New Startup JPEGmini Reduces Photos’ Size, Not Their Quality
1–5 of 5 posts
Re: New Startup JPEGmini Reduces Photos’ Size, Not Their Quality
#2When this was discussed last week people were deeply unimpressed.
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2940505
Tests done by HNers suggested that the service introduced significant artifacts. One comment was:
Custom quantization tables and chroma
subsampling, with a bit of hype.
Others thought it did a really good job, but you have to scroll down that discussion to the bottom to find people who agree with the site's claims.
I'm sceptical.
Re: New Startup JPEGmini Reduces Photos’ Size, Not Their Quality
#3pff read their harsh terms!
They steal your rights completely on pictures you upload.
Re: New Startup JPEGmini Reduces Photos’ Size, Not Their Quality
#4I was unable to distinguish a difference between their "technology" and ImageMagick's "convert -quality 75" on their demo image.
Smells bad to me.
Re: New Startup JPEGmini Reduces Photos’ Size, Not Their Quality
#5When this was discussed last week people were deeply unimpressed. http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2940505 Tests done by HNers suggested that the service introduced significant artifacts. One comment was: Custom quantization tables and chroma subsampling, with a bit of hype. ( http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2940759 ) Others thought it did a really good job, but you have to scroll down that discussion to the b…
I can only second that. I also tried some sprites we use. The service reduced the size by about 15%, but introduced clearly visible artefacts, especially around text. Not very convincing.