Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I'm surprised this doesn't include Google Guetzli (https://github.com/google/guetzli) in the comparison. In my experience trying to optimize product images for an eCommerce site, this provided the best compression. Yes, it's ridiculously slow, but for encode-once-transmit-often scenarios, it's perfectly usable.


Did anybody really find any reason to use that?

https://www.pixelz.com/blog/guetzli-mozjpeg-comparison/

"MozJPEG files had fewer bytes 6 out of 8 times

MozJPEG and Guetzli were visually indistinguishable

MozJPEG encoded literally hundreds to a thousand times faster than Guetzli

MozJPEG supports progressive loading"


I am compressing 200x200px and 800x800px images. For those sizes, while the encoding speed is slow for real-time use cases, for product images it's completely irrelevant - anything under 1 minute/image gets a pass and lower, generally, isn't better (or worse). I'm looking at absolute image quality/byte and it's even more niche than that - it's bytes to pass a threshold of acceptable quality (85 on Guetzli IIRC). I don't care about very low or very high qualities.

In terms of absolute bytes to pass this threshold, Guetzli felt the best when I was doing the research (~ mid-2017). I don't have any hard data to back this though - I did the experiment with 5-6 different product images, drew the conclusion and started using Guetzli.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: