How small of a filesize can you get an image?

File: Untitled.jpg (465B, 100x92px) Image search: [Google]

465B, 100x92px

smaller than that

>>55442130
>2034 unique colors

File: Untitled.jpg (435B, 100x92px) Image search: [Google]

435B, 100x92px

>>55442174

File: 1467823674628-compressor-min (1).jpg (434B, 100x92px) Image search: [Google]

434B, 100x92px

>>55442224

File: Untitled.jpg (396B, 100x92px) Image search: [Google]

396B, 100x92px

it continues

File: 1467824431832-min-min.jpg (393B, 100x92px) Image search: [Google]

393B, 100x92px

>>55442298

File: Untitled2.jpg (382B, 100x92px) Image search: [Google]

382B, 100x92px

>>55442344

File: 1467824977449-min.jpg (380B, 100x92px) Image search: [Google]

380B, 100x92px

>>55442387

>Error: Image appears corrupt.
Do I win?

File: 1467815639545.jpg (45KB, 640x588px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 640x588px

>>55442424
I got "file contains an embedded image"

It was 90B

>>55442387
yeah its the same as the original good job well done :)

>>55442424
No, I would think it has to be able to be posted to be valid

>>55442083
whassup you bonzer cunt? your connection cant handle less than 1kb images?
bushie dag...

>>55442442
compression bb

File: Untitled2.jpg (361B, 100x92px) Image search: [Google]

361B, 100x92px

>>55442423

File: nanobait.gif (147B, 32x32px) Image search: [Google]

147B, 32x32px

>>55442446

File: 1443751995605.png (12KB, 10000x10000px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 10000x10000px

>>55442083

File: screenshot-boards.4chan.org 2016-07-06 13-21-01.png (39KB, 1008x459px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 1008x459px

>>55442526
That's just great.

File: chrome users.png (119KB, 1440x874px) Image search: [Google]

119KB, 1440x874px

>>55442549
kek

File: Woman-NO.jpg (70KB, 1200x1146px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 1200x1146px

>>55442571
GO HOME >:(

File: WebP_Test_mini.png (2MB, 1011x3032px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1011x3032px

You can get even smaller file sizes with Webp.

I wish gookmoot would add webp support already.

>>55442602
god, how does jpeg manage to be so fucking awful

File: emoPepe.gif (64B, 9x7px) Image search: [Google]

64B, 9x7px

>>55442585
making him emo saves a few bytes

File: 1440660741173.png (415KB, 10000x10000px) Image search: [Google]

415KB, 10000x10000px

>>55442549

>>55442602
I wish Mozilla got of their ass and added Webp support.

File: webp is worse than png.png (79KB, 1119x608px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 1119x608px

>>55442602
>>55442637
hey look its that lossy webp faggot and his samefag friend
in for more google shekels again?

>>55442637
It's the undead cockroach from 1992 people still use for some reason. Jpg2000 tried to kill it but instead turned into a meme format nobody fucking used.

>>55442711
when will webp developers learn?

>>55442687
Hello lossy png guy, we haven't forgotten about you.


To everyone else:

Latest Webp encoder achieves the same quality as JPG with a ~50% smaller file size and is 25-50% smaller than non-lossy PNG files.

See:

https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/gallery1#sample_image_files_in_jpeg_and_webp_and_the_png_source

https://developers.google.com/speed/webp/gallery

Webp supports lossy, lossless encoding, lossy and lossless transparency, and animation.

>>55442687
enjoy your outdated browser faggot

>>55442735
The best background to have graced this Earth.

File: i made this in photoshop.gif (578B, 25x29px) Image search: [Google]

578B, 25x29px

>>55442803
optimize your stallmans

>>55442735
That's retarded. Just make it 1x1 and tile it faggot.

>>55442647
Current Winner.

>>55442846
Funny thing is he used lossy PNGs and despite that lossless 24-bit RGBA Webp encoding still beat. This is actually very impressive as this is one of the few times lossless encoding has beaten lossy encoding.

File: small.png (314B, 100x92px) Image search: [Google]

314B, 100x92px

>>55442500

File: 1451217986518.png (369KB, 10000x10000px) Image search: [Google]

369KB, 10000x10000px

>>55442651

File: gif-transparent.gif (43B, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

43B, 1x1px

What do I win

File: git gud.png (280B, 100x92px) Image search: [Google]

280B, 100x92px

>>55442912
file name related

File: 4 diff.png (531KB, 1024x772px) Image search: [Google]

531KB, 1024x772px

>>55442778
no wonder webp "wins" vs jpeg, the output webp data is so different from the source jpeg even png would win, kek

also
>last modified May 25, 2015 19:31:57
>admitting you are a google shill posting on 4chan
ayy

>>55442924
>pngquant
Sorry, I have an aversion to ruining the quality

File: low.png (147B, 100x92px) Image search: [Google]

147B, 100x92px

>>55442924
>>55442943

>>55442943
It's lossless.

File: 35b, step it up.gif (35B, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

35B, 1x1px

>>55442923
>>55442948

File: lower.png (106B, 100x92px) Image search: [Google]

106B, 100x92px

>>55442956

File: lowest.png (134B, 100x92px) Image search: [Google]

134B, 100x92px

>>55442969

>>55442965
It's not, the colors change

>>55442935
>WebP is also a joke on lossy compression
Oh fuck off, is that real?

