Reducing Module Size

My module is at 62.3MB. The board png is at around 40MB. I just ran it through pngcrusher but it only saved my 10MB. Are there any other tips for reducing module size? Thanks for any help with this.

Don

Imageshack, Photoshop:File:Optimize to Web (or stg like that):Set File Size, ImageReady, Gimp

Thanks Magog, but I found an even easier solution to the large png problem. I saved the board png as a jpg at slightly worse than best quality, which quartered its size in MB. I then changed the suffix from jpg to png and swapped out the image file in the images folder of the module. My module size is now only 30MB and the jpg board image (with a png suffix to fool the module) looks exactly the same in play as the previous png image which was four times its size!

Thus spake yangtze:

Thanks Magog, but I found an even easier solution to the large png
problem. I saved the board png as a jpg at slightly worse than best
quality, which quartered its size in MB. I then changed the suffix from
jpg to png and swapped out the image file in the images folder of the
module. My module size is now only 30MB and the jpg board image (with a
png suffix to fool the module) looks exactly the same in play as the
previous png image which was four times its size!

Please do not reduce the quality of your module by converting PNGs to
JPEGs. Consider using a PNG optimizer (such as: optipng or pngcrush).
Also, if you have graphics you added to the module but are no longer
using, they’re still there, making the module larger than it needs to
be. You can remove these directly from the module file if you open
it in a ZIP archiver.


J.

I tried the optimising software, but it ‘only’ saved me 10MB - not enough to reduce the total size below 50MB. Respect your plea to retain quality, but honestly, the jpg is absolutely indistinguishable from the png in play.

JPEGs are not that bad. Everyone knows that it’s destructive compression,
but to the average player, it is often indistinguishable.

  • M.

On 17 September 2010 12:46, yangtze yangtze2000@yahoo.com wrote:

I tried the optimising software, but it ‘only’ saved me 10MB - not
enough to reduce the total size below 50MB. Respect your plea to retain
quality, but honestly, the jpg is absolutely indistinguishable from
the png in play.

JPEGs are not that bad.� Everyone knows that it’s destructive compression, but to the average player, it is often indistinguishable.

- M.

On 17 September 2010 12:46, yangtze <yangtze2000@yahoo.com> wrote:

I tried the optimising software, but it 'only' saved me 10MB - not
enough to reduce the total size below 50MB. Respect your plea to retain
quality, but honestly, the jpg is *absolutely* indistinguishable from
the png in play.


Thus spake yangtze:

I tried the optimising software, but it ‘only’ saved me 10MB - not
enough to reduce the total size below 50MB. Respect your plea to retain
quality, but honestly, the jpg is absolutely indistinguishable from
the png in play.

Did you check whether you have any unused images in the module?


J.

Thanks uckelman, but yes, I removed every unused image. The main issue was the mapboard png which was a professional scan in one piece of original artwork. Original size was 50MB, only reduced to 40MB after PNGCrusher.

Thus spake yangtze:

Thanks uckelman, but yes, I removed every unused image. The main issue
was the mapboard png which was a professional scan in one piece of
original artwork. Original size was 50MB, only reduced to 40MB after
PNGCrusher.

If it’s a scan, it’s strange that you got it as a PNG. An unmodified
scan is one thing for which a JPEG appropriate, though I would be sure
to save it at 100% quality when you convert.


J.

Thus spake Joel Uckelman:

Thus spake yangtze:

Thanks uckelman, but yes, I removed every unused image. The main issue
was the mapboard png which was a professional scan in one piece of
original artwork. Original size was 50MB, only reduced to 40MB after
PNGCrusher.

If it’s a scan, it’s strange that you got it as a PNG. An unmodified
scan is one thing for which a JPEG appropriate, though I would be sure
to save it at 100% quality when you convert.

Also, you might be able to reduce the size (and improve the appearance)
by cleaning up the speckling in the scan.


J.

