3 ms·
> For the PNGs, I had used 4 different optimizers (PNGCrush, OptiPNG, AdvPNG, and PNGOut), but almost all images saw size reductions in lossless mode ranging fr
by rorrr2 13y ago
> For the PNGs, I had used 4 different optimizers (PNGCrush, OptiPNG, AdvPNG, and PNGOut), but almost all images saw size reductions in lossless mode ranging from under 1% to over 50%
I seriously doubt you can squeeze more than 1-2% after properly running PNGOut on an image.
This service only makes sense if you have huge images that you want to optimize. $19 for 1000 8-megabyte images is a pretty good deal. That's a rare case though. If you have tiny image, just run PNGOut on them for free.
- rb2k_ 13y ago1-2% might be possible by using aggressive gzip encoders such as https://code.google.com/p/zopfli/ https://code.google.com/p/zopfli/ ( as seen in https://github.com/sayurin/optipng-zopfli https://github.com/sayurin/optipng-zopfli and mentioned in https://twitter.com/pornelski/status/356843309118922756 https://twitter.com/pornelski/status/356843309118922756 )
- kraken-io 13y agoWe have been experimenting with Google's Zopfli but found out that the optimization time is too long for such a insignificant optimization gain. Optimization speed has always a key factor for Kraken.io.
- depsypher 13y agoAnother option using zopfli is pngtastic (disclaimer, my own project): https://github.com/depsypher/pngtastic https://github.com/depsypher/pngtastic It really is significantly slower, but if you want to reduce every last byte in a png zopfli is your best bet.
- Yver 13y agoYou can get decent savings (~90-95% of the optimized size) with some brute force at the encoder level, more time spent testing different filters and rearranging the palette, but it takes a lot of CPU for little gain. At some point, you might spend minutes to save bytes. This service is much faster than that, so they probably don't use brute force at all.