6 ms·
Input (original) name: Fuckscape_d80352_5915762.jpg type: image/jpeg size: 19.14 KB Output (compressed) name: Fuckscape_d80352_5915762.jpg type: image/jpe
by dsun176 9y ago
Input (original)
name: Fuckscape_d80352_5915762.jpg
type: image/jpeg
size: 19.14 KB
Output (compressed)
name: Fuckscape_d80352_5915762.jpg
type: image/jpeg
size: 20.64 KB (-7.85% off)
So your image-compressor actually adds 7.85% to the filesize?
Maybe I don't understand the meaning of compression, but shouldn't it be smaller?
- dankent 9y agoI got better results: Input (original) name: the-northern-trifid-nebula-8499-1920x1200.jpg type: image/jpeg size: 737.26 KB Output (compressed) name: the-northern-trifid-nebula-8499-1920x1200.jpg type: image/jpeg size: 263.17 KB (64.30% off) I guess your original was more optimised than mine. A tool like this should definitely check to make sure it has actually reduced the file size and, if not, just return the original with a note that it couldn't make any gains.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- andreasklinger 9y agoyou should share an image link plus your settings/script to make this useful for OP
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- phoboslab 9y agoThe result is dependent on your Browser. This library uses the Browser's native `ctx.toDataURL('image/jpeg', quality)` method to re-encode the image. The actual compression algorithm is not implemented in JavaScript.