Public Forums 71,145 posts

[dade88 Friend dade88Join date: February 2009Posts: 11Downloads:5Uploads:0 Thanks: 3]

#181048

First of all,
I’m not a developer or anything at all related with OptiPNG. As said in another post, I’ve been working hard on get a better performance from my joomla site.

During large researches I’ve found a little program called OptiPNG at http://optipng.sourceforge.net/ which is incredibly great and simple to use (also customizable as you can dive into the source code). At the time I’m writing about it, after a large month, it has been by far the best tool to reduce my site images size without breaking any transparency (as it usually happens with other tools).

I’ve run a test on JA Purity II and by only optimizing files in images folder (no subfolders) the size changed from 125 Kb to 93,3 Kb (notice, that some gif files changed to png to achieve better size). That’s around 25% reduction, and I really think it should be taken into consideration from Joomla Art, I’m sure both professionals and free members would love to see an improved product.

Thanks for your time,
Davide.

[tfosnom Friend tfosnomJoin date: October 2010Posts: 742Downloads:0Uploads:31 Thanks: 145 Thanked: 200 times in 94 posts]

#468542

Try Fireworks ( trial ) ?
compare that to OptiPNG; that is: load the png into fireworks choose export wizard, then select png 8 as export type, choose which transparency you want (Index or Alpha) then export. You’ll find in most cases reductions of 33 to 50 %

If you want to compare the two ( as I have legit Fireworks CS6) PM me and point me to a few of your un touched PNG’s I’ll be glad to reduce them as above and post the resulting files/ filesizes for comparison.

If OptiPNG is better I’ll be the first to use it 🙂
Cheers Shannon

[dade88 Friend dade88Join date: February 2009Posts: 11Downloads:5Uploads:0 Thanks: 3]

#468545

Hello Shannon, the calculation I have made is average on all the root images folder of JA Purity, maybe individually OptiPNG can achieve similar (or better I dont know) results than the programs you mentioned.

I’m not owner of a copy of Fireworks, hence if you can gladly do the test for us and say if you get less size on your images, it would be much apprecciated. Just take all the pics from images folder (not subfolders files) compress them, see what happens and share with us 🙂

BB!

[tfosnom Friend tfosnomJoin date: October 2010Posts: 742Downloads:0Uploads:31 Thanks: 145 Thanked: 200 times in 94 posts]

#468560

<blockquote>I’ve run a test on JA Purity II and by only optimizing files in images folder (no subfolders) the size changed from 125 Kb to 93,3 Kb (notice, that some gif files changed to png to achieve better size). That’s around 25% reduction, and I really think it should be taken into consideration from Joomla Art, I’m sure both professionals and free members would love to see an improved product.</blockquote>

If you are referring to JAt3 Blank 2012 ( JA Purity II) templates/images folder just the png & gif files for testing. There are 20 files @ a total of 39.1 kb so I can’t see where you’re getting 125 kb before optimisation from. Second thought is if you convert any gif file to a png, it would require changing the links etc to .png not gif and probably more time than it’s worth.

I tell you what I’ll do
I’ll select some .png file ffrom various sources and do a save as to dl them then run each through the fireworks process and post the results you can then dl from the urls I supply and do the same on optiPNG which by the way is not an exe install program and appears to be a unix only thing well at leats the file I dl’ed from sourceforge was. Stay tuned back in 15

[tfosnom Friend tfosnomJoin date: October 2010Posts: 742Downloads:0Uploads:31 Thanks: 145 Thanked: 200 times in 94 posts]

#468563

First test image from here –
http://images.wikia.com/sonic/images/3/3b/Shadow-large.png original file size = 791 kb
Second Image Here –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mars_Earth_Comparison.png original file size = 508 kb
Third image here –
http://regmedia.co.uk/2012/02/10/mars_rover_spirit.png original file size = 825 kb

After optimisation including exporting as png 8 format and in cases lowering colours from 256 to 128 or 64

I can’t detect any degradation in quality after the optimisation can you?

First image here
http://www.monsoftwebdesign.net/FW_png_tests/Mars_Earth_Comparison.png – file size = 88.6 kb
Second image here
http://www.monsoftwebdesign.net/FW_png_tests/mars_rover_spirit.png – file size = 176 kb
Third image here
http://www.monsoftwebdesign.net/FW_png_tests/Shadow-large.png – file size = 108 kb

My opinion is small already optimised png files under 15 kb are not worth worrying about you save very little as small files load fast anyways. Fireworks has an approximate load time for each graphic and anything under 20 k loads in 1 second, so even if you knock 25 % off it it still takes a second to load due to the minimum browser rendering time, It’s the big graphics that need optimising for best performance

Try it yourself the Fireworks trial (30) is here at adobe.

Hope this is informative
Shannon

[dade88 Friend dade88Join date: February 2009Posts: 11Downloads:5Uploads:0 Thanks: 3]

#468566

Of course, if you reduce color palette quality you will get smaller sizes, however you can see that there has been quality loss (for example, sonic mouth or the moon hole). That’s why I recommended OptiPNG, because it just better compress the files without modifying anything else.

You can find JA Purity II at http://www.joomlart.com/forums/downloads.php?do=cat&id=402 . Regarding your opinion about small images, I can be partially with you, however in case of such small images the best thing is to create CSS sprites. Oh, and is not at all a Unix program, you can use it almost all platforms by command line (I’ve created a .bat to execute it with my wished options, for example); anyway you can read their documentation for better specifications.

Bb!

[tfosnom Friend tfosnomJoin date: October 2010Posts: 742Downloads:0Uploads:31 Thanks: 145 Thanked: 200 times in 94 posts]

#468572

I hear what you’re saying, but also notice you haven’t attempted top optimise these 3 graphics in OptiPNG and post the results, my eyes must be porrer than yours ( I DO wear glasses) but the difference is negligable to me. over the week end I’ll redo these without and change to number of colours and repost results.
Cheers

[dade88 Friend dade88Join date: February 2009Posts: 11Downloads:5Uploads:0 Thanks: 3]

#468579

Hello!

Sorry I didn’t interpreted that you asked me to show the results, so here they go 🙂

I got the original files you posted and this were the results: http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?6dqsgmqzmg0g3wt
– Mars_Earth_Comparison.png from 508 kb to 417 kb
– Shadow-large.png from 791 kb to 790 kb
– mars_rover_spirit.png from 825 kb to 813 kb

Also, I tried to go a little further and see if your images were able to be optimized a little further, there are the results: http://www.mediafire.com/download.php?sdqco59npwb7yfa
– Mars_Earth_Comparison.png from 88.6 kb to 88.5 kb
– Shadow-large.png from 108 kb to 102 kb
– mars_rover_spirit.png from 176 kb to 169 kb

I also wear glasses, don’t worry :). In your pics, checks for example the mouth zone of sonic, the surface of mars and the moon crate colors, you will see they differ. However, you won’t see such differences with OptiPNG; also remark that the program got even a better compression on your already compressed png.

BB!

PS: I hope after all this discussion, JA devs will take us into consideration xD

[Ninja Lead Moderator Ninja LeadJoin date: November 2014Posts: 16064Downloads:310Uploads:2864 Thanks: 341 Thanked: 3854 times in 3563 posts]

#468654

About PNG optimizer, you can use this:

http://www.pngoptimizer.com/

[Author]

Posts