GIF89A and PIL

garabik-news-2005-05 at garabik-news-2005-05 at
Sun Mar 28 09:22:11 CEST 2010

Harishankar <v.harishankar at> 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.

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 |
| __..--^^^--..__    garabik @     |
Antivirus alert: file .signature infected by signature virus.
Hi! I'm a signature virus! Copy me into your signature file to help me spread!

More information about the Python-list mailing list