Just some test.

File: 1496625856793.png (677KB, 1277x1056px) Image search: [Google]

677KB, 1277x1056px

Optimizing PNG images results in ~30% smaller file size.
For example, after optimization, pic related saved 280.60KB out of 957.37KB (29.3099%).
Why don't you start optimizing all of your images from today, /qa/?

make your images 30% worse and save 30% space. hmmm. hmmmm.

Because I have over 10TB of space.

>he doesn't know how lossless compression works

>>1558141
>compression
>lossless
that's impossible, even for a computer

>>1558139
It isn't just the matter of space!
If you make a large chart that exceeds 4MB, you can easily optimize it instead of resizing or saving it in JPEG.

Because I'm not a freakin' nerd.

>>1558145
No it isn't, see run-length encoding.

>>1558145

There's this new thing called PKZip, it'll blow your mind anon

Why do you care so much about a person's preference?

>>1558137
How?¥

File: 1498060999076.gif (1MB, 446x270px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 446x270px

>>1558145

and here comes the image equivalent of that arguement that nerds swear they can hear the difference between FLAC and V0 mp3's...

I don't know how.
*depressed sigh*

>>1558145
PNGGauntlet is an easy program that runs your PNGs through several optimizers and picks the one with the lowest file size.

File: 1489725460046.png (341KB, 615x540px) Image search: [Google]

341KB, 615x540px

Researches have shown that smaller images are more likely to be viewed on imageboards.
Want to get more views of your images? Optimize them NOW!

It's for aussies not phonefags

optimize is important

OK? how do

>>1558157

>>1558154
Get better audio equipment

>>1558165
Your ear introduces most noise in the sound processing chain

What is the optimization method? If a 30% size reduction is possible by discarding placeholder data it would take precisely 5 hours to decompress.

>>1558165
higher compression level

>>1558145
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
LO*20L

File: 1492416452021.png (1MB, 2560x1600px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2560x1600px

Optimize your images and then you get 30% more images to shitpost with!

optimization is love
optimization is life

>>1558145
it doesnt work losslessly above 1024x1024 or something

>>1558173
no, wrong thing, i was thinking of something else someone showed me far earlier

test

Imagine 30% off on SSD price

>>1558176
Imagine if all I stored were png images.

File: 1473973628512.jpg (91KB, 368x356px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 368x356px

>>1558177
>not having millions of shitposting images

>>1558178
>.jpg
Yeah...

File: 1494517949268.jpg (130KB, 535x545px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 535x545px

>>1558179
>jpg can't be optimized

>>1558157
well first of all archived.moe only has 5 or so mentions of "PNGGauntlet" across five years of all boards it archives, so it seemed really sketchy to me

it took 39 min 10 sec to reduce a 7,500.23 KB image to 7085.97 KB, saving 414.26 KB (program doesn't do the % math). I suppose for lossless compression it of course helps but I expected to be able to move enormous images to a mobile device at significantly reduced space requirement.

Will use for "Untitled.png" anythings I create but otherwise this will gather dust for me.

>>1558184
Sorry it does offer the percentage, it's 94%, where the other compression information was at the bottom of the window.

>>1558137
Because I don't fucking save noisy shit as PNG in the first place you dunce. You shouldn't either.
>b-b-b-b-bb-but muh pixel perfect waifu pics

holy shit he's mad

>>1558186
Even if optimization opportunities were available, that doesn't mean the software used to create such an image took them.

Also apparently I can't sage.

>>1558188
Did you accidentally put sage in the name field?

Bump for optimization

File: 1480962109449.png (142KB, 500x460px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 500x460px

optimize this

File: 1483517252974.png (15KB, 500x460px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 500x460px

>>1558192
Enjoy

File: 1486790908304.png (14KB, 500x460px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 500x460px

>>1558193
not small enough

File: 1473564865814.jpg (14KB, 500x460px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 500x460px

>>1558195
JPG wins again lol

>>1558197
Cheating isn't optimizing

O

>>1558200
P

File: 1476465225351.jpg (6KB, 500x460px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 500x460px

>>1558197
optimized it for you

File: 1501375544601.jpg (13KB, 400x306px) Image search: [Google]

13KB, 400x306px

このスレ前に見たなぁ・・・

File: 1486948008717.jpg (5KB, 500x460px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 500x460px

>>1558202
This one's more optimized

File: 1504028745998.jpg (58KB, 400x410px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 400x410px

Wtf? Did we not already have this thread before? Are half these posts not the same as before? Fuck is going on here

>>1558202
>>1558205
how do you do that?

>>1558447
>posters went from 3 to 4
wait wtf is this thread
MODS

test

I have interest in this test

avant-garde thread