Compressing pictures and videos

Preamble
Compressing .jpg images
Compressing .png images
Compressing videos
Different video codecs
Converting images

Preamble

This article explains how to reduce the filesize of videos and pictures.
This is not an analysis about the different compression methods or how they compare in their algorithm against each other.
This is a simple comparison of my own experiments and methods on how to reduce filesizes.
To install the tools mentioned here:

mat2 - via sudo apt-get install mat2 or via git clone
jpegoptim - via sudo apt-get install jpegoptim
pngquant - via sudo apt-get install pngquant
ffmpeg - via sudo apt-get install ffmpeg
convert - via sudo apt-get install imagemagick

Compressing .jpg images

I tried to compress the following image of Megumi Koneko with jpegoptim:

My findings: The metadata of image files can be HUGE. I tried to compress the image with jpegoptim but the filesize wouldn't change much. Then I tried to remove the Metadata of it and it reduced the filesize by an immensely 80%!

The following table shows the filesize of the image in corrolation to what commands were ran:

Size(bytes)	Size(MB)	Methods used
8872122	8.5M	None (=input file)
8872122	8.5M	jpegoptim
1407225	1.4M	mat2
1302516	1.3M	mat2 + jpegoptim

As you can see the optimization alone didn't accomplish much, but if you clean up the metadata most of the filesize is gone!
An important detail here: Using jpegoptim BEFORE the metadata removal doesn't optimize the file at all, only afterwards jpegoptim reduced the filesize by 0.1MB.
An example with a different folder of Megumi Koneko's shooting pictures:

user@fedora:~/temp$ du -sh Rurika_HD_Set/
469M    Rurika_HD_Set/
user@fedora:~/temp$ mat2 --inplace Rurika_HD_Set/*
user@fedora:~/temp$ du -sh Rurika_HD_Set/
77M     Rurika_HD_Set/
user@fedora:~/temp$ jpegoptim Rurika_HD_Set/*
[...]
user@fedora:~/temp$ du -sh Rurika_HD_Set/
72M     Rurika_HD_Set/

I saved nearly 400MB (!!) of my 470MB collection simply by removing metadata.

TL;DR: If you have studio-quality pictures (or shooting pictures) removing the metadata can save a lot more disk space than only using jpegoptim.

Compressing .png images

The same concept as above applies for .png images aswell: Use mat2 to remove metadata and then use pngquant to optimize the image.

As an example here is a character of the mobile game "Arknights" with a transparent background.
To compress the image I used the following command:

pngquant -v --skip-if-larger -s 1 -f --ext .png filename.png

Explanation of the command above: -v makes it verbose, skip-if-larger is self-explanatory, -s 1 means "brute-force the optimization as good as possible", --ext .png sets the output filename to be the same as the input filename and -f forces the output file to overwrite the input file (because they have the same name thanks to --ext .png).

With this the filesize went from 728KB to 189KB (!).
A comparison of both of these files (the first / left file is the unoptimized one, the later the optimized one):

Barely any noticeable difference between the two, while the filesize is more than halfed.

Compressing videos

Videos are optimized a bit differently than images. You mainly use the tool ffmpeg to run as many commands as you need.

To simply compress a video you can use ffmpeg -i "input.mp4" -crf 25 output.mp4. crf means "constant rate factor" and the higher you set it the more compressed the videos get. 25 is a good number for compression vs quality, and the video quality is always acceptible with it.

An example to compress an old video further: You can change the codecs to more modern ones. Simply add -vcodec h264 -acodec aac inside the ffmpeg command to change the codecs to h264/aac respectively. (This would make the command look like ffmpeg -i "input.mp4" -crf 25 -vcodec h264 -acodec aac output.mp4)

If the framerate of the video is 60 you could lower it to 30 to save even more space. Simply add -r 30 inside the ffmpeg command to limit the framerate to 30.

Last but not least: Some videos have an extremely high resolution (e.g. 4K) and you can save a LOT of space if you limit the resolution to a lower one. Simply add -vf "scale=1280:-1" to set the resolution of the output video to HD.

With all the optimizations combined the command would look like:

ffmpeg -i "input.mp4" -crf 25 -vcodec h264 -acodec aac -r 30 -vf "scale=1280:-1" output.mp4

This once lowered the filesize of a 4K 30min video from 3.2GB down to 800MB (!).

Another example would be NVidia's Shadowplay function: I sometimes clip gameplay videos that are 1 minute long, are in FullHD resolution and in 60fps. These clips are 330MB for one minute of video. If I simply run ffmpeg -i "Gameplay 03.02.2022.mp4" -crf 25 output.mp4 it reduces the filesize down to 100MB or even as low as 30MB if the game doesn't have much action going on.
An example:

user@debian:~/Videos$ ls -ahl
-rwxrwxrwx 1 user user 341M Jan 22 16:41 'divinity2_20220122_16.mp4'
user@debian:~/Videos$ ffmpeg -i "divinity2_20220122_16.mp4" -crf 25 _divinity2_20220122_16.mp4
user@debian:~/Videos$ ls -ahl _divinity2_20220122_16.mp4
-rwxrwxrwx 1 user user 54M Feb  3 10:31 _divinity2_20220122_16.mp4

Using ffmpeg to either optimize or compress the video to sizes you think are reasonably enough is a great way to save a lot of storage space.

