
Show HN: Optimage – Advanced image optimization tool - vladdanilov
https://getoptimage.com
======
tofof
As far as I can tell, imageoptim eats this project's lunch. The examples given
on optimage's own benchmark page show imageoptim clocking in at around half
the total filesize of optimage for the entire benchmark.

Even in the specific examples that are supposed to count against imageoptim --
the destructive chroma sampling, the 'broken gradient' (I can't see it), the
orange sneakers (imageoptim's looks better and not overblown colors), or the
rotated beach scene -- imageoptim is dramatically smaller on all of them. It
puts up a 76k file vs 141k, a 5k vs 14k, a 72k vs 177k, and a 750k vs 1340k.

Halving the filesize for such small differences is exactly what I want in an
optimizer.

My biggest complaint with imageoptim is that it's primarily a mac tool, with
only a secondary online interface for the windows/linux crowd. But then this
project has exactly the same flaw, so there's no gain there either.

~~~
vladdanilov
> imageoptim clocking in at around half the total filesize of optimage

Only that ImageOptim ruined most of JPEG images while PNG images are ~7.5%
bigger.

> imageoptim is dramatically smaller on all of them

There are myriad ways to make them _much_ smaller at the cost of visual
quality: blurring, posterization, rescaling, etc. The question is where to
stop. With visually lossless, you can apply these techniques in advance and
have predictable results. For example, Optimage does choose chroma sampling
when it is not destructive to original.

> the 'broken gradient' (I can't see it)

It can be seen on a calibrated display, sorry.

> the orange sneakers (imageoptim's looks better and not overblown colors)

Original colors are "overblown" [1].

> or the rotated beach scene

It is _rotated_.

[1] [https://webkit.org/blog-files/color-gamut/](https://webkit.org/blog-
files/color-gamut/)

~~~
hrbf
> It can be seen on a calibrated display, sorry.

Which is probably what about 99% of all internet users are sitting in front
of, right?

This is just a misleading, weird attempt at marketing for a tool I expect to
not generate any meaningful sales. To claim that ImageOptim ruins "most JPEGs"
is just irresponsible and annoyingly false.

Given the differences in quality vs. compression, ImageOptim and the other
free tools actually appear to define far more realistic results for real world
use apart from pleasing owners of $3000+ hardware-calibrated soft-proofing
displays.

------
ipsum2
> First tool for automatic image compression that just works

If you search "image compression tool" on Google you'll have millions of hits
of products that do the exact same thing. You even list a bunch of competitors
on your website. What makes this the first?

~~~
sctb
We've updated the submitted tagline from “First tool for automatic image
compression that just works” to one from the page itself.

~~~
vladdanilov
Why? There's an extensive benchmark [1], also seen on the homepage, that
proves it is the first tool that does not break images like other state-of-
the-art tools, i.e. fits the submitted tagline.

On a side note, HN voting system is horribly broken. I submitted the link in
the morning and when I hit the bed it somehow got attention.

[1] [https://getoptimage.com/benchmark](https://getoptimage.com/benchmark)

------
mjgoeke
FYI in firefox (62.0.2) some 'before' images look different.

In chrome they look identical. Perhaps the source images included gamma
information?

CRS-4 Mission Launch by SpaceX (less contrast, less color saturation in
'before')

Jellyfish photo by 贝莉儿 NG (much lower blue saturation in 'before')

~~~
vladdanilov
Yes, some of the source images are tagged with ICC color profiles.

It looks like Firefox still does not treat untagged images as sRGB and the
difference on wide-gamut monitors may be noticeable.

That was a matter of an option switch. It should be fixed now. Thanks.

------
anigbrowl
Pedantic quibble: shrinking is _optimizing for size_. I deal with a lot of
shitty images and size is the last thing I care about. I'm sure it does a
great job at making things smaller but that's not the only kind of
optimization there is.

------
jacobn
Shameless plug: [https://recompressor.com](https://recompressor.com)

Does something very similar, but gives you a full trade off graph and also
supports SVG and is free.

(I’m one of the creators of the site)

------
johntran
I currently use ImgBot[1] to optimize all my assets in my GitHub repo. Works
well.

[1]
[https://github.com/marketplace/imgbot](https://github.com/marketplace/imgbot)

------
juliend2
Off-topic, but at the bottom of the page there is this quote from Jay Walker
at TED 2008:

> “It takes the energy in one lump of coal to move 1 MB of information across
> the net.”

I wonder if it's still true today, 10 years later.

~~~
philipkglass
No. I'm skeptical that it was true then, for reasonable values of "lump."

One lump of coal: 25 grams

(Per
[https://books.google.com/books?id=HLFJAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA5-PA20&l...](https://books.google.com/books?id=HLFJAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA5-PA20&lpg=RA5-PA20&dq=coal+lump+grams&source=bl&ots=rG5vD0QN6z&sig=mhO2OhL1PhqmIQL8C1RDfj6eOfw&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj72_Wu-
JPeAhUdHjQIHcqqD7QQ6AEwFXoECAgQAQ#v=onepage&q=coal%20lump%20grams&f=false) )

Annual internet traffic: 122,088,000,000,000 MB in 2008, 1,152,648,000,000,000
MB in 2016

(petabytes per month to megabytes per year: multiply by 1.2 * 10^10)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_traffic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_traffic)

There are 40,000 coal lumps of 25 grams per tonne of coal.

That would put moving-information-across-the-net energy consumption at 3
billion tonnes (3.4 billion short tons) of coal in 2008. That's about 44% of
world coal production in 2008.

If it took 1 lump of coal per MB in 2016, that would be about 29 billion
tonnes of coal (32 billion short tons), or about 360% of world coal production
in 2013 (latest date available).

[https://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?product=coal&graph=consum...](https://www.indexmundi.com/energy/?product=coal&graph=consumption)

------
artemis73
Any plans of supporting other systems? Linux perhaps?

~~~
vladdanilov
I plan to release a cross-platform CLI tool first. The core tool already works
under *nix. But there's still a good portion of business logic in the app.

The work on a cross-platform GUI is happening too, but it is way slower than I
anticipated. It's going to be native or nothing. I don't consider Electron or
QT as an option.

~~~
nightcracker
Electron I understand, but what's wrong with Qt?

~~~
vladdanilov
Qt does not use native widgets only simulates them.

~~~
nightcracker
I am aware, however you didn't explain what the problem is.

~~~
vladdanilov
Well, the problem is the uncanny valley between native and its imitation.

------
denormalfloat
For me, squashing images is most useful when creating thumbnails. This makes
pages load much faster due to the smaller file size. In this sense, optimage
would be more useful if it could also intelligently crop the image down to a
square.

------
chiefalchemist
Could you do this as an Adobe (Photoshop) add-on? Wouldn't that be a bigger
market?

~~~
JusticeJuice
Photoshop is used less and less by designers, with tools like Sketch and Figma
taking over. Also, usually the developers would prefer to handle compression.

~~~
iamben
I'd be delighted if designers gave me compressed assets.

~~~
chiefalchemist
I agree. Unless the asset compression is actually part of the application then
this does not belong on the devs' plate. There are plenty of other things to
focus on.

