optmized format for images for web

[DownAndOut]

Is there a way to have Paint Shop Pro to easily and automatically determine and save a file in the format that is the smallest file size? I upload dozens of files to my web site each day, and instead of saving as each format to see which one is smaller, I'd like photoshop, or another program, to automatically determine which format will result in the smallest file.

Thanks,

DownAndOut

[bigfatron]

The short answer I believe is 'no'. Although it seems an odd request if you don't mind me saying. Photographs are pretty much always going to be JPEG and the compression ratio v acceptable quality trade-off thing is very much a personal judgement call. As for other graphics its largely GIF v PNG, and that choice tends to come down to browser support requirements (IE versions 6 and older won't support transparency for PNG for instance without use of additional CSS nonsense), required colour depth (GIF only goes to 256) and animation requirements (GIF can be, PNG can't).

EDIT: on closer inspection there is the 'options' button in the 'save' dialog when saving JPEG which can launch an optimiser wizard to take you through the compression/sampling options. It won't however automatically decide whats 'best' as that quality v size thing is (as I mentioned earlier in the post) a matter of varying personal opinion.

[DownAndOut]

The short answer I believe is 'no'. Although it seems an odd request if you don't mind me saying. Photographs are pretty much always going to be JPEG and the compression ratio v acceptable quality trade-off thing is very much a personal judgement call. As for other graphics its largely GIF v PNG, and that choice tends to come down to browser support requirements (IE versions 6 and older won't support transparency for PNG for instance without use of additional CSS nonsense), required colour depth (GIF only goes to 256) and animation requirements (GIF can be, PNG can't).

EDIT: on closer inspection there is the 'options' button in the 'save' dialog when saving JPEG which can launch an optimiser wizard to take you through the compression/sampling options. It won't however automatically decide whats 'best' as that quality v size thing is (as I mentioned earlier in the post) a matter of varying personal opinion.

Mod edit - I've approved this post, thinking you may want to edit it yourself to add what ever you wanted to say.
Graham

What seems odd to me is that more image editing programs do not offer the functionality that I am inquiring about. I found hundreds of posts accross the internet that say "save as .jpg/.gif/.png to see which one is the smallest". This seems time consuming when a program (when saving) could display the size that the file would save in each format, allowing the user to select which format they wish to save in.

The "general" rule that photographic type images save smaller as .jpg may be the case in general, but does not apply on our web site http://www.mysavings.com. Our content editors upload 300x250 and 120x60 (thumbnails) of the same image. Even when the images are of photographic nature, the 120x60 seem to usually 50% smaller as .gifs, while the same image as 300x250 are 25% smaller .jpg. 50% on is large and really affects loadt ime when we are talking about 2 images on the page. So we are having to adopt a general rule that save the 120x60 as .gif and the 300x250 as .jpg, regardless of the content of the picture. Our image editors do not have the time to save in both formats just to see which is smaller.

It just seems logical that a program could show you the resulting file sizes for each format when saving so you can choose which is smaller. Regardless of affecting quality, because I see no noticeable difference in quality when I just save these images as a .jpg or .gif, the only difference I notice is the file size.

[bigfatron]

The short answer I believe is 'no'. Although it seems an odd request if you don't mind me saying. Photographs are pretty much always going to be JPEG and the compression ratio v acceptable quality trade-off thing is very much a personal judgement call. As for other graphics its largely GIF v PNG, and that choice tends to come down to browser support requirements (IE versions 6 and older won't support transparency for PNG for instance without use of additional CSS nonsense), required colour depth (GIF only goes to 256) and animation requirements (GIF can be, PNG can't).

EDIT: on closer inspection there is the 'options' button in the 'save' dialog when saving JPEG which can launch an optimiser wizard to take you through the compression/sampling options. It won't however automatically decide whats 'best' as that quality v size thing is (as I mentioned earlier in the post) a matter of varying personal opinion.

Mod edit - I've approved this post, thinking you may want to edit it yourself to add what ever you wanted to say.
Graham

What seems odd to me is that more image editing programs do not offer the functionality that I am inquiring about. I found hundreds of posts accross the internet that say "save as .jpg/.gif/.png to see which one is the smallest". This seems time consuming when a program (when saving) could display the size that the file would save in each format, allowing the user to select which format they wish to save in.

