What happened?! I thought the logo was supposed to be now 2998 bytes, but it's 3074! I guess it changed again? If yes, then 3055 is possible. It not, why's the compact version not in use?

This matter requires urgent intervention.

"urgent" ?

really?

imagine if 34523452345 people looked at ha today. at 19bytes saved, that's nearly 611 gigabytes saved! you call that not urgent?!

ps: :)

There are some situations where you just have to let go...!

Just for providing a little "up" to this thread about this urgent matter here's a 3.056 bytes pixel-identical version:


http://www.exe64.com/var/ha-logo.png

Bye!

Phew! Another 18 bytes. HA's future's safe again!

I got it squeezed down to 2,976 bytes. A whole 96 bytes smaller than the original! Absolutely huge bandwidth savings!

http://utorrent.com/ha-logo.png

Just saved an additional, entire byte: 2.975!


http://www.exe64.com/var/ha-logo.png

Bye!

Just think: with all this compression, we've probably saved about as much bandwidth as this thread creates....

Now, would cropping the white padding pixels off and setting it via CSS increase or decrease the size?

Has anybody run pngcrush on it?

Which one's better, pngcrush or PNGOUT?

I personally always recompress my PNG's using IrfanView's PNGOUT plugin (a much much improved version available from the plugin author's webpage here; it is not part of the latest IrfanView installation package yet)

PNGOUT, IMHO, is far better (not too mention actively developed).

Bye!

No! You should pngcrush it, THEN pngout it!

Just make it svg... That'll solve the AA discussion on the subtitle too...

Another 4 bytes less: 2.971!


http://www.exe64.com/var/ha-logo.png

Bye!