Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

IrfanView vs ShortPixel

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    IrfanView vs ShortPixel

    Hey guys I mainly use IrfanView to compress images for the web. The thing is, I know for a fact there are these paid tools that "somehow" manage to reduce the file size and preserve the quality, such example would be ShortPixel or Kraken etc. However I don't want to pay monthly fee just for to keep dozens of images in check per month. When I compare IrfanView with ShortPixel for example (in my case I used 8MB image 4k x 3k pixels image), the final results were 1.5 MB compressed image by IrfanView and 546 KB with ShortPixel. And for the quality (both were set to ~80% quality) judging by the eye I would say they look pretty the same. So my question is - Is there any way to accomplish this with IrfanView and replicate that quality (ShortPixel)? Should I use any specific settings or perhaps IrfanView can't accomplish that quality, no matter how much I tweak the settings?

    #2
    For high quality photographs, 80% is the most that you need to use for the web. This can be reduced significantly depending on the image data. These are what I recommend as a rule of thumb:

    1. Photographis of buildings or machinery = 80%
    2. Photographs of people = 70%
    3. Photographs of landscapes = 50%
    4. Photographs of seascapes = 40%
    5. Images of dialogues, application toolbars, or text = always use PNG not JPG. Reduce colour depth if you're desperate to save on file sizes.


    Compression versus Quality
    Last edited by Bhikkhu Pesala; 31.03.2018, 09:54 AM.
    Before you post ... Edit your profile • IrfanView 4.62 • Windows 10 Home 19045.2486

    Irfan PaintIrfan View HelpIrfanPaint HelpRiot.dllMore SkinsFastStone CaptureUploads

    Comment


      #3
      You can save more file size by using WebP format. Websites can provide a JPG fall-back image for browsers that do not support WebP format.

      On my site, I offer a low resolution JPG image, with a high resolution WebP version for those who want it.
      Last edited by Bhikkhu Pesala; 31.03.2018, 09:52 AM.
      Before you post ... Edit your profile • IrfanView 4.62 • Windows 10 Home 19045.2486

      Irfan PaintIrfan View HelpIrfanPaint HelpRiot.dllMore SkinsFastStone CaptureUploads

      Comment


        #4
        Thanks for the quick reply Bhikkhu, I was actually looking into color depth but wasn't sure which one to choose? Currently, it is set up to Custom Color 0 and Floyd Steinberg is checked. I'm just downloading the 4.51 version to try the JPG_TRANSFORM plugin (according to Wikipedia provides lossless compression?). Thanks for the suggestions I'll make notes and try to follow the percentage you recommend.

        Comment


          #5
          Wow, that's a great tip, I just downloaded WebP Converter at Google developers and will test it out. Thanks buddy!

          Oh I just saw I just need to save it as webP via IrfanView.
          Last edited by donovan; 31.03.2018, 10:34 AM.

          Comment


            #6
            Just one follow up on my initial question - What technology or image compression "magic" do this online paid tools use that they beat IrfanView in that matter? Do you think IrfanView can accomplish the same one day? I mean I'm in love with this tool, and I have been using for more than a year, it saves me so much time (especially the batch function), but yet again I'm curious what's the difference.

            Comment


              #7
              Whatever algorithm they use they will protect it with licensing restrictions. IrfanView can only use free codecs so it may not get optimal results.

              Compressed a high quality image at ShortPixel. IrfanView estimated it to be compressed at a quality setting of 37, which is pretty low. Compressing the same image with IrfanView at that quality resulted in a larger image (380 Kb instead of 291 Kb with ShortPixel).

              Compare the results: Left IrfanView; Right ShortPixel.

              Click image for larger version

Name:	Compression 37.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	380.3 KB
ID:	83081Click image for larger version

Name:	Short Pixel.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	291.0 KB
ID:	83082

              The WebP image was only 180 Kb @ 37 Quality.

              There are feature requests for IrfanView to support other compression formats, but what we have already is good enough. 380 Kb instead of 8.16 Mbytes is not too shabby, but I would go for higher quality.

              I guess you used Glossy on ShortPixel instead of Lossy?
              Last edited by Bhikkhu Pesala; 31.03.2018, 12:14 PM.
              Before you post ... Edit your profile • IrfanView 4.62 • Windows 10 Home 19045.2486

              Irfan PaintIrfan View HelpIrfanPaint HelpRiot.dllMore SkinsFastStone CaptureUploads

              Comment


                #8
                I was using the Lossy compression type. But the 37 quality explains a lot. Also, I was assuming that ShortPixel was using ~80, because I got 94% lossy, but I was wrong apparently. I know that I set the IfranView quality to 80. That should expain the difference. P.S. I just tested with 37 quality just for fun and the IrfanView shows better quality at least for my eye.

                Here's are the samples

                Ifran:
                Click image for larger version

Name:	Bodybuilding Man with dumbbells Pixel Test IRFAN.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	591.7 KB
ID:	83083

                ShortPixel:
                Click image for larger version

Name:	Bodybuilding Man with dumbbells Pixel Test.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	546.9 KB
ID:	83084

                P.S. It appears that the quality for the ShortPixel Image is 47 (accoring to IrfanView).

                Here's an update with 47:
                Click image for larger version

Name:	Bodybuilding Man with dumbbells Pixel Test 47.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	713.6 KB
ID:	83085
                Last edited by donovan; 31.03.2018, 12:51 PM.

                Comment

                Working...
                X