Shameless plug: anybody looking for an image optimization SaaS/API should check out what we have built at https://kraken.io
Disclaimer: Founder and CEO here, I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Show HN: Optimage – Advanced image optimization tool
21–28 of 28 posts
Re: Show HN: Optimage – Advanced image optimization tool
#22Earlier quoted context omitted.
Photoshop is used less and less by designers, with tools like Sketch and Figma taking over. Also, usually the developers would prefer to handle compression.
I'd be delighted if designers gave me compressed assets.
I agree. Unless the asset compression is actually part of the application then this does not belong on the devs' plate. There are plenty of other things to focus on.
Re: Show HN: Optimage – Advanced image optimization tool
#23For me, squashing images is most useful when creating thumbnails. This makes pages load much faster due to the smaller file size. In this sense, optimage would be more useful if it could also intelligently crop the image down to a square.
Re: Show HN: Optimage – Advanced image optimization tool
#24Re: Show HN: Optimage – Advanced image optimization tool
#25Re: Show HN: Optimage – Advanced image optimization tool
#26As far as I can tell, imageoptim eats this project's lunch. The examples given on optimage's own benchmark page show imageoptim clocking in at around half the total filesize of optimage for the entire benchmark. Even in the specific examples that are supposed to count against imageoptim -- the destructive chroma sampling, the 'broken gradient' (I can't see it), the orange sneakers (imageoptim's looks better and not o…
> imageoptim clocking in at around half the total filesize of optimage
Only that ImageOptim ruined most of JPEG images while PNG images are ~7.5% bigger.
> imageoptim is dramatically smaller on all of them
There are myriad ways to make them much smaller at the cost of visual quality: blurring, posterization, rescaling, etc. The question is where to stop. With visually lossless, you can apply these techniques in advance and have predictable results. For example, Optimage does choose chroma sampling when it is not destructive to original.
> the 'broken gradient' (I can't see it)
It can be seen on a calibrated display, sorry.
> the orange sneakers (imageoptim's looks better and not overblown colors)
Original colors are "overblown" [1].
> or the rotated beach scene
It is rotated.
Re: Show HN: Optimage – Advanced image optimization tool
#27Shameless plug: https://recompressor.com
Does something very similar, but gives you a full trade off graph and also supports SVG and is free.
(I’m one of the creators of the site)
Re: Show HN: Optimage – Advanced image optimization tool
#28As far as I can tell, imageoptim eats this project's lunch. The examples given on optimage's own benchmark page show imageoptim clocking in at around half the total filesize of optimage for the entire benchmark. Even in the specific examples that are supposed to count against imageoptim -- the destructive chroma sampling, the 'broken gradient' (I can't see it), the orange sneakers (imageoptim's looks better and not o…
> imageoptim clocking in at around half the total filesize of optimage Only that ImageOptim ruined most of JPEG images while PNG images are ~7.5% bigger. > imageoptim is dramatically smaller on all of them There are myriad ways to make them much smaller at the cost of visual quality: blurring, posterization, rescaling, etc. The question is where to stop. With visually lossless, you can apply these techniques in advan…
> It can be seen on a calibrated display, sorry.
Which is probably what about 99% of all internet users are sitting in front of, right?
This is just a misleading, weird attempt at marketing for a tool I expect to not generate any meaningful sales. To claim that ImageOptim ruins "most JPEGs" is just irresponsible and annoyingly false.
Given the differences in quality vs. compression, ImageOptim and the other free tools actually appear to define far more realistic results for real world use apart from pleasing owners of $3000+ hardware-calibrated soft-proofing displays.