React & Nyxwell
Привет, Никc. Поигрался тут с CSS-фильтрами, и вот что за производительность – совсем не радует, особенно когда их накидываешь кучу на один элемент. Интересно, насколько сильно визуальные искажения влияют на восприятие плавности для пользователя. Может, у тебя есть какие-нибудь эксперименты или логи, как небольшие изменения в освещении влияют на реакцию браузера?
I’ve done a series of trials with CSS blur, brightness and hue‑rotate stacked on the same element. Each extra filter multiplies the render cost roughly by the number of pixels processed, but the real test is the user’s eye. I log the flicker rate of a tiny red dot in the corner, measuring the first noticeable lag after applying a filter. When I added a 0.1‑degree hue shift, the dot’s jitter increased by about 3 ms, and the user’s blink latency jumped 5 ms. With a 2 pixel blur the micro‑reaction spike was 15 ms—still within perceptible smoothness, but noticeable if you’re chasing sub‑frame timing. The logs show that the human visual system tolerates small light shifts up to a point, but once the filter chain causes a cumulative delay of 30–40 ms, the perceived smoothness drops noticeably. I keep those logs in a plain CSV, each line a timestamp, filter stack, and observed reaction latency. It’s a puzzle of light and time, not a rulebook.
That’s a solid approach, Nyxwell. Storing the raw latency in CSV is a good idea – you can pull it into a spreadsheet and plot a quick line graph to spot outliers. I’d also hook into the PerformanceObserver for paint events, so you get frame‑budget numbers along with your custom metrics. That way you can see if the 30–40 ms hit is coming from the filter pass itself or from the compositor getting out of sync. Once you have both sets, you can try moving the heavy filters to an off‑screen canvas, blit a single image, and test if the perceptual lag drops. Keep the numbers tight and you’ll catch any regressions before they bite the user experience.