Just like JPEG, PNG has quality levels. I’m guessing you still have the quality set pretty high (6+, of 10), even after running it through pngcrush. I know in GIMP when you save a PNG you have to set the quality, whether its interlaced, etc before it will actually write out the image to disk.

I don’t think that’s how PNGs work. The level refers to the aggressiveness
of the compression, but it’s not lossy at all. It’s a question of how long
it takes to encode/decode.

My order of preference is this:

SVG: very small – perfect for many types of counters/cards
PNG: perfect for line drawings that can’t be vectorised into an SVG.
JPEG: photographs, images with naturalistic objects/image boundaries. This
format was basically optimised for photographs.

I don’t think anything else is worth using.

  • M.

On 26 September 2010 19:08, krenshala krenshala@koboldi.net wrote:

Just like JPEG, PNG has quality levels. I’m guessing you still have the
quality set pretty high (6+, of 10), even after running it through
pngcrush. I know in GIMP when you save a PNG you have to set the
quality, whether its interlaced, etc before it will actually write out
the image to disk.

I don’t think that’s how PNGs work. The level refers to the aggressiveness of the compression, but it’s not lossy at all.� It’s a question of how long it takes to encode/decode.

My order of preference is this:


SVG: very small – perfect for many types of counters/cards
PNG: perfect for line drawings that can’t be vectorised into an SVG.
JPEG: photographs, images with naturalistic objects/image boundaries.� This format was basically optimised for photographs.


I don’t think anything else is worth using.

- M.

On 26 September 2010 19:08, krenshala <krenshala@koboldi.net> wrote:

Just like JPEG, PNG has quality levels. �I'm guessing you still have the
quality set pretty high (6+, of 10), even after running it through
pngcrush. �I know in GIMP when you save a PNG you have to set the
quality, whether its interlaced, etc before it will actually write out
the image to disk.


Thus spake krenshala:

Just like JPEG, PNG has quality levels.

This is incorect. You might be confusing quality levels with compression
levels. PNGs are lossless; the if you have two copies of the same image
at different compression levels, they will be pixel-for-pixel identical.


J.

And PNGCrusher presumably maximises the compression?

Ah, thats what I get for posting a reply just after waking up. You are correct, I was referring to the compression level in PNGs. I’ve seen it listed as “quality” in some graphics apps, however, which is probably what i was thinking off (I’m guessing re-use of the JPEG “quality” dialog function).

Depending on the image, varying the compression level of the PNG can (might) have dramatic differences in end filesize. I do not know what setting PNGcrusher uses, though with the name I’d be surprised if it didn’t go for maximum compression.

Thus spake yangtze:

And PNGCrusher presumably maximises the compression?

Any decent PNG optimizer will do that. (I recommend optipng.)


J.

I don’t know the purpose of the image of your piece/board/card I use following formats

jpg when i don’t need any transparent effects

gif if I just need regular clear transparent part in my images (Like have a arrow as a board piece) but be careful you will only use 256 colors of the selective pallet which translates into limited variation of colors, usually only a problem with big images.

png when i want a transparent color in my image, like i would like to be able to see the gameboard tile details a little bit that are hidden by my board pieces(instead of looking at a red arrow you would see a red arrow while still being able to read the name that is underneath it).

If you don’t mind poor graphics you can also use smaller graphics with the zoom property that can be added to the maps and windows.

There is no reason to use GIF ever. Just use PNG8 instead if you want smaller bitmap.

We recommend svg, png, gif, jpg in that order. Explained here
vassalengine.org/wiki/Image_formats

SVG is awesome–I just completed migrating all 129 cards in my Here I Stand module to SVG from the crappy JPG originals, and lopped 2 MB off the size of the module (from a 9.6 MB starting size down to 7.5 MB). In all the bleating about VASSAL/Cyberboard currently going on at CSW (GMT folder), not one person white-knighting for Cyberboard seems clued in to how limited its graphical format support is.