File: fix your pngs.png (90B, 100x92px) Image search: [Google]

90B, 100x92px

>>55442969

>>55442981
Did it based on >>55442500

Blame >>55442912 for the inconsistency.

File: how can you fuck up this bad.png (74B, 100x92px) Image search: [Google]

74B, 100x92px

>>55442981

File: No-thanks.jpg (92KB, 404x313px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 404x313px

>>55442875
>same image tiled over 2 million times

>>55442571
Sorry to ruin your feeling of supremacy, but that's Microsoft's Edge. It opened just fine in Chrome 54.0.2787.1, joke is on your deprecated shitty looking browser

1680x1050 grey svg.
4kb.

at this point, winners are >>55442967 for meaningless and >>55442647 with some data inside

File: contentment, satisfaction, glad, revelling.png (37KB, 114x114px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 114x114px

>>55442993
>43 B

>>55442967
>4chan calls everything below 35B corrupt
fug

>>55443108
You forgot the winners of derivations of the original image

File: 1447504530259.gif (43B, 1x1px) Image search: [Google]

43B, 1x1px

>Error: Image appears corrupt.
Guess 4chan got some filesize restrictions.
32 bite here. Can't post. Have 43 instead.

>>55443160
The >>55443025 is the same as >>55442967 but with different palette and bigger

>>55443166
You guys can't beat my 8-byte 1x1 black pixel image:

https://0x0.st/A3c.ppm

26B: http://i.imgur.com/ijYAGX6.gif

>>55443088
I compressed that to .svgz
I win.

>>55443211
>>55443215
If you can't post it, it doesn't count.

>>55443211
Sorry, that one was white. This one is black: https://0x0.st/A3T.ppm

about:blank

it's a 0B solid white image.

>>55443227
It's not solid white for me, you fucked up. Also, my image viewer can't open it.

>>55443224
Are you that afraid of losing that you have to come up with an arbitrary rule to ensure nobody can ever possibly beat you (since 4chan rejects all smaller sizes than 35 bytes)?

>>55443227
Only white if you have a default browser theme

>>55443243
I haven't even tried to compete in that category.

>>55443227
11 chars = 11 bytes
learn2computer

File: Снимок экрана 2016-07-06 в 21.16.23.png (229KB, 1272x919px) Image search: [Google]

229KB, 1272x919px

>>55443243
lul

>>55443277
>mac os
>>>/fa/
>>>/lgbt/

<!doctype html><svg>

20 bytes, i win.

>>55443307
it's called OS X

>>55442647
John: I really, really, really like this image.

>>55443309
You could also do

>>55443309
See >>55443211 >>55443226

I seriously don't think you're going to beat an 8-byte 1x1 image any time soon in any widespread format. (that, say, ffmpeg can decode)

>image

>>55443423
what the fuck is ppm anyways? Let's agree on at least 4chan-supported formats. Or firefox-supported.

>>55443438
Meant for >>55443227

>>55443450
Well, ffmpeg can transcode it. (>>55443423 agrees)

>>55443444
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netpbm_format

I think 4chan/firefox-supported is a bit too stringent because both are actively trying to support as few formats as necessary.. It makes a lot of the comparisons really boring since you basically just have PNG, JPG, GIF and VP8, all of which are almost completely orthogonal formats.

FFmpeg-supported allows you such interesting comparisons as HEVC vs VP9, x264 vs VP8 vs JPEG2000, and so on.

File: 1467826306625.png (346KB, 10000x10000px) Image search: [Google]

346KB, 10000x10000px

>>55442922
zopfli / pngwolf

Every system for compression and representing a given data set, does has an absolute minimum filesize it's capable of. I've been working on png compression heuristics that will hopefully, eventually, approximate that ideal in most any case. Aside from very large images.

>>55443534
>1k
triggered
ki*

File: efd-small.jpg (702B, 71x69px) Image search: [Google]

702B, 71x69px

>>55442875
>being this mad

a man in a cowboy hat with australian flag in the background

60 bytes, i win

>>55443687
>not saying the raw binary of the picture in ASCII

File: Screenshot_20160706_135624.png (9KB, 659x377px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 659x377px

>>55443727
yes

>>55443727
>raw binary in ASCII

I think you mean in hex?

>>55443774
.8 millionth of a byte per pixel
if we weren't going for absolute minimum this'd be the winner

>>55443774
One hundred fifty thousand pixels per bit.

>>55442865
is that the original color?

>>55444444

>>55442549
>trusting chrome with your ram allocation
firefox doesnt have this problem

>>55443031
>not stretching it

File: v2.gif (40B, 10000x10000px) Image search: [Google]

40B, 10000x10000px

>>55443774
Improved

>>55444791
Run gifsicle on it. I can't on this computer.

On the flipside, When image files are so big you can't even.
There's .mpc
http://www.imagemagick.org/Usage/files/#massive

>>55443687

ManInCowboyHatAUSFlagInBg

25 B

File: Asd.png (17KB, 979x514px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 979x514px

>>55444878

>>55443687
>>55443727

>Our system thinks your post is spam.

>>55445012

67 75 79 77 2F 61 75 66 6C 61 67 26 68 61 74

15B