Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
Stoigeboiii

Best Loseless Image Compression

Recommended Posts

Posted · Original PosterOP

Looking to install on Windows that allows bulk. Minimum png and jpg. 

 

Can't seem to find a decent one if anyone had recommendations greatly appreciated. 

 

Thann you so much 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Stoigeboiii said:

Looking to install on Windows that allows bulk. Minimum png and jpg. 

 

Can't seem to find a decent one if anyone had recommendations greatly appreciated. 

 

Thann you so much 

Best lossless is most likely FLIF, but encoding and decoding that might be problematic, so PNG is probs the way to go.


20.2 (15.2.5) home theater - all in a bedroom - if you've got any questions dont hesitate to pop me a message :) and remember to quote me so i see your reply. (Huge denon fanboy, hence me proudly owning a Denon avc - X8500H)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted · Original PosterOP
19 minutes ago, Derkoli said:

Best lossless is most likely FLIF, but encoding and decoding that might be problematic, so PNG is probs the way to go.

Are there any that work with wordpress? Maybe a software that compresses jpg or png? To jpg and png

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Stoigeboiii said:

Are there any that work with wordpress? Maybe a software that compresses jpg or png? To jpg and png

I believe there are lots of converters online for image format conversion


20.2 (15.2.5) home theater - all in a bedroom - if you've got any questions dont hesitate to pop me a message :) and remember to quote me so i see your reply. (Huge denon fanboy, hence me proudly owning a Denon avc - X8500H)

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Screen said:

There's JPEG mini - A superb Jpeg compression software and service if you are looking in that direction.

https://www.jpegmini.com/

Not lossless.


Hand, n. A singular instrument worn at the end of the human arm and commonly thrust into somebody’s pocket.

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no such thing as "best loseless image compression". If something like this existed, all other formats will be obsolete.

You must have some experience and be familiar with basic formats.

 

GIF - is mostly better than PNG, but has limitation to 256 indexed colors table - and without some experience and good software, effects may be bad. But if you do it right, you'll get smallest file. Supports 1-bit transparency.

 

PNG - has no limitations of GIF, but it generates mostly bigger images. Supports 8-bit transparency.

 

JPEG - as you know, is lossy, but there are programs that can made really nice jpegs - like IrfanView with his "disable subsampling" option in save jpeg dialog.

 

There is no possibility to convert JPEG to any other format, since it's already "broken" just after you save your file as JPEG. It's like trying to copy VHS to Blu-Ray - you'll get the same video on Blu-Ray disc, but it still will be the same VHS quality. Just bigger.

 

SVG - another format that will be more popular (I guess) - it's vector graphics format that can be used on websites. Depends on graphics - it can be really small or really big.

 

TIFF - not for using on websites, but it has option for compress output file and sometimes it works even better than PNG. And supports CMYK colorspace too and DPI and few more informations. Is good idea to keep your work in this format before you convert it to any other format. For example - I never save JPEG from Photoshop. I save it as TIFF first, then using IrfanView to convert it to JPEG. (unlike GIF - this format support and colors manipulations are great in Photoshop).

 

Recommended converter - IrfanView.

Recommended converter if you have more complex tasks - ImBatch.

 

EDIT: I made some test for you. For example image like this one:

thisisimage3.gif.d5ab6c4fbe3ebf3c0513c318d895940d.gif

 

I export this to TIFF and then convert to various format using some tools:

 

1. GIF: winner in bitmap formats - only 35 390 bytes in 64 colors PS made proper using color allocation in Photoshop for gradient; 256 colors PS - 49 522 bytes, save from IrfanView - 51 537 bytes, export directly from graphics editor as GIF - 52 929 bytes.

 

2. PNG 24bit: 83 182 bytes with IrfanView maximum compression, 88 430 with default compression.

 

3. JPG: 44 903 bytes with medium quality (not so good, a little blurry), 59 742 with good quality (still little blurry, barely noticeable), 95 287 bytes using special option in IrfanView (90%, disable chroma color subsampling - no blurry). JPG from Photoshop - medium quality 103 205 bytes, high quality - 150 176 bytes.

 

4. PDF: export directly from program, good optimized, loseless vector - 8 366 bytes, export using Microsoft PDF printer - 203 612 (!) bytes (and a little broken image), using Bullzip PDF printer - 29 711 bytes.

