Hi @paulschiretz
Thank you so much for your kind words and I am sorry to hear about the issues.
Regarding the Lossless compression, it looks like the image is “Well Done” optimized which means Imagify tried to compress the image but hasn’t been able to reduce the image size further. Actually it is the original version of the image. Regarding the WebP version of it there is a really minimal difference.
Are there images with low quality that you would like to share with us so we can check them further?
Best Regards,
Ioanna
Thread Starter
Paul
(@paulschiretz)
Hi @wp_media
Not sure if we understood each other right.
Regarding the WebP version of it there is a really minimal difference.
To me the generated webp images always look the same no matter if i choose smartCompression or lossless compression the resulting webp file is always heavily compressed.
if you look at the sample “mana_creme_1” in the webp version(mana_creme_1.png.webp) imagify created, you can clearly see the details of the flower are blurred. What i would expect is that if i choose lossless compression also the webp image is of better quality!
It would be nice if you’re plugin would respect the compression settings also for the generated webp version, now this is clearly not the case!
It looks more like the compression quality of the webp images is still around 80% even if i choose lossless compression from your plugin settings.
As a comparison i created a bunch of webp images FROM THE SAME SOURCE IMAGE(mana_creme_1.png Size:230KB) using imagemagick:
mana_creme_1_Q100.webp … no compression just conversion Size:182KB
mana_creme_1_Q95.webp … VISUALLY LOSSLESS Size:19KB
mana_creme_1_Q90.webp … nice size to quality ratio Size:10KB
mana_creme_1_Q80.webp … aggressive compression Size:5KB
mana_creme_1_Q80.webp looks like the imagify one(mana_creme_1.png.webp Size:5KB )
If i choose lossless compression i expect the image to be like the Q95 ones. Can you please respect the compression quality for webp images as well or give us a quality settings for webp image like a slider from (80% to 100%) that would be perfect!
All images referred here are still in the same folder as before: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1JTN-YImgUm2KKUbIU2o_aSp7BqYKIRgX?usp=sharing
All the best,
Paul
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 8 months ago by
Paul.
Hi @paulschiretz
Thank you for your updates and for your recommendations, they are greatly appreciated!
Testing again the image “mama_creme_1.png” from our end it looks like there is a small difference in the WebP version(as mentioned previously) when checking with the Smart optimization and with the Lossless level as well. However, this is something that can happen in some cases.
What I have checked is that the Smart optimized version of the image is of better quality than the WebP version. I would recommend in that case to use the Smart optimized version instead of the WebP version which is with a small file size as well.
Let me know if you need further assistance. I’ll be happy to help.
Best Regards,
Ioanna
Thread Starter
Paul
(@paulschiretz)
Hi,
Thank you for your suggestion. There is one problem with it, I’m serving webp with a server rewrite so no chance i can change that on a per image basis(except deleting the file manually but i’d like to stick to webp).
Why not give users a quality setting for webp? If easier also a filter hook would do!
I see you try to give users a one size fits all solution with smart compression. But i guess there are several users like me, with a background in programming and also some knowledge of image compression that would very much like to tweak things to their liking… maybe we could have some feedback from your developers on that?
Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing wrong with smart compression or the webp compression setting you are using, I get why you are offering it and i even get why you “have been” forcing it onto users(otherwise no one every will use a new feature and it will not evolve), but give us choices! That would really make this plugin stand out!
Also i think with webp conversion coming native to wordpress soon… or at least via the official performance lab plugin(for free), whats the point in using imagify anyway?
Full control would be a feature that would make imagify stand out from the native wordpress solution, and i would definitely be using imagify for years from now! Like it is now, it looks like we get a once size fits all solution directly integrated in wordpress soon, so not sure if i would use imagify in the future… Please make Imagify a plugin for image enthusiast!
If needed i could also offer my help with coding some pull requests in my spare time, but honestly i really think you have an opportunity here that you shouldn’t miss!
Looking forward to hear from you or your team!
All the best,
Paul
Hi @paulschiretz
As far as I know and I have consulted the rest of the team we had cases where there was an issue with the image quality after the Smart optimization but we did not experience cases concerning the WebP version quality specifically. It is something that needs to be monitored. Unfortunately, I am not able to provide another solution at the moment.
