pouët.net

.werkkzeug 3 released

category: offtopic [glöplog]
It is better to make an experiment than to quarrel.
I exported first 10 textures from texdemo.k (it is file coming with werkkzeug3tex) as .ktx file and set of bmp files (100% quality).
Then I converted this 10 BMP's to JPG and GIF. Settings of JPG format was: quality=100%, progressive compression. Than I packed BMP's, GIF's and JPEG's into separate zip-archives (using maximal compression ratio).
View screenshot: BB Image

Results:
  • KTX: 7 kb
  • BMPs (10 files): 7.50 Mb
  • BMPs (ZIP compressed): 5.07 Mb
  • GIFs (10 files): 2.04 Mb
  • GIFs (ZIP compressed): 2.02 Mb
  • JPGs (10 files): 2.21 Mb
  • JPGs (ZIP compressed): 2.21 Mb
KTX is better than any image compressing.
added on the 2011-09-10 21:06:12 by Sauron Sauron
omg how ist that possible?! And I thought that photoshop "save as web" already did a good job at creating small output textures...
added on the 2011-09-10 21:24:58 by xTr1m xTr1m
seeing your numbers, i still think using JPG or PNG is better for 64 kilobyte intros...
added on the 2011-09-10 21:26:25 by iq iq
xTr1m, i think "save as web" is very good indeed. i'm pretty confident reducing your color space to "indexed" and "saving as web" into gif format, as somebody mentioned before, and then zip-ing the result is the best method for sure. you have all the image quality of photoshop in a reduced size
added on the 2011-09-10 21:28:31 by iq iq
SHOW US YOUR WINDOWS EXPLORER
sauron: I think you've inflated those files, because mine doesn't become that big at all. And I see you've used BMP. You should use JPEG instead. As I have stated earlier, JPEG uses compression to make the files smaller.
added on the 2011-09-10 22:13:08 by gloom gloom
also here is a trick: you can make JPG smaller if you draw less!!!!!
added on the 2011-09-10 22:23:35 by Maali Maali
now i also wonder... does kebby use JPG to compress his music?
added on the 2011-09-10 22:28:31 by Maali Maali
maali: I think it only works for pictures.
added on the 2011-09-10 22:31:07 by gloom gloom
so MP3 then?
added on the 2011-09-10 22:31:50 by Maali Maali
If that would be possible with that wz hack i bought it from sauron. When will you release it? I want to produce mp3 to use in 64k intros too.
added on the 2011-09-10 22:40:15 by chromag chromag
maali: Yes, MP3 is probably a better format for music, but I can't be sure.
added on the 2011-09-10 22:44:03 by gloom gloom
so all 64ks use jpg and mp3?
64ks with good graphics and good music, yes!
added on the 2011-09-10 22:54:05 by Maali Maali
but mp3 has also too many artifacts, like jpg. Visual quality comes from GIF and FLAC (WAV would be too big...).
added on the 2011-09-10 23:09:29 by xTr1m xTr1m
I think most 64k use ogg instead. I heard it's better than mp3.
added on the 2011-09-10 23:16:54 by kb_ kb_
I thought 64k do only stream video from the net.
added on the 2011-09-10 23:22:05 by yumeji yumeji
WTF is going on here?
added on the 2011-09-10 23:22:48 by _cRN _cRN
oh btw, Maali: No, they're all .mid files, I just invert gm.dls before playing.
added on the 2011-09-10 23:23:22 by kb_ kb_
What's the point of getting the files small anyway - don't we all have broadband these days?
added on the 2011-09-10 23:27:22 by gloom gloom
gloom, the smaller it is the faster Windows can load it from your hard drive. hard drives are still very slow nowadays.
added on the 2011-09-11 00:04:06 by iq iq
so if a demo uses .jpg instead of .bmp it can be a 64k?
added on the 2011-09-11 00:07:09 by Maali Maali
true. More than 24 hours to transfer 700gb between 2 usb disks this week.
added on the 2011-09-11 00:09:31 by xernobyl xernobyl
we use a .mp4 video to store all the images, because we found that a video with 500 frames is *much* smaller than 500 jpegs! and we get an audio track to store the music in.
added on the 2011-09-11 05:05:22 by ryg ryg
What about if you store a video on the disk then delete the file data from the ntfs table? You'll have a video for free if you know where you stored it!
added on the 2011-09-11 05:33:05 by xernobyl xernobyl

login