But hey, if someone can manage to install mozjpeg on his/her webspace, that person should also be able to install imagemagick.Ĭonclusion: For best performance and lossy compression of JPEG images, you need both imagemagick and mozjpeg and a custom driver. Saving a 24-Bit PNG takes too much processing time, so saving the image as a high-quality JPEG and then re-encoding it using mozjpeg seems to be the only feasable option for supporting GD library. This kind of optimization needs a custom thumb driver for best performance and only works efficently together with the ImageMagick CLI, as SimpleImage (used for image manipulation with PHP’s GD Library) can only save images as PNG, GIF or JPEG (and some other formats, that are not interesting at this point). Encoding the temporary image as PNM is also much faster, than TGA. Even on my Retina MBP (which has a fast SSD), this takes much longer than piping the file directly to mozjpeg. Using an uncompressed TGA file (a format, that mozjpeg can take as input) creates a 30 MB file, that has to be encoded and written to disk. ![]() My first attempt was to write a temporary file (I’m not a command-line hero), but this can take very long. I achieved the best performance by using both programms it like so: convert -resize pnm:- | /usr/local/bin/mozjpeg -quality 76 -progressive > To avoid double-compression, it needs to be passed to mozjpeg in an uncompressed format. For example, one of my test-images commes from a digital SLR camera and has about 10 MP (3888 x 2392 px). When combining it with the ImageMagick driver, it is possible to pass-through image data without saving it to a temporary file, making the process much faster. The only problem for including it into ImageKit is, that for efficient processing, it does not really make sense to use is as some kind of post-processing filter on the JPEGs, which are generated by Kirby’s thumb drivers. But the number of scans you want to have in your JPEGs depends on the use-case, so mozjpeg’s defaults should be fine for most people. I did not use custom parameters for the progressive encoding, as Tobias Baldauf did, although it wouldn’t be too hard to use his settings for ImageKit. I never played around with mozjpeg before (it’s what the author of this talk recommonds), but results are pretty impressive and sometimes, generated JPEGs are ever smaller than those created by the TinyPNG/JPEG service at a comparable quality. Google is using artificial intelligence to compress images better than JPEG PCWorld I like lossy, someone else might like lossyless. As long as the user can choose how much the images should be compressed it should be fine. Maybe start with lossyless compression and build it like component for example and later on you can add some lossy compression optimizers. Nope, just compression and there is a limit and you need to pay some bucks for every compression after that. or should I upload my resized thumbnails to the service? do they support image transforms/resizing etc. Maybe TinyPNG could also be added as an optional optimizer in ImageKit. That would be “wrong”, except for screenshots of sites including photographs. Compare it to jpg files where they always are saved with lossy compression (if you don’t save it as 100%).īut who uses PNG images for serving photographs anyway? Then there is lossyless PNG compression but that kind of compression does not compress the images very much. ![]() I’ve used it for screenshots and they included images quite often. ![]() I can only tell from my own experience and TinyPNG have never let me down. I’m just not sure, is posterization is great for every PNG your have
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |