Repeating website background image - size vs speed
I was wondering if anyone has done any tests with background images. We normally create a background that repeats at least in one direction (x or y or both).
Example
Let's say we have a gradient background that repeats in X direction. Gradient height is 400px. We have several possibilities. We can create as small image as possible (1 pixel width and 400 pixels high) or we can create a larger image with 400 pixels height.
Observation
Since gradient is 400 pixels high we probably won't choose GIF format, because it can only store 256 adaptive colours. Maybe that's enaough if our gradient is subtle, since it doesn't have that many, but otherwise we'll probably rather store image as a 24-bit PNG image to preserve complete gradient detail.
Dilemma
Should we create an image of 1×400 px size that will be repeated n times horizontally or should we create an image of 100×400 px size to speed up rendering in the browser and have a larger image file size.
So. Image size vs. rendering speed? Which one wins? Anyone cares to test this? With regards to browser rendering speed and possible small image redraw flickering...
Answer
The rendering speed is the bottleneck here, since bigger tiles can be put into the browser's cache.
I've actually tried this for the major browsers, and at least some of them rendered noticeably slow on very small tiles.
So if increasing the bitmap size does not result in ridiculously big file sizes, I would definately go with that. Test it yourself and see. (Remember to include IE6, as still many people are stuck with it).
You might be able to strike a good balance between bitmap size and file size, but in general I'd try 50x400, 100x400, 200x400 and even 400x400 pixels.