7 ms·
While not very popular, ECT [1] is (still?) the best solution in this space and has been my go-to tool for this purpose. [1] https://github.com/fhanau/Efficien
by lifthrasiir 5mo ago
While not very popular, ECT [1] is (still?) the best solution in this space and has been my go-to tool for this purpose.
[1] https://github.com/fhanau/Efficient-Compression-Tool https://github.com/fhanau/Efficient-Compression-Tool
- futune 5mo agoI use ect on a monthly basis, at least. Especially for png files. It's pretty great!
- zamadatix 5mo agoYeah, for how well it does with PNGs it really doesn't get nearly as much attention as the other tools for the same do.
- useyourloaf 5mo agoThank you for the pointer!
- idoubtit 5mo agoI had no heard of ECT, but I'm not impressed. I've just benchmarked it against two others PNG optimizers, and here are the file sizes for default and max levels: 1985457 oxipng-o6.png 2030036 oxipng-o2.png 2125459 ect-o9.png 2144598 ect-o3.png 2169351 optipng-o7.png 2215086 optipng-o2.png 2218326 original.png oxipng 9.1.5 OptiPNG version 7.9.1 Efficient Compression Tool Version 0.9.5 BTW, I could not compile ECT on my Linux system, because its CMake config was too old. I used the Windows release through Wine, but it shouldn't change the results above. I tried to apply ECT to a few .gz files, but it complained it was not compatible, and I did not dig further. [edited for a typo s/I/it/]
- lifthrasiir 5mo agoGood to know that oxipng has surpassed ECT; there is a reason why i put "(still?)" in my original comment. How quick is it? (The main selling point of ECT was that it was way faster than OptiPNG etc. while results being smaller.)