Hi Vincent! On Dec 25, 2007 12:24 AM, Vincent Lefevre <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As shown on the following example, optipng could optimize better. > > img2.png > img1.png optimized with "optipng -o9". > > img3.png > img2.png optimized with "advpng -z -4". > > img4.png > img3.png optimized with "optipng -o9". > > The sizes: > > 2447 img1.png > 1320 img2.png > 1286 img3.png > 1278 img4.png
Running optipng on img1.png I get this: $ optipng -o9 -out opti.png img1.png $ sha1sum img4.png opti.png 62128a8bdb84cd5111cbaa9c97c0c6b3ee65f662 img4.png 62128a8bdb84cd5111cbaa9c97c0c6b3ee65f662 opti.png So optimizing directly img1.png is giving the same result from your img4.png (size 1278 is the same). Just in case you want to verify that I am using the same image from you, img1.png has 2447 bytes and has sha1 cac80c3cdc1dbc6ee9b44477453e118197527eb1 Maybe you didn't run optipng -o9 on the first time (or maybe you have attached the wrong images)? Best regards, Nelson -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
