A technical comparison between tinyexr and OpenEXR libraries for handling EXR image files. The analysis benchmarks binary size, source code size, and read/write performance across different OpenEXR versions (3.2.4 to 3.4.4). Results show tinyexr is smaller (251KB vs 649KB) but slower (6.55s vs 1.65s), while OpenEXR offers more compression formats and better performance. The post demonstrates how to build OpenEXR as a single compilation unit and provides options for reducing binary size by removing specific compression codecs.

3m read timeFrom aras-p.info
Post cover image

Sort: