On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 8:08 PM, Martin Sourada
<martin.sourada(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, 2010-10-16 at 12:43 -0500, Bruno Wolff III wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:32:54 -0500,
> Charles Kerr <charles(a)transmissionbt.com> wrote:
> > I don't have much experience with pngout, but it claims to be able to
> > shave an extra 14% off these images' sizes. I tried it out on the
> > four images in standard/ and got this result:
>
> While better lossless compression would be a good thing to be doing for
> all of the artwork, I don't think that is going to help enough here.
> Given the short amount of time, I don't think this approach (assuming it
> was expanded to include a larger set of artwork) is going to be practical
> as an immediate solution.
Once, we used optipng for that, but the savings really aren't that much
(depending on picture, about 10%) plus they're time-intensive.
10% is a rather nice improvement ...
"plus they're time-intensive"
That doesn't matter the extra time is *buildtime* not actual runtime.