What is Reddit's opinion of
OptiPNG?
From 3.5 billion Reddit comments
➔ OptiPNG website
By popularity on Reddit, this Service is:
25 reviews of this app found across Reddit:
I don't think the "Ultimate Image Optimization Tool" is a web based tool. This tool doesn't have any details. Is it lossy or lossless? (EDIT: It looks lossy, meaning you can lose quality.) Did the author write their own optimization tool, or are they just using open source tools on the backend?
Personally, I do lossless PNG optimization on all PNG files on my sites. I do it from the command line in bulk. Using a web based tool doesn't really make sense for this, since it would take a lot more time. A year or so ago we had a conversation about this on Reddit along with some quick tests comparing a few tools, and OptiPNG was doing the best for lossless PNG compression. PNGcrush was a runner up. Here is that thread. This is talking about lossless PNG compression though. With other formats or lossy options, the results may be very different.
Another option is OptiPNG. Years ago I did a comparison and found it to be amongst the best (when given the right command line options, such as -o7.) I'm not sure how that has changed with time, but it is worth checking out.
http://optipng.sourceforge.net/
EDIT: I didn't realize that TinyPNG was lossy when writing this. OptiPNG does lossless optimization. (Though newer version appear to have more options.)
Wow! 20 MB PNGs is a lot.
That's good to hear.
I'm curious; will you be losslessly compressing the PNGs using something like OptiPNG to save file space? That'd be pretty rad.
Install the skin first:
- skin.eminence.2.mod
This will take awhile.
Then install:
- weather.openweathermap.extended
- resource.images.weatherfanart.multi
- resource.images.weathericons.white
And enable them in settings. Once that is done you will be able to activate the "Weather" widget.
This was one of the bugs in the original Eminence 2 MOD release that is fixed in this version.
Also all the images have been jpegoptim & OptiPNG.
This reduced the size of the skin from 29.5 MB to 18.9 MB.
One small milkshake, please.
I just put through a commit with these changes. I ran the images through optiPNG first to save space (and revisions that increase the size of the offline download).
Chica does look more interesting now. I think that this will increase her appeal to those whom it's meant to appeal.
I haven't used WebGL, but here's my understanding from a general graphics programming standpoint.
The graphics card doesn't know how to read a JPEG. The texture has to be converted into a bitmap before it is loaded into video memory. Therefore the image format you use only affects download times and RAM usage.
I would say use whatever you can get away with. If your texture has gradients and photographic-like bits, use JPEG, and try various compression levels until you find a quality loss amount that you're comfortable with. If you're compressing line art or text, or anything with large areas of flat color, use PNG. And always run it through ImageOptim (Mac) or OptiPNG.
As for the models, OpenGL is format agnostic so just use whatever format supports the features you need.
A combination of AdvanceCOMP and OptiPNG can squeeze four more bytes out of it, down to 657 bytes:
https://i.imgur.com/vVyXuBj.png
I ran it like this:
$ advpng -z4 pl8wFK9.png $ optipng -o7 pl8wFK9.png $ advpng -z4 pl8wFK9.png
They each do different kinds of transformations and reductions, so going back and forth can nudge it closer towards optimum.
I've got five subreddits and with 25 posts this already takes up a little less than 200 MB. If you would move this limit perhaps it would be useful to look into compression techniques such as OptiPNG, JpegOptim, Lossy GIF These could potentially save about half the space without losing quality notably
> this thread didn't exactly blow up.
I think I must have framed it incorrectly. The barrier to entry was even lower than simply posting a screenshot of a new kisekae model. Maybe I'll try with another character sometime in the future.
Speaking of barriers to entry, nice poses!
> Ice wall, coming up!
This is really inventive! I'm not sure how much I want to encourage other contributors to make poses that overlap each other so much, but I might put on my thinking cap to see if I can use this in an epilogue. Do you happen to have any epilogue ideas for Mei? I did have one, but it was shaping up to be a lot of photoshop for a compromised result.
> Here's one with Mei out front
This is better than the previous one at suggesting that she's obstructing rather than shielding, but the following one does that better again.
> And here's a soulless asshole who just locked her team in the spawn
Haha! Our game's Mei is not much of a troll, but I'm super tempted to make this one of her second-step start images. Hmmmmmmmmm! Stay tuned. I think I'm gonna do this tonight or tomorrow.
> If you are having any problems with the images not being transparent
Do the images I've done not have translucence for you? They do on my system. They're pngs are made in the Character Editor, then compressed by OptiPNG. However the code you've posted as a replacement is not transparent in KKL v54 for me.
> Also, here's a more mundane pose.
Totally using this! Because the head-tilt moves her fur collar, I might go with stage 4+ for it.
Yeah, I'm not particularly happy with Imgur removing Pro, because higher upload size/recompression limits were something I found worth paying for.
That said, optimizing your images would be recommended for saving bandwidth on your Dropbox account and avoid exceeding Imgur's upload limits, not to mention they'll load faster. I've been optimizing images (I've gotten best results in optipng) I post for a while now, and this latest move just gives me another reason to continue doing it.
Here's a sample of your latest image that I optimized from 6.25M to 5.93M:
Thanks!
