3 ms·

The picture you provided looks much worse, though. Quite noisy and I can see pixels. I suppose the real problem is that it's too difficult to provide appropria

The picture you provided looks much worse, though. Quite noisy and I can see pixels. I suppose the real problem is that it's too difficult to provide appropriately-sized images for different user agents.

consumer451 5y ago
Yes, sorry I tried to use a random webapp and I thought optimization was set to no optimization. I was just thinking it would be nice to have a bot/api/webapp that I could give my URL to and it would give me a set of links to at least a bit optimized images. Maybe something built into all IDEs, or is this a platform responsibility. For example, the OP images were much larger in pixel size than necessary. When I look at them in their full size, it is also a noisy image. Certainly a 1/2 resize could be reasonable while not losing meaningful pixels. I know this is a game of trade-offs, but it would be nice to have a standard that had very low friction. I guess TinyPNG almost does this.
- emteycz 5y ago
  Imgix
MarioMan 5y ago
> I suppose the real problem is that it's too difficult to provide appropriately-sized images for different user agents. I use a <picture> element with multiple versions as a <source>. This allows the browser to choose which size and format is best automatically. Many site generators will set these up automatically, with the right plugin. See: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/picture https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/HTML/Element/pi...
NovemberWhiskey 5y ago
It's just a 12 megapixel image saved with unnecessarily high JPEG quality settings. Compare: https://imgur.com/a/axLxDBT https://imgur.com/a/axLxDBT Photoshop's "fair" JPEG settings result in something that's functionally indistinguishable and only 347KB.