This way we can compare file sizes of the output files and make a balanced judgement of their quality. In order to make the comparison as fair as possible, I’ll use the same images across the services. Additionally, they provide from good to excellent to fantastic image quality, so we are definitely not trading accessibility for quality. The reason is they are cross-platform and are accessible from everywhere. Of the many standalone image compression tools, I’ll review online tools only. However, in my experience, standalone image compression tools are often a better option because they are designed specifically for this job.
Some graphic programs come with image compression tools on their own. Some produce poor quality images, while barely affecting it’s filesize, while others perform near miracles to almost any image. While in some rare cases there isn’t a lot you can do to cut the size of an image, thanks to increasingly clever compression algorithms, more often than not you can drastically reduce the file size with minimal to no image quality loss.Īs you might expect, not all compression tools are created equal. It was a case of more pixels, bigger files and more of them. If that is even close to correct, it’s astonishing news.Īlthough, predictably, JavaScript, HTML and CSS all increased, more than half the increase was accounted for by imagery. Last year the HTTP Archive Report released the disturbing news that average page size on the web had increased 32% (to an average of 1.7Mb) in 2013.
0 kommentar(er)
