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
DrawImage whole master into di canvas	527600.0 Ops/sec
PutImageData whole master into pid canvas	18132.3 Ops/sec
DrawImage half master into di canvas	495002.5 Ops/sec
PutImageData half master into pid canvas	16859.6 Ops/sec

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months ago):

LLMs can make mistakes. Check important info.

Let's break down the provided benchmark and explain what is being tested, compared, and the pros and cons of each approach.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark measures the performance difference between two approaches:

1. **DrawImage without GetImageData**: This method uses the `drawImage` function to draw a portion of an image (the entire "master" canvas) onto another canvas (`di`). The original image data is not retrieved or copied explicitly.
2. **PutImageData with and without GetImageData**: These methods use the `putImageData` function to copy and paste an image (either the full "master" canvas or a portion of it) from one canvas (`pid`) into another (`di`). There are two variations:
	* Putting half the master image data into `di`.
	* Putting whole master image data into `di`.

**Options being compared**

The benchmark compares the performance of these four approaches:

1. **DrawImage without GetImageData**
2. **PutImageData with full master image data**
3. **PutImageData with half master image data**

**Pros and Cons of each approach:**

* **DrawImage without GetImageData**:
	+ Pros: Simple, fast, and efficient for drawing large images.
	+ Cons: May not be suitable for smaller images or when working with pixel-perfect precision (since it relies on the browser's internal image processing).
* **PutImageData with full master image data**:
	+ Pros: Allows for precise control over the image being copied/pasted, which is useful in certain scenarios.
	+ Cons: May be slower than DrawImage due to the additional memory allocation and copying required.
* **PutImageData with half master image data**:
	+ Pros: Reduces memory usage and potentially speeds up performance by only copying a portion of the original image data.
	+ Cons: May lead to accuracy issues if not used carefully (e.g., when working with small images or precise control over pixel placement).

**Library and purpose**

In this benchmark, the relevant libraries are:

1. **Canvas API**: Used for drawing, manipulating, and compositing 2D graphics in the browser.
	+ Purpose: Provides a high-level interface for rendering and interacting with graphics, including image manipulation.

**Special JS feature or syntax**

This benchmark does not explicitly use any special JavaScript features or syntax that are not part of the standard language. However, it relies on the Canvas API's `drawImage`, `putImageData`, and `getContext` methods, which might require knowledge of advanced web development concepts.

**Other alternatives**

If you're interested in exploring alternative approaches, consider:

1. **WebGL**: A more low-level, hardware-accelerated graphics library for rendering 3D content.
2. **Pixel-perfect drawing libraries**: Specialized libraries like Pixi.js or Three.js, which provide precise control over pixel placement and manipulation.

These alternatives might be suitable for specific use cases, such as 3D graphics rendering, game development, or high-performance image processing.

Related benchmarks:

PutImageData vs DrawImage without GetImageData (version: 0)

PutImageData vs just DrawImage

Comparing performance of: DrawImage whole master into di canvas vs PutImageData whole master into pid canvas vs DrawImage half master into di canvas vs PutImageData half master into pid canvas

Created: 3 years ago by: Registered User

Jump to the latest result

DrawImage whole master into di canvas

PutImageData whole master into pid canvas

DrawImage half master into di canvas

PutImageData half master into pid canvas

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Experimental features:

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Autogenerated LLM Summary (model llama3.2:3b, generated 2 months ago):