+\subsection{Performance whilst adding Detail} \label{Performance whilst adding Detail}
+
+For a static document containing only a few imported test SVGs, the use of GMP rationals for path coordinates was not a noticable performance detriment compared to the implementations using floating point coordinates. Figure \ref{adding_things} measures the time taken for a script to scale the document to a point at which it will insert an additional copy of a test SVG (Figure \ref{turtle.pdf}).
+
+We have included the Na\"{i}ve approach discussed in Section \ref{Naive Approach} with GMP rationals (\texttt{Gmprat}) and MPFR using 1024 bits of precision (\texttt{mpfr-1024}) to illustrate its impracticality. The \texttt{Gmprat} data is removed from Figure \ref{adding_things} b).
+
+\begin{figure}[H]
+ \centering
+ \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figures/naive_gmprat_is_slow.pdf}
+ \includegraphics[width=0.49\textwidth]{figures/naive_mpfr_is_also_slow.pdf}
+
+ \caption{a) Performance including Na\"{i}ve Implementations b) Excluding \texttt{Gmprat} data \\ Legend is in descending order to correspond with the height of the curves} \label{adding_things}
+\end{figure}
+
+From these results it is clear that our implementation using arbitrary precision arithmetic only for path coordinates is comparable to the straight forward floating point implementation. It is interesting to note that despite Figure \ref{memory.pdf}, GMP rationals are slightly faster than MPFR with 1024 bits for this test. This is possibly because the GMP rationals only grow in size as needed, whilst MPFR operations always use the full 1024 bits per number.
+
+\section{Video Demonstrations}
+
+Realtime videos of the IPDF software showing the results presented in this chapter can be found at
+\url{http://szmoore.net/ipdf/sam/videos}. The performance tests in Section \ref{Performance whilst adding Detail} were taken using the same script running in these videos.
+