3 ms·
I get what your saying but when your storing millions of images and transferring them frequently those small reductions in size are very significant when you ge
by zxcvbn4038 7y ago
I get what your saying but when your storing millions of images and transferring them frequently those small reductions in size are very significant when you get your storage and/or transit bill. A.lot of the fluff and filler you mentioned is cached, so your not bringing it down every request. Even if it wasn’t you can assume it’s deemed becc
- rndgermandude 7y agoYou'd think so, but imgur for example is literally in the business of serving images to a lot of users (and some videos, too) and yet they did not even implement the vanilla libjpeg optimized coding it seems. And I am not just picking on imgur, they are just an example for today; other similar services didn't do much better last I checked, neither when it comes to serving optimized JPEGs nor overall page sizes either.
- IshKebab 7y agoI think that's his point - you can already reduce JPEG size a bit by using fancier libraries, but even huge sites like Imgur apparently don't bother.
- jonsneyers 7y agoMaybe Imgur doesn't bother, I don't know. I work for Cloudinary, and we do bother. A lot.
- taneq 7y agoThe small reductions in image size still pale into insignificance compared with the gains they'd get if they just cut 90% of the crud out of every imgur page load. In the past few years that site has become exponentially more bloated and resource intensive for zero apparent gain (to the users anyway).