Benchmark: Get and Put image data on an opaque canvas

HTML Preparation code:

<canvas id='drawcan' width='512' height='512'></canvas>

Script Preparation code:

var drawCon = document.getElementById('drawcan').getContext('2d',{
  alpha: false});

Tests:

get and set
var imageData = drawCon.getImageData(0,0,512,512); drawCon.putImageData(imageData,0,0);
get, paint, and set
var imageData = drawCon.getImageData(0,0,512,512); for (var i = 0; i < 200; i++) { for (var j = 0; j < 200; j++) { imageData[i*512+j] = 0xff00ff; } } drawCon.putImageData(imageData,0,0);

Rendered benchmark preparation results:

Suite status: <idle, ready to run>

Previous results

Test case name	Result
get and set
get, paint, and set

Fastest: N/A

Slowest: N/A

Latest run results:

Run details: (Test run date: 5 years ago)

User agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64) AppleWebKit/537.36 (KHTML, like Gecko) Chrome/78.0.3904.108 Safari/537.36

Browser/OS: Chrome 78 on Windows

View result in a separate tab

Test name	Executions per second
get and set	753.7 Ops/sec
get, paint, and set	223.9 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 benchmark being tested.

**Benchmark Definition**

The benchmark is designed to compare the performance of three different approaches for setting image data on an opaque canvas:

1. **get and set**: This approach involves retrieving the image data using `getImageData()` and then immediately updating it with `putImageData()`.
2. **get, paint, and set**: This approach involves painting a red square on the canvas using `fillRect()` or similar, which effectively modifies the underlying pixel data.

**Options Compared**

The two main options being compared are:

* **get and set**: This approach uses `getImageData()` to retrieve the image data, which can be slow since it requires creating a new DOM object.
* **get, paint, and set**: This approach paints directly on the canvas using `fillRect()`, which is likely faster since it doesn't require retrieving the entire image data.

**Pros and Cons**

**Get and Set:**

Pros:

* Easy to understand and implement
* Can be useful for debugging or testing specific parts of the code

Cons:

* Slower due to the overhead of creating a new DOM object

**Get, Paint, and Set:**

Pros:

* Faster since it doesn't require retrieving the entire image data
* More efficient use of resources

Cons:

* May be more difficult to understand and implement for complex cases
* Can lead to unexpected behavior if not used carefully (e.g., changing pixel values without updating the DOM)

**Library Usage**

In this benchmark, there is no explicit library usage. However, it's worth noting that `getContext()` is used to create a 2D drawing context on the canvas.

**Special JS Features/Syntax**

There are no special JavaScript features or syntax being tested in this benchmark. The code is written in vanilla JavaScript and doesn't rely on any advanced features like async/await, Promises, or modern ES6+ syntax.

**Other Alternatives**

For a similar benchmark, you might consider using other approaches that compare the performance of different image manipulation techniques, such as:

* Using a GPU-accelerated canvas library (e.g., WebGL) to set image data
* Comparing the performance of different image formats or compression algorithms
* Measuring the performance of different rendering engines (e.g., WebKit vs. Blink)
* Testing the impact of different screen resolutions, aspect ratios, or display densities on benchmark performance

Related benchmarks:

Get and Put image data on an opaque canvas (version: 0)

Comparing performance of: get and set vs get, paint, and set

Comparing performance of: get and set vs get, paint, and set

Created: 5 years ago by: Guest

Jump to the latest result

get and set

get, paint, and set

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):