Roku Developer Program

[stratcat96]

I was thinking in the context of the OP's situation, but hey it's awesome there are so many ways to get things done!

[gonzotek]

"brocker" wrote:
I was actually trying to offload as many images as I could as I read there is a limitation to what can be saved to the Roku, and they suggested hosting them elsewhere if you have a bunch (which I will). I already got a couple of warnings when side loading the project that I'm going over on size.

I had our graphic artist go through and make images as per dimensional guidelines, now was hoping to host them at BrightCove.

Thanks
Bud

If you're using png (and you should be 🙂 ), you can 'pngcrush' the files to reduce them to the smallest possible size, without any quality loss. Here's good forum post on the topic: http://davidwalsh.name/pngcrush

It's available on most platforms (win,lin,mac,etc.)
http://pmt.sourceforge.net/pngcrush/

[jbrave]

Actually, the most effective png (and .jpg actually) size reduction tool is Adobe ImageReady. I believe the functions of ImageReady have been integrated in photoshop in recent versions, look for an Optimize menu. Recent channels I've worked on I've managed to squish down to 30 to 80k by doing lots of work optimizing the images. The default images included in the Roku examples are really quite large in file size and can be reduced dramatically without losing any visible quality.

- Joel

[kbenson]

"jbrave" wrote:
Actually, the most effective png (and .jpg actually) size reduction tool is Adobe ImageReady.

Is that tested? I'm not saying pngcrush IS faster, but it actually brute force searches through a fairly large set of optimizations and compression techniques until it finds the one that worked best for that particular image.

[jbrave]

Faster? I don't know, but I'm getting equal or better crushing from adobe, and great .jpg optimization as well - a 50% jpg saved from photoshop without the optimize function looks kinda yucky, whereas a 50% from ImageReady looks great. I used pngcrusher till I discovered that ImageReady (and this is like the last PPC only version of Photoshop/imageready, before mac came out with Intel Processors, so it runs under Rosetta) does a better job on both the file size and the quality of .png file.

Edit: also dropping an ImageReady processed .png on pngcrush does not usually result in a smaller file.

- Joel

[gonzotek]

I'm still googling, but it looks like pngcrusher(a mac utlitity using a different png-reduction library) is different than pngcrush.
http://www.macupdate.com/app/mac/17768/pngcrusher
http://optipng.sourceforge.net/pngtech/optipng.html
http://drupal.org/node/483794

And that last link lists several other image optimization options. Which is best appears to be a matter of some debate ;). In any event, I think everyone agrees it certainly pays to optimize the images. 🙂

[kbenson]

"jbrave" wrote:
Faster? I don't know, but I'm getting equal or better crushing from adobe, and great .jpg optimization as well - a 50% jpg saved from photoshop without the optimize function looks kinda yucky, whereas a 50% from ImageReady looks great. I used pngcrusher till I discovered that ImageReady (and this is like the last PPC only version of Photoshop/imageready, before mac came out with Intel Processors, so it runs under Rosetta) does a better job on both the file size and the quality of .png file.

Maybe we're talking about different things? Pngcrush only reduces unneeded data in the PNG file (throws away comments, etc), and tries different compression techniques to encode the exact same data, comparing the resulting sizes. By it's nature there is absolutely no data loss. In referring to 50% and a different quality in appearance between PhotoShop and ImageReady, you seem to indicate you are referring to quality level of the saved file, which is something else.

I'll admit that's pretty good evidence in ImageReady's favor.