vladdanilov

7 ms·

1.
by vladdanilov 7y ago
Squoosh does not use best-in-class codecs [1]. Lossless PNG compression is 5-15% worse on average and lossy PNG compression (color quantization) is limited to PNG-8, which is not enough to maintain image quality. Lossy JPEG compression is o
2.
by vladdanilov 7y ago
This describes the problem more or less but it does not give a single working solution. Image optimization now includes videos, scaling, format and color conversion, and simply compressing images at Quality 80 does not provide consistent vi
3.
by vladdanilov 7y ago
The website assets are optimized in a rather strange way. The total page weight of ~20MB is huge for mobile. The images are heavily compressed using WebP lossy with quite noticeable blockiness and washed out textures and fine details, but s
4.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
> For high quality photography purposes jpeg is bordering on useless > Use WebP! For everything! Jyrki Alakuijala, one of the creators of WebP, on WebP vs JPEG [1]: >> For high quality photography, I (and butteraugli) believe th
5.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
> 56% larger than those created by ImageOptim! And noticeably degraded if you compare those images with the originals. Optimage does apply chroma subsampling, the major winner here, when it makes sense. My goal is automatic image optimiz
6.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
I have been making Optimage which is currently the only tool that can automatically optimize images without ruining visual quality [1]. It is also the new state of the art in lossless PNG compression. I have raised a number of issues [2] wi
7.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
> Omvlee decided to design his application to run natively on OS X. This was very smart. Although Omvlee could have reached a considerably wider audience by designing Sketch for Windows (or OS X and Windows), focusing on the Mac market w
8.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
I specifically meant automatic lossy compression with predictable visual quality. If ImageOptim could actually achieve it (automatically), that would save me and others an awful lot of time. But as it turns out it is not that easy. Some v
9.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
> Compress your JPG images with the compression level of 70‑80. In practice some images can get noticeable artifacts even at around 90. Most of JPEG compressors always apply chroma subsampling which is often destructive on its own [1]. O
10.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
It's alright. There's a 77 KB spinner.gif that can be reduced by half.
11.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
> imageoptim clocking in at around half the total filesize of optimage Only that ImageOptim ruined most of JPEG images while PNG images are ~7.5% bigger. > imageoptim is dramatically smaller on all of them There are myriad ways to mak
12.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
Well, the problem is the uncanny valley between native and its imitation.
13.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
Qt does not use native widgets only simulates them.
14.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
Yes, some of the source images are tagged with ICC color profiles. It looks like Firefox still does not treat untagged images as sRGB and the difference on wide-gamut monitors may be noticeable. That was a matter of an option switch. It sho
15.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
Why? There's an extensive benchmark [1], also seen on the homepage, that proves it is the first tool that does not break images like other state-of-the-art tools, i.e. fits the submitted tagline. On a side note, HN voting system is hor
16.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
I plan to release a cross-platform CLI tool first. The core tool already works under *nix. But there's still a good portion of business logic in the app. The work on a cross-platform GUI is happening too, but it is way slower than I an
17.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
I find the irony in more prosaic details like a 2.1MB image [1] to show the new UI of "Secure, Fast & Private Web Browser" (for comparison optimized PNG8 is 351KB [2] and JPEG is 398KB [3]). [1] https://brave.com&
18.
Show HN: Optimage – Advanced image optimization tool(getoptimage.com)
39 points by vladdanilov 8y ago|26 comments
19.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
JPEG is not a good choice for UI/typography screenshots. There are ~1MB of JPEGs at quality 50 on the page. By using PNG8 not only you can halve that size but also preserve original quality. Example: [1] PNG24 199 144 bytes [2] J
20.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
WebP lossy and WebP lossless often get mixed up. They are substantially different. While the former is mostly just outdated VP8 4:2:0, it is fast and more pleasing to the eye than JPEG at low quality and more practical there, given it has
21.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
You will get better results by swapping the two. Pngquant stops at color quantization. Also, most of those savings came from near-optimal Deflate compression.
22.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
Nice to see you're using the same animation technique [1]. MP4 could not possibly provide this level of quality/size (~150KB per animation). Pngcrush is rather limiting though. I could compress the PNG textures by ~8% more with op
23.
Comparison of image optimization tools(getoptimage.com)
3 points by vladdanilov 8y ago|0 comments
24.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
Why is it not a browser feature? Transferred 175MB just to measure the speed. Good it does not do it at 3G speeds. There are also 156KB of images waiting to be compressed to one third of that [1]. [1] https://i.imgur.com/34S
25.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
This article like many others is full of fallacies. Image formats are not used wisely: [1] is PNG not JPEG and [2] is JPEG not PNG. > I found that setting quality (mozjpeg) to 70 produces good enough images for the most part, but your mi
26.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
It's not automatic then, which is critical for batch processing, and does not solve all the problems, and create new usability problems for most users.
27.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
The only solution I found is to build a new tool, and that required a complete rewrite of existing optimizers and significant changes to underlying libraries.
28.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
It's pretty good. The problem with automatic lossy compression is consistent quality. There is a number of issues with each and every tool you mentioned, e.g. color information stripped with metadata causing color shifts in wide-gamut
29.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
> So, on a post which discusses problematic behaviour on Github where entitled people try to bully us into working on what they want without writing any code themselves -- you (someone who has tried to bully us before on Github) -- decid
30.
by vladdanilov 8y ago
Since you're in the spotlight now, I want to bring back the discussion on image optimization [1]. Looking at your Features page [2], there are 953KB of images that can be compressed down to 453KB (-47.3%). I genuinely wonder what you c

More ›