Support » Plugin: ImageMagick Engine » [Plugin: ImageMagick Engine] vs ?

  • Moogle Stiltzkin


    I just tried imagemagick on my backup server.

    Looks nice but it doesn’t quite tell you how much filesize savings you got from compressing using imagemagick.

    Whereas does.

    Also what is the difference between imagemagick and yahoo smush compression methods ?

    I like how your plugin has an option to regenerate the images and run them through using your image compressor, but i think it would be nicer using the yahoo smush api instead for image compression seeing as that works well, and has a before and after value so you know how much space you saved.

    Just a suggestion.

Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • Orangelab


    Thank you for trying it out!

    Using ImageMagick will generally not result in smaller images compared to the default GD image library. It will definitely not be smaller than

    It is a trade off: use this plugin when image quality and colors are more important than the file size.

    Moogle Stiltzkin


    fair enough.

    I guess for an already popular site like deviantart, they want the best quality to be shown.

    But on a regular joe site, SEO is more important, so they’d smush the images to reduce file size = faster loading for pages with lots of images like mine :}

Viewing 2 replies - 1 through 2 (of 2 total)
  • The topic ‘[Plugin: ImageMagick Engine] vs ?’ is closed to new replies.