| > imageoptim clocking in at around half the total filesize of optimage Only that ImageOptim ruined most of JPEG images while PNG images are ~7.5% bigger. > imageoptim is dramatically smaller on all of them There are myriad ways to make them much smaller at the cost of visual quality: blurring, posterization, rescaling, etc. The question is where to stop. With visually lossless, you can apply these techniques in advance and have predictable results. For example, Optimage does choose chroma sampling when it is not destructive to original. > the 'broken gradient' (I can't see it) It can be seen on a calibrated display, sorry. > the orange sneakers (imageoptim's looks better and not overblown colors) Original colors are "overblown" [1]. > or the rotated beach scene It is rotated. [1] https://webkit.org/blog-files/color-gamut/ |
Which is probably what about 99% of all internet users are sitting in front of, right?
This is just a misleading, weird attempt at marketing for a tool I expect to not generate any meaningful sales. To claim that ImageOptim ruins "most JPEGs" is just irresponsible and annoyingly false.
Given the differences in quality vs. compression, ImageOptim and the other free tools actually appear to define far more realistic results for real world use apart from pleasing owners of $3000+ hardware-calibrated soft-proofing displays.