Gimp-Forum.net
Optimise for web - Printable Version

+- Gimp-Forum.net (https://www.gimp-forum.net)
+-- Forum: Other topics (https://www.gimp-forum.net/Forum-Other-topics)
+--- Forum: Watercooler (https://www.gimp-forum.net/Forum-Watercooler)
+--- Thread: Optimise for web (/Thread-Optimise-for-web)

Optimise for web - meetdilip - 11-29-2022

What is the best image optimisation strategy for WordPress? What size and format do you use?

I am thinking of using images in webp format. Is that a good thing to do? What formats do you use for you blog without making the page heavy?

RE: Optimise for web - Ofnuts - 11-29-2022

Depends on the server: does it properly serve the WebP images (ie, identified as an image type, and no as some random binary data)? Otherwise, yes, WebP makes smaller images (Reddit/Imgur routinely serves images as Webp)

RE: Optimise for web - meetdilip - 11-29-2022

It is a standard hosting package. I have tried webp on it and it works fine.

I have a few webp doubts

1. Do we need to set Alpha Quality to 100 always? Reducing will affect the quality?
2. Do we need to save the colour profile?
3. Does declaring the " Source Type " as "Photo " help?

RE: Optimise for web - Ofnuts - 11-29-2022

(11-29-2022, 05:38 PM)meetdilip Wrote: It is a standard hosting package. I have tried webp on it and it works fine.

I have a few webp doubts

1. Do we need to set Alpha Quality to 100 always? Reducing will affect the quality?
2. Do we need to save the colour profile?
3. Does declaring the " Source Type " as "Photo " help?

  1. Yes, but you have to check how much is acceptable (probably less visible that for color channels)
  2. No, if it is sRGB or a variant
  3. If it is a photo, possibly.


RE: Optimise for web - meetdilip - 11-29-2022

Thanks admin

RE: Optimise for web - meetdilip - 12-03-2022

Last day, I built an animated .webp using GIMP, it was very heavy. But an online service had it optimised and gave it around 1 MB. I think GIMP's output was around 3+ MB in that case.

RE: Optimise for web - Ofnuts - 12-04-2022

(12-03-2022, 02:40 AM)meetdilip Wrote: Last day, I built an animated .webp using GIMP, it was very heavy. But an online service had it optimised and gave it around 1 MB. I think GIMP's output was around 3+ MB in that case.

So? What settings did you use to export? What setting did this service use to export? How much CPU did it burn to find the settings? Is there any difference to a trained eye between the two images? Until you have answers to all these questions you can't draw conclusions.

RE: Optimise for web - meetdilip - 12-04-2022

I am not sure where to fine-tune. I even tried 60% compression, 100% alpha and removed everything else, including the colour profile. The output was blurry.

This is the service I used if you want to see their work. I did the animation in Blender and exported it as .mkv. MKV file was around 900 KB and the online converter gave me something very close in size to .webp. The online service has zero customisation option though.

https://www.onlineconverter.com/video-to-webp

The quality was much superior to what I got through GIMP 60% compression.

RE: Optimise for web - Ofnuts - 12-04-2022

Depends what you compress. I have an animation, fresh out of Gimp.

- Export to GIF: 684K
- Export to WebP (lossless) from Gimp: 118K
- Convert the GIF above to WebP using your site: 134K

So, Gimp is better, in that case.

RE: Optimise for web - meetdilip - 12-07-2022

Ok Smile

I had to render out from Blender and that particular use case was a bit hard.