WebPagetest Forums
Image compression results - Printable Version

+- WebPagetest Forums (https://www.webpagetest.org/forums)
+-- Forum: Web Performance (/forumdisplay.php?fid=3)
+--- Forum: Discuss Test Results (/forumdisplay.php?fid=4)
+--- Thread: Image compression results (/showthread.php?tid=11418)



Image compression results - Florent - 07-13-2012 11:12 PM

I get results that I hardly understand about image compression :

http://www.webpagetest.org/result/120713_MM_DD7/1/performance_optimization/#compress_images

But nor Jpegtran nor ImageMagick does allow better compression of this image:

Original : 50.497 bytes
jpegtran -copy none -optimize : 53.244 bytes
jpegtran -copy none -progressive : 50.497 bytes
convert -strip : 53.273 bytes
convert -strip -interlace Plane : 50.550 bytes

I made the same constation on a lot of others images...

Could somebody tell me what tool could be used to obtain the gain displayed par the result page (about 20Kb !!!) ?

Thanks!


RE: Image compression results - perry - 07-14-2012 06:37 AM

Try http://jpegmini.com By far the best jpeg compression tool ever.


RE: Image compression results - Florent - 07-14-2012 09:56 AM

You're right, it's pretty good! But maybe I should rephrase my question:

How WebPageTest can make such an assessment (ie, state that a gain of 40% is achievable as well known tools as jpegtrans, imagemagick can not even win one byte)?

It should be based on some specific tool/library that would be very interesting to know in order to try to achieve the above result (unless WebPageTest use JPEGMini? Smile).


RE: Image compression results - pmeenan - 07-15-2012 12:38 PM

jpegtrans and imagemagick were trying to do lossless optimizations (stripping exif data, etc). WebPagetest checks jpegs for lossy savings by recompressing them at a quality level of 85 using libjpeg which is actually pretty conservative. Hand-tuning you should actually be able to get significantly better than that.


RE: Image compression results - Florent - 07-17-2012 12:58 AM

All is clear now, thanks for your answer!