![]() ![]() That's because digital images that carry on too much data can take up lots of storage space on your computers and cellphones, and image loading speed has a great impact on the experience for users. An image viewer that currently supports this format is XnView MP.Sometimes, large digital images in your business websites or e-mails are unfriendly for your customers to load the images, which may have a bad influence on your business because it costs too much time for customers to wait for the information that they need in the pictures. This can be a good choice if you are more tech-savy. JPEGs can be losslessly converted into this format to make them smaller, similar to like Winzip does in their zipx archive. For phone images, this works pretty decent however.Īdditional sources for reading: Peazip wiki for zipx, zpaqĮdit2: It is also noteworthy that the JPEG XL project exists. Please note the setting above is unsuitable for screenshots, as -selective-blur is then counterproductive. This brought me a saving of like ~80%, but there was visible gradient artifacts with skys and smooth surfaces. In the past I used it to extremely compress old 8 megapixel phone images and used these additional command line arguments for convert.exe: -sampling-factor 4:2:0 -auto-orient -quality 63 -interlace JPEG -colorspace sRGB -selective-blur 8x8+2% -define jpeg:dct-method=float I know you wrote you don't want this, I'm just mentioning this for completion. However this approach can be also combined with ImageMagick (also open source) - if you are willing to reencode images with a loss. It just compresses using its own methods right away. Because to my knowledge, zpaq does not decompress jpegs to apply its own compression. Unfortunately this means the open source alternative isn't better here, however that has technical reasons too. Results in my case:Įdit: When applying zpaq on the created zipx archive: I have also tested this with the open source zpaq. So it does not have to be photos, but can be applied on jpg files in general. In my own testing with the Winzip trial, I was able to reduce the size of a screenshot folder by exactly 20%, so their claims are right. Improved method that typically results in a 20-25% savings in space. Preexisting compression and then recompressing the file using an The JPEG compression algorithm works by first unwinding this Winzip supports this in conjunction with their zipx format, all the way back in 2008. I do not know what I can expect from a best-case scenario, if it's infeasible to get decent compression then so be it, but I'm hoping that by conceding on speed and file type, I can get a much better result than what I've tried. I'm just not trying to spend money on more storage (right now). I am on Windows, and anything I can run through WSL is welcome as well. Something more specialized than winrar/7zip would be more than welcome. Trying google for help, it's difficult to find related questions that aren't talking about compression for web. I've tried to mess with winrar & 7zip settings, but the compression ratio has generally turned out abysmal regardless. I am not willing to concede on image quality (however, maintaining the format is not important). I'm willing to concede on (de)compression speed, to around the order of 12 hours either way. ![]() Ideally, I'd like to compress every image together into a single archive that is much smaller than the uncompressed total file size. I would like to create a backup of this collection, and being a backup I want it to take up as little space as is feasible. It is by and large PNG and JPG files, each making up about half of the total file size. This is roughly in the range of 150k files of a total size of 200GB. I have a fairly large (by personal use standards) collection of images. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |