I just losslessly compressed HA logo with pngout and I got a 3942 bytes big one:
(edit)
The original logo is 3981 bytes big, so you can replace it to save a couple of nano-seconds on downloading it
Let me know when I can delete it from my address

edit: You can remove it now

impressive.. nothing more and nothing less

Being fully aware that this is a highly off topic discussion, resampling the logo to 16 colors could bring the filesize well below 3kB and it would be very hard to ABX the 16 color version vs the 256 color one

I don't know how well would the antialias at the borders work with just 16 colors. BTW, what you are talking about is bitdepth reduction, not resampling.

While we're at it: Someone at least move the "u" and the "i" in hydrogenaudio one pixel to the left.

(cropped and 16 colours, 2642 bytes)




(16 colours, 2676 bytes)


I think it's ABXable though... But the original version has 144 colours, and therefore it's a good amount-of-colours-used / quality ratio.

Ok, done.



(16 colours, modified, 2697 bytes)

Thanks for that version, it's online.

someone shoudl invente ABX testing for pictures :-)

Optimized: 2407 bytes

16 colors, 2638bytes



--edit: Dang, too late.

Uhm, is HA going to graphic compression discussion ?

Just to annoy everyone: I think the background colour of the currently online one is very slightly different to the page background.. at least on my pc it is. It appears to be slightly greeny-blue. That's 16/16. Or something.

You have good eyes. color code of the logo background is 252/254/252.
I wonder how that happened...

I think it shouldn't be reduced to 16 colors after all. You just can't get the colors right, i tried. Here's the fixed version in 256 colors. Jan, if you could use that batch file on it...

ok... here.

3.963 bytes

hm... larger than rutra80's.

That's because his version didn't have the two letters fixed.

My reply about converting the logo to 16 colors was meant to be a joke
Besides of that, the logo will be in every user's browser cache permanently, so it is only sporadiously to be transmitted...

I don't know how this (wrong background colour) could happen! Crappy Photoshop...

Because I, like everyone else on this page, have too much time, I also started playing with Haudio's lovely logo. Here are my two solutions:

1. Plain old .bmp -- We won't lose any colors, and it's still only around 103K -- that's smaller than .jpgs on some personal websites. (You know, the ones where the pic is resized, not resampled, so you load a 250K file where you could have used a 23K.) Added bonus: anyone could download it and edit it in paint.

2. Use only 8 colors -- looks about the same, (not that anyone would notice), and it's only 2.7K (.gif). We could even have it interlaced so that ultra-slow connections get a fuzzy image for half a second.

Ok, now a jump back to seriousness: it doesn't matter does it? Like Hanky said, it's cached, so it only loads once.

Edit: I don't mean to be rude with my jump back to seriousness, just making sure any gulable soul reading this realizes that I am kidding.

Hey, we just try to push the limits, i think that's good. Plus we know when we've gone too far.

[OT]



Please excuse my ignorance, but what, exactly, does this quotation mean. The word sporadiously in particular has me confused.

[/OT]

Later.

Sporadically? (Adverb meaning infrequently).

Presumably Hanky means that since many browsers cache recent images, such a large image download would only occur infrequently.

Um, my apoligies to Hanky, but sporadiously isn't a word. But Merrian-Webster defines sporadic as here or there or occuring occasionally. I think the word Hanky aimed for was sporadically, a modification of the word sporadic. But besides that word, the whole thing was bad grammar (sorry Hanky, English is dumb and confusing language I hear). (I'll be lucky to spell everything right.)

However, that little snipit meant that files in your cache, once downloaded from a website, do not need to be downloaded again for viewing, because they are, as said, cached on your machine.

That's correct. Sorry but English is not my first language.

A final limit?
EDIT: Picture removed
2343 bytes, losslessly of course

Ahhh, okay I get it. I do know what sporadically means (I majored in English and I teach first year English), but sporadiciously threw me off. Thanks--everyone--for clearing that up.


[back on topic]Is the few amount of bytes in question really going to matter to anyone?[/back on topic]


Later.

Will it matter? Yes.
For whom? For Dibrom.

Those few bytes add up quickly if lots of different people visit HA.

Crazy.... all this discussion over a few bytes... The world of audio compression must be really dead

Regards

AgentMil

What did you use to get it down to this?

I ran advpng, pngrewrite, pngout, pngcrush and optipng on it to get it down to what I did...
And you did a lot better.

Your version is not lossless! Check the background color for instance.

A new one made from my vector version... But the small text is not 100% the same... Can't make it right...

3.101 bytes

In my experience, changed colours like this are down to the pallete reduction algorithm used to create the image. I haven't done this in a while, but if I remember right, 'optimized octree' seems to keep colours better (I think that was an option in photoshop..). You can always manually alter the pallete to achieve the correct colours.

Ok, I've now uploaded at least 6 times different versions which are few bytes smaller or something..
Somebody make THE final version already...

Yeah, this is getting silly!

Here's my contribution

[ ((.)) hydrogenaudio ]
[ the audio technology enthusiast's resource ]

Smaller than ALL of yours!!!!111

Ruairi

I doubt the original can get smaller than mine. Unless someone tweak the settings on some optimizer.
Till I get a good vector version with correct "small text" that should be the final.


rc55: you never were a perfectionist, though we always love rc55 style contributions...

rc55 could you at least use a smaller font size for "[ the audio technology enthusiast's resource ]"?

I'm using the same tools as you, most often I get the best results with pngout, try tweaking with the /f and /b option.


Hmm, strage stuff. Anyway, the current logo changed, and the smallest size I can get with it is 3000 bytes...

Same as the current one, but 64bytes smaller (3000)

Simply ran pngrewrite/pngout

with which parameters did you run those tools? when I run them they can't optimize it any more.

Background color is once again different

-Eugene

huh no, it's not, plain white (255,255,255)
Just checked with PSP
And these 2 tools are loseless, unless it's a gamma issue...

Jan S: Default ones, perhaps i have newer versions?
PNGOUT (Sep 25 2003)
PNGRewrite 1.2.1

Edit: Shows up fine in IE and Opera, must be a problem on your side

Heh, really. Seems that it's forum background that's not #FFFFFF, but #FFF (and IE makes it #F0F0F0), so it's not completely white

-Eugene

Forum background is #FFFFFF.
"Quote background" is not.

Hmm...


-Eugene

here it is displayed as (255,255,255) in both mozilla firebird and IE.
Checked with PS.

lol, now it's 2bytes smaller (2998)
These programs are quite weird...

Hi,

I found this thread through a web search for PNG compression. I thought I would give a shot at reducing the HA logo size.

Took the HA logo off the top of this webpage. Size: 3064 bytes.

Using just crushers, I got it down to only about 3001 bytes, similar to everyone else. I used Megaopt, then PNG Gauntlet.

With manual colour reduction, the smallest filesize I managed to get the logo down to was 2830 bytes.

<<< I don't see a way to upload my image with this post ! >>>

The colours were reduced down to 39 colours from 58 in the original. Visually the colour-reduced logo is still identical to the original. You'd have a tough time finding changed pixels when zooming in on the logo in Photoshop.

After the colour-reduction (I used Web Image Guru for that), I ran the image through my favourite crusher: Megaopt (which I found on this very forum).

After Megaopt, I ran the image through PNG Gauntlet which reduced it furthur. PNG Gauntlet almost always reduces another 2-3%, probably because it uses PNG Rewrite to re-sort the palette. But I also read that Gauntlet uses an older version of PNG Out whereas Megaopt uses a newer version... apparently the older PNG Out still compresses better.

The amount of colours could actually go down by another 10 and you wouldn't notice a difference visually on a webpage.

At this point, if you want more reduction... I would crop the white space off the edges of the logo. Then when you put it back into your website code, put in the equivalent empty space around the logo. You can do this multiple ways. <IMG> tags are supposed to have a padding control. If not, CSS code should have that. Then there's the old stand-by... blank 1-pixel GIF's surround the logo (but then the 100 bytes you gained in the cropping would be introduced again using blank GIF's), or you can be tricky with table cells.

Is all this effort crazy? Probably. Myself, I don't think so... because I work for a mobile game porting company and 10 bytes here and there is serious business! =) Some apps we work on... are crazy... we have to reduce a game package (JAR file) from like 130kb to 64kb to fit on some crappy cellphones... and the programmers were asking me "GIMME 200 BYTES MORE MAN". It fell down to a matter of 5 pixels changing colour to get the game to fit on the phone memory requirements. This is what makes my job fun though, I love it.

Hahahaha now I know why games on mobiles use PNG... thanks for that. I always wondered why they always had PNG instead of JPGs GIFs etc.

Yea, haha.

PNG format is cool though. It can be indexed, RGB, or grayscale. The indexed palette bit-depth can be 1bit to 8bit. Color depth can be from 1bit to 64bit (or something like that). There's also the possibility of animation with the specification (.MNG format).

What I like most is the control over data chunks (TweakPNG is a great program) in the PNG file. You can blow away parts of the PNG, or add them. There's so many chunk types that give you control over PNG features. Like pixel aspect ratio, brightness (for consistency across different displays), as well as text comments.

Tweaking a PNG out usually gets filesize below what GIF and JPG can do.