function base64ToArrayBuffer(base64) {
var binaryString = atob(base64);
var bytes = new Uint8Array(binaryString.length);
for (var i = 0; i < binaryString.length; i++) {
bytes[i] = binaryString.charCodeAt(i);
}
return bytes.buffer;
}
Answer from Goran.it on Stack Overflowfunction base64ToArrayBuffer(base64) {
var binaryString = atob(base64);
var bytes = new Uint8Array(binaryString.length);
for (var i = 0; i < binaryString.length; i++) {
bytes[i] = binaryString.charCodeAt(i);
}
return bytes.buffer;
}
Using TypedArray.from:
Uint8Array.from(atob(base64_string), c => c.charCodeAt(0))
Performance to be compared with the for loop version of Goran.it answer.
You can use XMLHttpRequest to do the dirty work for you:
var url = document.createElement("canvas").toDataURL(); // some data-uri
var xhr = new XMLHttpRequest();
xhr.open("GET", url);
xhr.responseType = "arraybuffer";
xhr.onload = function() {
// result = ArrayBuffer, from here assign a view to it
if (xhr.status === 200) console.log(new Uint8Array(xhr.response));
};
xhr.send();
It's a little more code than using atob() but all conversion happens internally. It's async too which can help with larger Data-URIs.
In newer browsers (which supports it) you can instead use fetch():
// note: atm not all browsers support these features.
fetch(document.createElement("canvas").toDataURL()) // pass in some data-uri
.then(function(response) {return response.arrayBuffer()})
.then(function(buffer) {
console.log(new Uint8Array(buffer));
});
You can try with the following;
function test(base64StringFromURL)
{
var parts = base64StringFromURL.split(";base64,");
var contentType = parts[0].replace("data:", "");
var base64 = parts[1];
var byteArray = base64ToByteArray(base64);
..
}
function base64ToByteArray(base64String) {
try {
var sliceSize = 1024;
var byteCharacters = atob(base64String);
var bytesLength = byteCharacters.length;
var slicesCount = Math.ceil(bytesLength / sliceSize);
var byteArrays = new Array(slicesCount);
for (var sliceIndex = 0; sliceIndex < slicesCount; ++sliceIndex) {
var begin = sliceIndex * sliceSize;
var end = Math.min(begin + sliceSize, bytesLength);
var bytes = new Array(end - begin);
for (var offset = begin, i = 0; offset < end; ++i, ++offset) {
bytes[i] = byteCharacters[offset].charCodeAt(0);
}
byteArrays[sliceIndex] = new Uint8Array(bytes);
}
return byteArrays;
} catch (e) {
console.log("Couldn't convert to byte array: " + e);
return undefined;
}
}
function base64ToArrayBuffer(base64) {
var binaryString = atob(base64);
var bytes = new Uint8Array(binaryString.length);
for (var i = 0; i < binaryString.length; i++) {
bytes[i] = binaryString.charCodeAt(i);
}
return bytes.buffer;
}
Using TypedArray.from:
Uint8Array.from(atob(base64_string), c => c.charCodeAt(0))
Performance to be compared with the for loop version of Goran.it answer.
» npm install base64-js
» npm install byte-base64
function _arrayBufferToBase64( buffer ) {
var binary = '';
var bytes = new Uint8Array( buffer );
var len = bytes.byteLength;
for (var i = 0; i < len; i++) {
binary += String.fromCharCode( bytes[ i ] );
}
return window.btoa( binary );
}
but, non-native implementations are faster e.g. https://gist.github.com/958841 see http://jsperf.com/encoding-xhr-image-data/6
jsPerf.com is jsPerf.app now: https://jsperf.app/encoding-xhr-image-data/51
Updated benchmarks: https://jsben.ch/wnaZC
This works fine for me:
var base64String = btoa(String.fromCharCode.apply(null, new Uint8Array(arrayBuffer)));
In ES6, the syntax is a little simpler:
const base64String = btoa(String.fromCharCode(...new Uint8Array(arrayBuffer)));
As pointed out in the comments, this method may result in a runtime error in some browsers when the ArrayBuffer is large. The exact size limit is implementation dependent in any case.
function base64ToArrayBuffer(base64) {
var binaryString = atob(base64);
var bytes = new Uint8Array(binaryString.length);
for (var i = 0; i < binaryString.length; i++) {
bytes[i] = binaryString.charCodeAt(i);
}
return bytes.buffer;
}
Using TypedArray.from:
Uint8Array.from(atob(base64_string), c => c.charCodeAt(0))
Performance to be compared with the for loop version of Goran.it answer.