Photoshop export (yes, even Save for Web) is notoriously inefficient. As others have mentioned here, ImageOptim (and the various command line tools it uses) can make your images significantly smaller (particularly PNGs).
Well, that's a bold claim, but let's see if Photoshop really is inefficient. I took the original iguana image from the Compressor site, and then used Photoshop save for web to bring it down to 250kb (same size as the after image from Compressor).
I picked a spot and zoomed in where it's easiest to see the artifacts.
If you want a good list of command-line tools to do this sort of thing, have a look at the ImageOptim website (http://imageoptim.com/), which lists all of the command-line tools it combines together.
imageoptim is my current go to... it's pretty solid.
I have an image that imageoptim brought down to 149kb. I ran THAT already compressed image through compressor.io and it brought it down to 51kb. Whoa. Very very minimal degradation in some of the image drop shadows but not enough to care based on that file size
Google mod_pagespeed for Apache/nginx does a good job of compressing images, it does things like use a 4:2:0 YUV colourspace and it also serves webp format to clients that support such things.
The advantage of the mod_pagespeed approach is that you can keep hi-res images in your web page and not have to be concerned with manually compressing things.
You can get decent results on jpeg images using jpegtran, and if you don't mind progressive jpegs, you can get slightly smaller images with a progressive scan table optimized for your images (determining the ideal scan order for your dataset is left as an exercise to the reader):
Command line is definitely best for scriptability and repeatability.
The thing I like about ImageOptim is that it runs multiple strategies (for PNG and JPEG at least) and picks the best one. Plus its ease of use for one-off compressions can't be beat.
If I had to choose, I'd say the visual quality of JpegMini is fractionally better, but it's hardly perceptible to my eye - they both produce incredible results.
Besides offering lossless quality images, JPEGmini allows a much larger file size. Compressor.io only appears to allow 10MB files, which if you're trying to use it for photography, it won't be very useful because the jpeg's produced by a Canon 5D Mark III are about 20MB-30MB in size. It is also only web based, whereas JPEGmini has a native client. Compressor.io looks promising though.
Perfect for my needs. I compress images for blog posts, and rather than having to load a compressor, this is perfect. Go to website, drag & drop, save.
+ I just compressed JPG which I previously saved for web with Photoshop. No loss of quality, 18% smaller filesize.
This was my first thought and I actually looked to see if it was a gag site. Otherwise I agree with other comments that it needs to be a CLI tool to become truly useful for me.
Excellent work, but as others have said you're launching too early without an API, batch upload or other features everyone on Hacker News would consider "core".
So, say I have 25GB of photos on my OneDrive. How would I go about compressing them all in a lossless way similar to the way this website does it? I use Windows so no imageoptim for me.
For bigger images the quality always gets downgraded to 80 and Huffman tables are optimized. For smaller ones the quality differs so he's using a tool to automatically pick the right quality.
Since compressor.io is down we're shamelessly recommending https://kraken.io instead.
We invest very heavily with dedicated infrastructure (dual-CPU hexacores) and provide unparalleled optimization and compression for both lossy and lossless options. We have a serious API and bulk upload and download options. Build-in CDN (SSD-based) integration is coming within a few weeks.
Are you guys using proprietary image compression tools, or are you doing the same thing as these guys and just sticking a web interface in front of open source tools?
This probably gives you no better compression than using a CLI tool or something like imageoptim. But where this wins is in the presentation. If you're a lay-person, if you see this, you see magic. You get to immediately see your file size shrink and get proof with an interactive visual widget.
How do you innovate? Did you invent a new algorithm? Or the backend is just using special configurations of open source tools? Compressor.io just did 1% better on an image already optimized with gimp.
73 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 154 ms ] threadI picked a spot and zoomed in where it's easiest to see the artifacts.
http://i.imgur.com/Sf72oZq.png
If anything, I'd say the Photoshop one is better than Compressor.
Also how does it compare to other tools such as ImageAlpha http://pngmini.com ?
I have an image that imageoptim brought down to 149kb. I ran THAT already compressed image through compressor.io and it brought it down to 51kb. Whoa. Very very minimal degradation in some of the image drop shadows but not enough to care based on that file size
The advantage of the mod_pagespeed approach is that you can keep hi-res images in your web page and not have to be concerned with manually compressing things.
Edit: Pretty please :)
The thing I like about ImageOptim is that it runs multiple strategies (for PNG and JPEG at least) and picks the best one. Plus its ease of use for one-off compressions can't be beat.
EDIT:
Compressor.io (lossless): Before 4.72 MB | After 4.72 MB
Compressor.io (lossy): Before 4.72 MB | After 1.27 MB
JpegMini (lossless): Before: 4.72 MB | After 1.3 MB
Test image: http://imgur.com/gbOCJxX
[0] http://www.jpegmini.com
Image1 reduction: Compressor.io 28.67% | JpegMini 34.35%
Image2 reduction: Compressor.io 69.55% | JpegMini 55.41%
If I had to choose, I'd say the visual quality of JpegMini is fractionally better, but it's hardly perceptible to my eye - they both produce incredible results.
Jabatus EX503 - Voir www.jabatus.fr
+ I just compressed JPG which I previously saved for web with Photoshop. No loss of quality, 18% smaller filesize.
So far all I got is https://github.com/emrekutlu/paperclip-compression (jpegtran + optipng).
Its Weismann score sucks, nothing like PP.
> Jabatus EX503 - Voir http://www.jabatus.fr
Is it hacked or what?
Compression seems pretty good with very minimal degredation
https://wordpress.org/plugins/wp-smushit/
Edit: Just tested with another image, same result.
https://developers.google.com/speed/pagespeed/module
(Disclaimer: I work on this.)
@wouwi: what's the tool used for JPEGs?
https://github.com/lovell/sharp
We invest very heavily with dedicated infrastructure (dual-CPU hexacores) and provide unparalleled optimization and compression for both lossy and lossless options. We have a serious API and bulk upload and download options. Build-in CDN (SSD-based) integration is coming within a few weeks.