 

5. SVG: 6 946 bytes. :) Loseless, vector, possibility to scale as much as you want.

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I will share my experience in image optimization ...
At first, I had to manually compress all the pictures through Photoshop. The most free option by the way (except for the cost of a license for Photoshop).
But this process takes a lot of time if there are more than 10-20 pictures on the site. After all, each picture must be manually processed, and then upload on the site again.
Tedious such a process ...
Now I use this service - https://optipic.io/
It saves a lot of time) It works by itself - automatically - only 1 time it needs to be connected to the site.
Google is satisfied)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/17/2019 at 3:53 PM, homeap5 said:

There is no such thing as "best loseless image compression". If something like this existed, all other formats will be obsolete.

Untrue statement. Simple rle encoding compresses to smaller filesize for example. 

Which doesnt make the file smaller than for instance jpeg (therefore, not making jpeg obsolete...) but does compress filesize to lower without affect image quality.

 

Your statement would be true if binary compression would always be tied to iq level but that doesnt hold up (tiff with lzw or rle is good example).

 

You actually mention tiff, which, due to binary compression and general interop compatibility is excellent advice, and tiff would be my answer for "best lossless ic".

 

On 4/17/2019 at 3:53 PM, homeap5 said:

PNG - has no limitations of GIF, but it generates mostly bigger images

Png has different limitations than gif.

 

On 4/17/2019 at 3:53 PM, homeap5 said:

There is no possibility to convert JPEG to any other format

Untrue; anything you can decompressed can be reencoded to any format. What youmeant i guess is that when transcoding original iq lost inearlier phases cant be recoperated which is true.

 

On 4/17/2019 at 3:53 PM, homeap5 said:

GIF: winner in bitmap formats

Untrue; Bitmaps in general are rasterized images (opposite of vector formats); You likely mean winner in palette images (limited num of colors) like rasterized exports of vector imags for example logos/siteart for web (due to having no erlittle subsampling artifacts).

 

Except for that and animated web gifs, gif is about the worst format to use for any other kind of bitmap regardless of filesize. Only became popular dye to early year hw only supporting palette modes at which time it also sufficed for regular bitmaps likephotos but that ovr 20 years ago...

 

 

All other stuff: well put, and sounds like gfx designers overall workflow :)

 

however, for op and anyone reading, as with most things "it depends"

On 4/17/2019 at 3:53 PM, homeap5 said:

PDF: export directly from program, good optimized, loseless vector

"If" you started with a vector drawing (which you did so its all good 🙂) ...... pdf is just generic postscript, and that might also be just 1 page with "tadaaa" a compressed jpeg in it, making it a poorly optimized, bitmap image.

 

Just sayin, that if you get a pdf with a photo in it, it wont magically stay sharp if printed large just because "pdf is a vector format" (which some pple think) , cause it isnt, it actually a pdf- wrapped postscript language file that supports both vector and bitmap handling.

 

Anyway, forgive me , i digress, rumbling of a senile old man who spent 12 years of life writing high end printer (think several thousand pph) drivers and software, and it needed to handle any format imaginable (and oh the horror of some colormanagment scenarios...). Was a interesting period but happy i changed carreer to diff venues in sw 

Link to post
Share on other sites

@Bartholomew: You said true... or not. Small explanations.

 

1. It's absolutely true that there is no "best loseless image compression" - there are so many factors (like - do you need 24 bit, do you need CMYK palette, do you need DPI information). If you're looking for web graphics (for Wordpress) it will be different than if you're looking for best loseless format for printing.

 

2. PNG has no GIF limitations - I mean - it can handle 24 bit instead of indexed mode, it has 8 bit transparency, while GIF has only 1 bit for that etc. Of course that it has some limitations, I don't mean that it has not any. I'm just saying that for web design PNG has no GIF limitations. OP asking for graphics for web.

 

3. TRUE, JPEG cannot be converted to any other format, because I was saying what you're good described below. My english may be not as good for explain everything clear, but of course I don't mean that you cannot save JPEG as TIFF or PNG. Of course you can - but as I explained, you'll get the same lossy quality, so it has no sense. So conversion from JPEG to TIFF or PNG or GIF has no sense - is that sounds better?

