3 ms·
Does it? I tried this in GIMP and I get pretty bad block artifacts, discoloration, and blurriness at compression factor 25 (which ends up at ~25kB). I would sa
by ThePadawan 5y ago
Does it? I tried this in GIMP and I get pretty bad block artifacts, discoloration, and blurriness at compression factor 25 (which ends up at ~25kB).
I would say at that point it's arguable which artifacts are preferable (compression or dithering), not compression being a clear winner.
- Veen 5y agoIt just looks a bit blocky/fuzzy when I try this. It doesn't look great, but it retains much more detail than the dithered version. It looks a bit better at the same size as a HEIC image.
- tyingq 5y agoHere's one done with jpegoptim -m 40, which gets it down to 28k: Original 123k picture on top, 28k picture on bottom: https://imgur.com/a/hZy46K3 https://imgur.com/a/hZy46K3
- ThePadawan 5y agoYes, this looks pretty much like my version. Maybe I'm just nit-picky, but I do quite clearly see greenish squares, especially on the forehead and nose area. Probably not enough to catch my eye, but strong enough that looking at the picture for 5 seconds I would say "boy this was compressed way too much".
- beervirus 5y agoYes it is less than perfect. It looks a lot better than the dithered examples though.
- kristopolous 5y agoYou've gotten rid of 78% of the bytes. That's an extremely little price to pay in quality for that kind of gain
- mnw21cam 5y agoTell GIMP not to include the EXIF and XMP data (which doesn't get any smaller when you decrease the quality). Then tell it to use 4:2:0 chroma subsampling, and set the quality to 24 or so.