Harishankar <v.harishan...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> Just opening, and then saving the same file with no changes at all, >> resulted in a 72 byte file growing to 920. >> >> I thought it was GIF87a vs GIF89a... but have since come to determine it >> doesn't appear to be. I decided to give PNG a try again, since those >> extra 50 bytes *matter*, but if I can't get GIF to work, 50 is better >> then 900. Unfortunately, I hit the same wall there. >> > Also try the pngcrush utility and see what size it gives you. > http://pmt.sourceforge.net/pngcrush/ >
optipng gives slightly better results. Anyway, depending on your pictures, you might find out that using *.ppm.gz, *.pgm.gz or *.pbm.gz outperforms both optimised gif ad png... and if sending more pictures down the line, tar-ing them (*.p?m) and compressing the result will give even better sizes. -- ----------------------------------------------------------- | Radovan Garabík http://kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk/~garabik/ | | __..--^^^--..__ garabik @ kassiopeia.juls.savba.sk | ----------------------------------------------------------- Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus. Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