 

4. TRUE, GIF win my small test in my example. I presented graphics for test, so I'm only tested that kind of image and for that it's true. My point was that for some type of gfx, like I show here, GIF generates smallest file. Of course for others it may be different, but that is not the point - everyone can made tests in case other images, that is what I recommend (until you learn which format is the best for which image without tests). GIF is also very nice graphics format - if you know how to create it proper. Lot of graphics (logos for example, for publish on websites) can be saved in this format and quality will be the same as in PNG case. But filesize will be smaller.

 

5. I know that PDF is more container than graphics format. You can put almost everything inside - bitmaps, vectors, tables, text etc. I was only show that it CAN be smaller than (almost) any other graphics format in some cases, but also it can be huge if someone think that "printing as PDF" is enough to produce as good PDF as exported from Corel / Illustrator / Inkscape.

 

I'm also spend many years in graphics design / processing etc. So thank you for your clarifications, but even thought comments were true, you did not fully understand my intentions.

 

 

@alexbeglov Compressing images to jpeg for websites generates lot of useless informations inside. For PNG or GIF it's good tool. And it's not true that you cannot process more than one image - you have actions. You can record macros. :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, homeap5 said:

@Bartholomew: You said true... or not. Small explanations.

 

1. It's absolutely true that there is no "best loseless image compression" - there are so many factors (like - do you need 24 bit, do you need CMYK palette, do you need DPI information). If you're looking for web graphics (for Wordpress) it will be different than if you're looking for best loseless format for printing.

 

2. PNG has no GIF limitations - I mean - it can handle 24 bit instead of indexed mode, it has 8 bit transparency, while GIF has only 1 bit for that etc. Of course that it has some limitations, I don't mean that it has not any. I'm just saying that for web design PNG has no GIF limitations. OP asking for graphics for web.

 

3. TRUE, JPEG cannot be converted to any other format, because I was saying what you're good described below. My english may be not as good for explain everything clear, but of course I don't mean that you cannot save JPEG as TIFF or PNG. Of course you can - but as I explained, you'll get the same lossy quality, so it has no sense. So conversion from JPEG to TIFF or PNG or GIF has no sense - is that sounds better?

 

4. TRUE, GIF win my small test in my example. I presented graphics for test, so I'm only tested that kind of image and for that it's true. My point was that for some type of gfx, like I show here, GIF generates smallest file. Of course for others it may be different, but that is not the point - everyone can made tests in case other images, that is what I recommend (until you learn which format is the best for which image without tests). GIF is also very nice graphics format - if you know how to create it proper. Lot of graphics (logos for example, for publish on websites) can be saved in this format and quality will be the same as in PNG case. But filesize will be smaller.

 

5. I know that PDF is more container than graphics format. You can put almost everything inside - bitmaps, vectors, tables, text etc. I was only show that it CAN be smaller than (almost) any other graphics format in some cases, but also it can be huge if someone think that "printing as PDF" is enough to produce as good PDF as exported from Corel / Illustrator / Inkscape.

 

I'm also spend many years in graphics design / processing etc. So thank you for your clarifications, but even thought comments were true, you did not fully understand my translations and intentions.

 

 

@alexbeglov Compressing images to jpeg for websites generates lot of useless informations inside. For PNG or GIF it's good tool. And it's not true that you cannot process more than one image - you have actions. You can record macros. :)

 

Hi :) thanks for taking time to reply,

 

And your 100% correct on all accounts in it as well :) very valid statements and arguments

 

And english isnt my 1st language as well, and actually yours is so good and excellent overall that i didnt pick up on it that it perhaps was the reason for me interpreting  seemingly slighly "off" statements :)

 

Great thing is:  op now has 2 sets of answers, both true in their own right (just different intrepetations/angles of the questions/answers) and a ton info (probably more than needed or cared for lol 😂)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Bartholomew said:

Great thing is:  op now has 2 sets of answers, both true in their own right (just different intrepetations/angles of the questions/answers) and a ton info (probably more than needed or cared for lol 😂)

More probably is that he forget about his own thread, like many people do (at least on this forum). So it's now more like offtopic, just for fun. :)

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×