News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Retina Revolution - smaller images with better quality. Parent comment

Re:Retina Revolution - smaller images with better quality by ck2 on Sunday October 07, 2012 @10:26AM (#4623378)
Yup, jpegtran is a must for post-processing adobe images.

It can also do a lossless conversion to progressive format.

Most people do not know about it though. JPEGOPTIM is another one.

You can examine what's embedded in the image here http://regex.info/exif.cgi

but there are better offline tools.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Retina Revolution - smaller images with better quality by radley on Sunday October 07, 2012 @12:41PM (#4623650)
I don't get it. Why is jpegtran a must?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Retina Revolution - smaller images with better quality by CWIZO on Sunday October 07, 2012 @01:35PM (#4623807)
Because it strips any meta information contained in the file which reduces file size. It can also losslessly optimize the image. See here for details (I've written about it a short while ago): http://hancic.info/optimize-jpg-or-jpeg-images-automatically...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Retina Revolution - smaller images with better quality by radley on Sunday October 07, 2012 @02:11PM (#4623890)
It sounds great in theory but the previous example only saved < 200 bytes. That's not really optimization, that's overkill.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Retina Revolution - smaller images with better quality by CWIZO on Sunday October 07, 2012 @02:29PM (#4623931)
Not if you have many images on the same page. Then id adds up.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Retina Revolution - smaller images with better quality by radley on Sunday October 07, 2012 @03:38PM (#4624179)
If you place 1800 images on a page, you'll save enough bandwidth to now have 1801.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Retina Revolution - smaller images with better quality by jseliger on Sunday October 07, 2012 @02:42PM (#4623971)
In response to Radley, who said:

* It sounds great in theory but the previous example only saved < 200 bytes. That's not really optimization, that's overkill.*

That's a fair point, but if you've got a site that's getting hundreds of thousands or millions of views, or a large number of thumbnails, the one-time effort to shrink image size might be worth it.

[ Parent | on HN ]