I can totally understand your feedback and what you would like to see in Imagify for the future. Your suggestions will be definitely shared with the rest of the team.
Thank you so much!
Best Regards,
Ioanna
Hi,
I have the same problems on my site:
The WEBP versions have a noticable downgrade in quality. For my eyes it makes no difference if the “main” jpg image is compressed lossless or smart.
Maybe the look of the WEBP depends on the image converted.
For me it looks like WEBP conversion uses its own compression rate.
What would be great is an option where I can set the quality of the generated WEBP version.
Better website speed due to smaller image sizes does not make sense when the price is a visual downgrade.
Cheers
Ralf
Hi @ralfkerkhoff
Sorry to hear that!
Could you please send us a URL with a problematic image so we can check it from our end along with the original version of the image?
Thank you!
Best Regards,
Ioanna
Hi,
i will provide you the links tommorow as soon as i am back on my computer.
Hi Ionna,
here is the link with the example images:
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1ixpvQNjEMb9twwFzjrOe1PbPvNJjmGIU?usp=sharing
There is the original jpg – Imagify tells me it is already optimized.
Therefore there is no other ‘optimized’ jpg in the folder.
I you now compare the jpg and the webp images you will notice:
The webp is not as sharp as the jpg.
This imho minor.
But if you look at the sun on the right side, the difference in quality is very visible.
Cheers
Ralf
Hi @ralfkerkhoff
Thank you so much for sharing the images.
However, testing also from our end using the Smart compression there is no discernible change to the WebP image. Do you have any other examples of images with really low quality?
Regardless, if you do not want to use the WebP version you can delete it using the following guide https://imagify.io/documentation/delete-webp-images-website/
Let me know if you have any further questions. I’ll be happy to help.
Best Regards,
Ioanna
Hi Ionna,
no i do not have any other examples at the moment. I have stopped using the WEBP images because of the downgrade in quality.
It would be great if you could share the WEBP image you get after smart compression.
In the examples I provided there is a clearly visible difference.
Second question:
With my example imagify tells me that the image is already optimized and creates only the webp image.
At this point it makes me wonder that you are able to appy smart compression to the image – and i am not.
BR
Ralf
Hi @ralfkerkhoff
Thanks for your reply!
Yes, I can confirm that the result on the image you shared after Smart compression is “Well done. This image is already optimized.” but the WebP version of the image will still be created if the “Create WebP” option is enabled through Settings > Imagify.
I am sharing on the following link the WebP version of the image https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ESUVSmj2-_0H9s5mdMuAJNLEm5Ok7M4U/view?usp=sharing
Let me know if you need further assistance. I’ll be happy to help.
Best Regards,
Ioanna
WebP images are way overcompressed compared to the .png/.jpg version. Even after I switch the image to lossless it only slightly improves the pixalization (blurryness) of the webP. The doctors in the slider at the bottom of this page are a good example: https://dhccdev.wpengine.com/gi-telemedicine/
Thread Starter
Paul
(@paulschiretz)
@wp_media please how hard can it be to do a proper webp compression, this issue is now raised by multiple users, here is another github ticket https://github.com/wp-media/imagify-plugin/issues/689
Please I want that resolved, or at least aknowledged that this is an issue you are looking into…
Otherwise i’m sorry, with all the respect from a 16y+ dev to your developers, no offense!, but i think starting a competitive plugin might really be a valid option. A cloudservice for proper webp compression is about 10 lines in phyton, some usermanagement on top + standard png/jpeg compression might be ok for most of your users… i would say thats perfectly doable and no, you don’t have to be rocket scientist at all.
But it would be a waste of time compared to you getting your webp compression ratio right! so common get it right please! How many more samples do you need till you change the webp compression for png from 80% to 95% in your webservice????
All the best,
Paul
-
This reply was modified 3 years, 7 months ago by Paul.
Hey everyone,
We want to thank you for your patience on this. The problem is now resolved and @paulschiretz (thread starter) confirmed it worked fine on his end here.
We will consider this thread as “solved”. Feel free to re-open it if you notice any further problem or create a new one.
Best Regards
Marko
