0اختبار أدوات ضغط الصور الجديدة

لقد تم استخدام صورة EWWW محسن لضغط كل من بلدي JPEG و PNG الصور على هذا الموقع لعدة سنوات. EWWW يجعل من استخدام OptiPng وPNGOUT ولئن كانت هذه هي أدوات قوية هناك بدائل هناك الآن أنني أريد أن اختبار ومقارنة.

I am aware of new­er image formats that may offer smal­ler sizes but until they are broadly sup­por­ted we will have to con­tin­ue to work with PNG و JPEG.

I have already seen some com­par­is­ons show­ing some impress­ive per­form­ance by some oth­er formats but I wanted to test this for myself with my real­world images. Based on the claims presen­ted I decided to start with Pingo and see how much it reduced the size of my total image library.

يوجد 3549 الصور التي هي مزيج من صور PNG, صور JPEG, and Webp files and range in size from over 1000×1000 pixels to small thumb­nails of 60×60 pixels.

بدون فقدان بيانات

3505 images were pro­cessed in 434 seconds which is impress­ively quick com­pared to the pre­vi­ous tools I’ve used. ومع ذلك, 3455kb فقط (3.37ميغابايت) تم حفظ وهو 2.5% إنقاذ.

Des­pite the lack of reduc­tion, I will still be look­ing to migrate to pingo as it is vastly faster than the tools used by EWWW and achieves effect­ively the same result

الضياع

Lossy com­pres­sion was much more impress­ive in size reduc­tion with a 22.6Mb (19%) reduc­tion but this is to be expec­ted as my pre­vi­ous tools were not using lossy com­pres­sion. I had decided in advance that a sig­ni­fic­ant reduc­tion would be needed for me to con­sider using lossy com­pres­sion. This reduc­tion is right on the bor­der­line. The ulti­mate decision comes down to how much the smal­ler dimen­sion (في كثير من الأحيان خدم) images saved — the major­ity of the sav­ings were with ori­gin­al images not with the smal­ler images so I’m not per­suaded that the reduc­tion is worth­while at this point, espe­cially as I already serve webp images to over 50% of vis­it­ors and these gained the least

The next step is to fig­ure out how to auto­mate the pro­cess with pingo which isn’t sup­por­ted by EWWW.