Different video codecs

I am not an expert with video codecs.
I simply tested a 1 minute long clip with different encodings and input parameters. The table below shows my findings in "time taken for encoding" and "resulting filesize".

The input file is a 1 minute long clip from the "YuruCamp" movie (to be precise its from the 2nd to the 3rd minute of the movie).
The input video is h264 1920x1080 23.98fps and the audio is aac 128kb/s 48000Hz stereo.
The video has a few scenes with barely any movement and near the end firework explosions, which should make it a good clip to compare multiple codecs.

Compared codecs:

AV1
AVC/H264
HEVC/H265
VP8
VP9

All these commands have been run with:ffmpeg -benchmark -ss 120 -i "yurucamp_movie.mp4" -t 60 $params output.mp4 , where $params will be replaced with the flags from the below table.
If no explicit video codec is mentioned then it is the default h264 codec. Every video has been converted to and from FullHD.

Flags	Size(MB)	Time	notes
/none/	22MB	24.510s	h264
-movflags +faststart	22MB	24.217s	1:1 same as above
-fps_mode vfr	22MB	25.006s	no difference to above
-tune stillimage	27MB	26.464s	only good for slideshows
-tune animation	18.7MB	27.419s	good for anime
-tune animation -preset slow	17.5MB	41.268s	not worth the time
-vcodec libx265	7.8MB	44.043s	bad compatibility
-vcodec libx264 -crf 51	2MB	13.513s	very bad pixelation
-vcodec libvpx	5.1MB	44.044s	=vp8, .webm, fluctuating quality
-vcodec libvpx-vp9	13MB	172.476s	vp9, .mp4
-vcodec librav1e	9.9MB	1161.541s	very slow
-vcodec librav1e -speed 10	13MB	432.934	still slow
-vcodec libaom-av1	???	~17min	not worth it
-vcodec libsvtav1	9.9MB	19.499s	very good compared to h265
-vcodec libsvtav1 -crf 40	7.4MB	18.623s	default=35
-vcodec libsvtav1 -crf 63	1.9MB	14.580s	still watchable

Takeaways and learnings from these convertions:

AV1 looks very promising as it takes less time than HEVC but has a bit larger filesize (but still smaller than h264)
H265 is not supported by firefox or the windows explorer (for preview image in file explorer)
H264 with full constant-rate-factor looks unwatchable, while av1 looks very watchable while having a lower filesize too
Lowering the resolution with av1 on full compression doesn't help much to lower the filesize (1.9MB -> 1.2MB if you lower from FullHD -> HD)
The other av1 codecs (except libsvtav1) are really slow
"Preset slow" doesn't help much if you compare the extra time taken to the lower filesize. It's better to just take a slower codec without a slow preset (e.g. h264 preset slow -> h265 default)
The "tune"'s for the h264 codec help a lot for barely any extra time taken

Converting images

There are many filetypes for images. The most common ones nowadays are: jpg,png,webp,gif

A small feature comparison:

jpg , lossy format which enables smaller filesizes
png , lossless format which can limit its colors and support transparency
gif , lossless and supports transparency and animations
webp, which enables lossy and lossless images with smaller filesizes as jpg or png

The image formats where tested with a normal image of a girl in .jpg form, a manga page in .jpg and a graphic of an anime-arknights character in .png with transparency.
The transparency will be lost if it gets converted to jpg, which will not be shown below in the comparison but has to be kept in mind.

type	input	jpegoptim	pngquant	webp	jpg	png	gif	webp(lossless)
photograph	1.4M	1.3M	8.0M	634K	1.4M	12M	13M	69M
mangapage	304K	304K	626K	169K	304K	614K	522K	599K
artwork	729K	181K	205K	98K	181K	729K	241K	449K

The above table shows that webp has the lowest filesize of all of them.
The jpg format is 2nd place because it is a lossy format, which is the reason why png is (as a lossless format) in 3rd place. The last place is the GIF format.

The manga page can be further converted / compressed by limiting the available colors because the image is mainly using black and white as colors.
If you use the command pngquant -s 1 10 input.png you can limit the available colors to only 10, which will all be different tones of black/gray. This keeps the quality of the image but lowers the filesize down to 2/3 of the original .jpg image.
To further compress a black and white manga page you can make it monochrome only, which will reduce its size down to 1/3 of the original.
To make an image black and white only you can use the following command:
convert input.png -monochrome output.png
A comparison of the (in order) original jpg image, the converted and optimized png image with only 10 colors and the monochrome png image:

As you can see in the images above, the first 2 are near identical but the last one has the typical "dotted surfaces" to simulate different shades of gray. The file size is, from first to last, 303KB - 230KB - 98,2KB.

One important fact to consider when chosing your prefered image format: Webp is not fully supported on every platform yet.
Microsoft Paint can not edit it and some image viewers can not open it yet either. On the internet many people dislike it because it can not be as easily handled as a png.
There are also vulnerabilities like this one: https://arstechnica.com/security/2023/09/google-quietly-corrects-previously-submitted-disclosure-for-critical-webp-0-day/ , which really make it difficult to like webp in its current state.