|
Hi James!
do I just pick one of each type (for jpgs, pngs and gifs)?
You can use as many as you would like for each type.
I’m unclear if there is additional benefit to having all 3 png options in there
Running more that one compression technology can be beneficial in some circumstances, as they can occasionally squeeze out a little more compression, but it is often overkill. As I wrote in the Notes & Advice section of the User Guide landing page, I think that jpegtran does a pretty good job on its own without using jpegoptim.
(optipng|pngout|pngcrush) or if that causes redundant processing overhead that doesn’t accomplish anything
It does cause additional overhead, but it typically isn’t that much. Losslessly compressing images takes time. It can take up to a few seconds to process an image, but generally happens in less than a second. The images made by CE Image are only processed by CE Lossless when they are first made and saved though, so subsequent requests should not be affected. Compress once, and enjoy saved bandwidth and increased performance thereafter.
You can enable logging to see how much compression each technology is giving for the respective images, and then decide whether or not running more than one at a time per file type is worth it.
Keep in mind that the log will show how much compression the technology was able to achieve *in addition to* compression gains from previous technologies. So if you ran both jpegtran and jpegoptim, and jpegtran was able to compress the image by 5%, and jpegoptim was only able to compress the image by 1%, then that means jpegoptim was able to further compress the image after jpegtran.
For what it’s worth, I run the following on the live Causing Effect site:
'optipng|pngcrush|jpegtran|jpegoptim|gifsicle'
or even if CE Lossless just uses the first one and ignores the others?
It will run each one.
I hope that helps answer your questions. :) Please let me know if you have further questions.
|
