by vladdanilov on 10/19/18, 6:03 AM with 26 comments
by tofof on 10/20/18, 3:52 AM
Even in the specific examples that are supposed to count against imageoptim -- the destructive chroma sampling, the 'broken gradient' (I can't see it), the orange sneakers (imageoptim's looks better and not overblown colors), or the rotated beach scene -- imageoptim is dramatically smaller on all of them. It puts up a 76k file vs 141k, a 5k vs 14k, a 72k vs 177k, and a 750k vs 1340k.
Halving the filesize for such small differences is exactly what I want in an optimizer.
My biggest complaint with imageoptim is that it's primarily a mac tool, with only a secondary online interface for the windows/linux crowd. But then this project has exactly the same flaw, so there's no gain there either.
by ipsum2 on 10/19/18, 9:54 PM
If you search "image compression tool" on Google you'll have millions of hits of products that do the exact same thing. You even list a bunch of competitors on your website. What makes this the first?
by mjgoeke on 10/19/18, 10:38 PM
In chrome they look identical. Perhaps the source images included gamma information?
CRS-4 Mission Launch by SpaceX (less contrast, less color saturation in 'before')
Jellyfish photo by 贝莉儿 NG (much lower blue saturation in 'before')
by anigbrowl on 10/20/18, 12:33 AM
by jacobn on 10/20/18, 11:49 PM
Does something very similar, but gives you a full trade off graph and also supports SVG and is free.
(I’m one of the creators of the site)
by johntran on 10/20/18, 1:36 AM
by juliend2 on 10/20/18, 12:03 AM
> “It takes the energy in one lump of coal to move 1 MB of information across the net.”
I wonder if it's still true today, 10 years later.
by artemis73 on 10/19/18, 10:33 AM
by denormalfloat on 10/20/18, 4:49 PM
by chiefalchemist on 10/20/18, 12:50 AM