The "general" rule that photographic type images save smaller as .jpg may be the case in general, but does not apply on our web site http://www.mysavings.com. Our content editors upload 300x250 and 120x60 (thumbnails) of the same image. Even when the images are of photographic nature, the 120x60 seem to usually 50% smaller as .gifs, while the same image as 300x250 are 25% smaller .jpg. 50% on is large and really affects loadt ime when we are talking about 2 images on the page. So we are having to adopt a general rule that save the 120x60 as .gif and the 300x250 as .jpg, regardless of the content of the picture. Our image editors do not have the time to save in both formats just to see which is smaller.

It just seems logical that a program could show you the resulting file sizes for each format when saving so you can choose which is smaller. Regardless of affecting quality, because I see no noticeable difference in quality when I just save these images as a .jpg or .gif, the only difference I notice is the file size.

That would make sense to be honest as the bigger the image gets then the more the JPEG compression will come into its own. For larger logos/original graphics especially I wouldn't touch JPEG but now you've shown examples I can see that the size of image you're creating isn't going to show any of the less desirable effects of JPEG. And for alot of them you aren't going to notice the reduced colour depth of GIF either.

Have you considered using PNG as a third choice? In alot of situations its more efficient than GIF. Although transparency might be an issue if you use it and need IE6 support, the CSS filter workaround is actually pretty easy.

Also, why not use a script or something to generate the multiple formats?

[LeviFiction]

Batch processing of the images makes saving out the images to both formats quick and easy. You then just do a comparison.

If you do batch processing but allow the script to do the saving and file editing for you it's very possible to create a script that will save out to forms of the image using the current codec settings and compare the file-sizes on disk, deleting the largest one. Some simple python, understanding of how python accesses the file-system, and understanding of how the save method works inside of the script is all that's really necessary to create the functionality yourself.

There is a script at Suz's place for specifying a special file-size and the script keeps increasing the compression until the image reaches the necessary size. While not necessarily good for what you're looking for it could provide useful examples for dealing with files and saving. http://suzsplace.com/8scripts/ss-Compre ... etSize.htm

[David Milisock]

Are you posting these images for web viewing of web storage and download?

[Tim Morrison]

There are only three candidates, JPG, GIF and PNG. All of these have "Optimizers" in PSP which are specifically aimed at showing you the file size of the saved file and how that file will look. You will find them using File > Export.
There is no need to compare file sizes because that is only going to be part of the reason that you'd choose a particular file format.
JPG will always be the choice for photos. Use File > Export > JPEG Optimizer, and you will see the final file size of the image, as well as a preview of the saved image so that you can judge how the chosen options have effected it. It's entirely possible to choose a high level of JPEG compression which will give you a tiny file size, but which will make the image look dreadful. You'll find that the best size reduction you can make is to resize the image to an appropriate size (in pixels). Don't post a full size image with HTML code to resize it, and don't try to use inches as a size for online images.

[Geekissimus]

DownAndOut,

There is a common rule: use GIF for poor-coloured screenshots, PNG for rich colors, and JPEG for photos. By the way, it could be great if PSP supports the newest highly optimized image format for the Web, by Google -- WebP.

[Radim]

Who says that Paint Shop Pro X2 does not support WebP?

It actualy DOES, and it works great.

Thanks free plugin:
http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/
direct link for x86:
http://www.telegraphics.com.au/sw/files ... b5-win.zip

I tested it on PSP X2 to save and open saved files and it works. YES, yes documentation says it was NOT tested on PSP but it works.

[bigfatron]

DownAndOut,

There is a common rule: use GIF for poor-coloured screenshots, PNG for rich colors, and JPEG for photos. By the way, it could be great if PSP supports the newest highly optimized image format for the Web, by Google -- WebP.

Bottom line for future success will be whether the other major browsers bother supporting it as a format or not. Without that its pretty much a dead duck.

[Geekissimus]

Bottom line for future success will be whether the other major browsers bother supporting it as a format or not. Without that its pretty much a dead duck.

Yes, for sure -- I do agree with you.

[Radim]

Yes, I believe that web browsers can bring it to life.

Google Chrome and Opera 11.10 already support WebP file format. And something more, function "Opera Turbo" use this for faster loading of web pages for older PC or when *On*.

For Firefox 4.0 read here - http://extendopera.org/userjs/content/webp-support

EDIT: Short intro to *WebP* - http://www.dancewithshadows.com/tech/go ... eb-access/

Native support of WebP format in Windows - http://techdows.com/2011/04/viewing-web ... ndows.html