Den torsdag den 24. juli 2014 23.59.58 UTC+2 skrev Josh Aas: > > > I selected 10,000 random JPEGs that we were caching for customers and ran > > them through mozjpeg 2.0 via jpegtran. Some interesting facts: > > > With mozjpeg you probably want to re-encode with cjpeg rather than jpegtran. > We added support for JPEG input to cjpeg in mozjpeg to make this possible. > I'm not sure, but I don't think jpegtran takes advantage of much of the work > we've done to improve compression. > >
Hi Josh You write that we should re-encode with cjpeg rather than just optimize with jpegtran, but what settings would you use for this, if the purpose is just to optimize, and not actually change the format, quality and so on, in any way? I tried with "cjpeg -quality 100 -optimize -progressive" but this seems to give me much bigger files. I am hoping to optimize images uploaded for websites, which has allready had the quality setting changed to fit their purpose, so I am just interested in optimizing the images lossless, which seems like a similar case to John's. And one other thing: I been testing an early version of jpegtran from MozJpeg, but after upgrading to 2.0 my testfiles seems to grow by a few KB, after being optimized. Was there an error in the older versions that deleted a bit too much data or did the algorithm change to the worse in 2.0? I am using "jpegtran -optimize -progressive -copy none" with both versions. _______________________________________________ dev-platform mailing list dev-platform@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-platform
