Take the 2-minute tour ×
Ask Ubuntu is a question and answer site for Ubuntu users and developers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Is there a tool which can achieve good picture compression without loosing the image quality, which can produce optimal images for websites and can compress images in batches?

share|improve this question
1  
By the way, your question reads a bit subjectively. try rewording your title to explain what you're really looking for, like "high compression with low loss of quality" or "lossless image compression" or "supports a command line interface". –  lfaraone Oct 27 '10 at 2:17

4 Answers 4

up vote 4 down vote accepted

I know pngcrush Install pngcrush and optipng Install optipng.

There is also pngquant Install pngquant and pngnq Install pngnq but those are lossy when the original was in truecolor.

For photos you probably want to convert to JPEG instead.

share|improve this answer
    
how did you link those packages @janC –  myusuf3 Oct 27 '10 at 18:47
    
There is a link to “How to post links that install software via apt?” in the sidebar at the right of this page (under “Visit Meta”). –  JanC Oct 27 '10 at 19:02

If you want an easy to use tool, try Trimage, which can be found in the Software-Center of Ubuntu. I've also tested pngcrush and optipng but I have to say that Trimage had the best compression rate of these three tools, without having to mess around with the console :-)

sudo apt-get install trimage
share|improve this answer

You should take a look into the new WebP format and the tool provided by Google. Is not very useful right now, but according to Google it has 40% size reduction over jpeg, without additional quality loss.

http://code.google.com/speed/webp/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WebP

http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=1585577

share|improve this answer
1  
The examples that Google gives only prove that WebP can make files smaller when the quality is worse (duh!). There is currently no proof that it can make smaller files at the same quality when compared to JPEG (actually, most tests say it's worse than JPEG). JPEG2000 can make smaller files at the same quality, but it shares one problem with WebP: most browsers don't support it out of the box, so it's useless for use on websites... –  JanC Oct 27 '10 at 21:21

I used gimp and followed these instructions: http://docs.gimp.org/en/gimp-tutorial-quickie-jpeg.html

When using Trimage I only got a 2.5% improvement on a 2Mb file but with gimp and exporting as jpeg and dialing the quality down to 10 I got a 2Mb file down to 200Kb or ~90% improvement.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.