- About classic 90s load: I resized all content images to 1200px wide and heavily optimized them with the highest settings with optipng and jpegoptim. The reason why I used 1200px wide instead of 600px wide (the actual width of the
<article>) is because of retina displays. It seems that detecting retina displays requires either serverside hacks, or Javascript, both of which I am reluctant to use. But I will try to fix this sometime. Another issue is that sometimes I use png images when jpeg would be more appropriate. - I have now added a favicon which should show up. Previously there was a bug that prevented it from showing up.
Paint.NET and GIMP both do a reasonably good job with JPEG compression - I'd stand to wager either is on par with Photoshop.
What most people seem to have trouble with is PNG, in which case even Photoshop (even after using "Posterize" and/or the "Smart Blur" filter) doesn't do the best job of optimizing file size.
I spent years playing with libraries like PNGcrush and OptiPNG, which are still effective tools in some cases... but nowadays, TinyPNG.com is simply the best damn PNG optimizer out there, and completely free to use.
If you're having trouble optimizing file size for something besides PNG, reply and I'll try to recommend some other options.
MSPaint's PNG saving probably isn't the best. The GIMP seems to do a great job at it. I was only able to shrink it with 12 bytes when running OptiPNG (-o7) on your image.
Imgur claims to convert images to JPEG when they're over 1MB (Imgur will accept GIFs up to 2MB, but will fail over that), however as you said it seems to be pretty random. I've found that anything over 600KB(ish) is at risk of being compressed. One way around this is using OptiPNG, which can significantly reduce the size of a PNG.
OptiPNG and jpegoptim are some great tools to get better lossless compression out of your PNGs and JPGs (as well as lossy if need be for JPGs)
cpdf is a great PDF utility, the -squeeze option will lossless compress the document by rearranging things, removing unneeded things, etc.
I'd like to write something that can take advantage of all those tools, to make PDFs even smaller. But that's future me's problem :D
When you say compress, are you just need to optimise them losslessly, or do you want to meet a specific size goal even if it means lossy compression and resizing? What operating system are you on?
Locally would almost certainly be much faster.
A good tool for losslessly optimising PNGs is OptiPNG. On Linux or macOS, or the Windows Linux subsystem, you can use this command to take all PNGs in the current folder and optimise them using all available cores, saving the results into the subfolder shrunk:
find . -iname '*.png' -print0 | xargs -0 -n 1 -P 4 optipng -o2 -dir shrunk -log png_shrinking.log
Change -P 4 to reflect the number of cores on your system. -o2 can be reduced to o1 for a faster but less intense optimisation, and to o3, o4 for slower and more intense ones, but o2 is a good level for a big job IMO.
If you want to script it yourself, you can use the simpler optipng -o2 -dir shrunk filename.png, which will also work on Windows. For example you might use this Ruby script to skip files that have already been done, in case you want to pause the job, and to get a simpler readout with the number of bytes saved:
#!/usr/bin/env ruby
regex = /(\d+) bytes decrease/ files = Dir.glob("*.png").reject { |file| File.exist?("shrunk/#{file}") } saved = 0 remaining = files.length
printf("%d files remaining", remaining)
files.each do |png|
decrease = optipng -o2 -dir shrunk "#{png}" 2>&1.match(regex)&.[](1)&.to_i
saved += decrease || 0
remaining -= 1
printf("\r%d files remaining, %d bytes saved this run", remaining, saved)
end
Don't you see there has to be a good engineer can quickly understand the problem and dumped all the bad air. Try running OptiPNG over the image and you should do this regularly to keep them in the trash wouldn't hurt.
Yo, Levi! Glad to see you're back.
Don't know if you've heard, but image hosting is now built into Reddit. Click the "Upload Image" button and it'll, well... You can guess.
Another idea I have is to run your drawings through OptiPNG before uploading. I ran this particular image in it, and it losslessly (that means literally, not hypothetically, no quality loss!) compressed it to 90 KB. It was originally 218 KB. That's not much of a difference for a piece like this, but for larger pieces it can certainly help reduce file size.
Create an action in Photoshop to do the following:
Open the file
Filters > Smart Blur (Radius 2, Threshold 3.5, High Quality, Normal Mode)
Image Adjustments > Posterize (32-64 levels)
Save back to a new .PNG file
"Smart Blur" effectively combines bunches of similar pixels into a single color, but preserves image detail. "Posterize" does sort of the same thing but also limits the number of colors in the palette without destroying any alpha-transparency. These conditions are ideal for getting a PNG with a small file size.
As your final step, download a copy of OptiPNG (freeware), which will recompress your PNG images to a smaller file size with absolutely zero loss in quality.
I have two Windows shortcuts set up for OptiPNG that I can drag-n-drop one (or multiple) files onto:
Moderate Optimization: C:\optipng\optipng.exe -o64
Exhaustive Optimization: C:\optipng\optipng.exe -zc1-9 -zm1-9 -zs0-3 -f0-5
90% of the time "Moderate Optimization" will produce excellent results, but for those times that it doesn't make a difference in file size, "Exhaustive Optimization" will usually do the trick at the expense of a lot of RAM & CPU.
It depends on the image. You can reduce the colors or reproduce parts of the image in CSS if it is simple enough. Also try OptiPNG
Post it. We may be able to help you reduce the size. Upload it to a file host instead of an image host, also give us the original.
Hey, if you two are going to be using PNG as a common file format, may I suggest adding an option for OptiPNG to reduce the filesize? I can squish my own map 20% using this, without data loss.