7/3/2023 0 Comments Imageoptim vs optipngIf you’re not familiar with the format, it was designed by Google as a successor to JPEG, PNG, and GIF formats and released in 2018. Instead of optimizing and compressing a JPEG or PNG file, cwebp converts an image to WebP format. cwebpĬwebp is a little different from the others. It also does an excellent job of reducing file size yet retaining image quality by default, but supports a large number of options if you want to be more aggressive. And so called "lossy" optimization where in addition to optimizing Huffman tables users can specify an upper limit for image quality. Program supports lossless optimization, which is based on optimizing the Huffman tables. ![]() Jpegoptim is used to optimize/compress jpeg files. Where optipng optimizes PNG files, jpegoptim optimizes and compresses JPEGs. If you’re interested, I used it to optimize all of the images in this article and achieved an average file size reduction of 19,96%. However, if you want to be more aggressive check out the documentation for the full set of supported options. Speaking from experience, it does an excellent job of reducing file size while maintaining quality, if you run it without any options. The tool can make a number of changes to an PNG file in an attempt to reduce its size, including stripping metadata, cutting one image out of multi-image animation or video file, along with bit depth, color type, and palette reduction. reduce their size to a minimum, without losing semantic information (and quality). Optipng, as the name suggests, optimizes PNG files, or, to quite the documentation:Īttempts to optimize PNG files, i.e. That way, you’ll be trimming the fat from your images, yet retaining their high quality. In this article, I’m going to step you through a range of tools that you can use, regardless of your operating system or preference for desktop or command line. Question is, how do you do that, while still using great quality images on your site? Well, the first thing is to optimize your images for better performance. Without diving too deep into the data, I hope it goes without saying that the smaller your website, the more people you’re actually going to reach. The rest will have one that is average at best. GIven that, only a minority of your users will actually have a decent broadband connection. To put that into more context, “fast broadband” is defined as “at downstream speeds equal to, or greater than, 256 kbit/s”. According to Our World in Data, around the world, on average, only 15.89 people per 100 have access to fast broadband. Well, if that was your assumption you’d be wrong. Everybody had a fast broadband connection after all. ![]() “What’s wrong with that?”, you might ask. So much so that in 2022, according to SEO Optimer, the average website size is 2.2 MB for a desktop site, and 2 MB for a mobile. Perhaps because of this, perhaps also because of laziness, average website size has been steadily growing over the last several years. The more images that a site or a page contains the larger the payload will be. Sure, we can build sites like that, but they come at a cost. The challenge is, however, many people expect modern websites to be full of beautiful, high-resolution images, videos, and anything else that holds the users attention. Smaller websites load faster, rank higher in Google and other search engines, which ultimately results in greater user engagement and sales. I’d say it’s safe to assume that, in 2022, we all accept that the smaller a website is, the better it will perform.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |