the.r3m0t wrote:

Uses too much CPU resources.

hhielscher wrote:

a) the computer that does the conversion of the images does not have to be the
same computer that is serving the pages and/or images
b) this could be a process of very low priority (like nice -n 19) that works
from the eldest actively used images (=images that are not changed anymore) to
newer ones
c) many image converters are optimized for speed to the extend of beeing
programmed in assembly code

andrewpmk wrote:

Against. Usually, interlaced images are larger because the Adam7 interlacing
mixes up the bytes, screwing up compression. I would rather load a smaller image
progressively than a larger image interlaced. Furthermore, the amount of CPU
time used by this is huge.

robchur wrote:

Could this be made into a WikiProject, or whatever the Commons equivalent is?
Tag non-interlaced images and add them to a category, or would there be problems
from that, e.g. some weird copyright thing?

robchur wrote:

No feedback on a possible user project to get this done, and we seem to be of
the opinion that it would consume too much of our precious resources as it is.
Agree with that; don't want to kill off the new NFS servers. ;-)

zigger wrote:

Changing resolution from WONTFIX to LATER, as there is a good track record of
decreasing CPU cost, increasing revenue and server numbers, and community
participation. Some tests could be done on the impact of interlacing on sizes,
compressions, and CPU.

Revert to WONTFIX given bug 17645 comment 2 by Tim.