- Outstanding image optimization - Intuitive, easy-to-use API - Significantly improved lossy optimization techniques - Support for Google’s WebP compression algorithm - Support for SVG file optimization - Comprehensive paid plans for API usage designed to please everyone - Free, unlimited 7-day trial on all of our plans - The free Web Interface, featuring more beauty with Retina graphics - Rackspace Cloud Files and Amazon S3 integration - Integration libraries for PHP, Ruby and Node.js
Is it normal to use a dot there when you write thousand?
http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E19455-01/806-0169/overview-9/inde...
This massive job queued up quickly, and the total savings figures updated in real time as the job progressed. Really appreciate the "Download all kraked files in a ZIP archive" feature, as well as the "Keep directory structure" option.
Very clean site, service, and documentation - reminds me of the classic Slicehost service.
I seriously doubt you can squeeze more than 1-2% after properly running PNGOut on an image.
This service only makes sense if you have huge images that you want to optimize. $19 for 1000 8-megabyte images is a pretty good deal. That's a rare case though. If you have tiny image, just run PNGOut on them for free.
( as seen in https://github.com/sayurin/optipng-zopfli and mentioned in https://twitter.com/pornelski/status/356843309118922756 )
This service is much faster than that, so they probably don't use brute force at all.
In the following weeks we will be partnering with a leading CDN provider. Every single optimized image will be pushed to 32+ edge locations. We think it makes much more sense then just a S3/CloudFiles feature.
Wordpress plugin is being developed as we speak.
The plug-in would have to make the process completely transparent, though - it should happen as part of the normal WordPress upload workflow, with not even one extra step for users to have to take.
As an aside the 4.000 images over 4,000 on the API pricing thing is temporarily confusing;
I'm guessing you're from the EU which is cool, but then pricing is in dollars. Anyway pretty sure it's an obvious mistake so no need for me to harp on.
However, I have some criticism.
> We like to think the only way to get your image files smaller after optimizing them with Kraken is to delete them.
I only tried PNG, but that claim is false. It can be made a bit smaller. The compressed sample is 65970 bytes, I got 63885 bytes here. A few additional bytes may be possible.
> It strips all metadata found in a given image
IMO, rather than stripping ICC profiles, the image should be converted to sRGB first (and the profile then stripped). You can argue that's the users job, but not everyone may know.
> max image size 8.0MB
Probably a bit small. I also don't like that you pay per image (be it 1B or 1MB). Why not charge per pixel? Or some other similar metric, because the processing power does probably increase non-linearly in relation to image dimensions.
PS. The testimonials seem fake! :)
Testimonials are real - trust us on this one :) we contacted the authors and asked for their permissions to post their opinions on our pages.
Similarly you can get some pretty good optimisations with the local, and open source OSX app, which is itself just a frontend for free linux utilities.
People not wanting to run things locally are exactly why we decided to launch the Kraken service in the first place - just upload and forget, let someone else deal with the complexities and use their resources. We actually decided to go commercial in response to a ludicrous number of feedback emails we were getting asking for this. It got to the point where we decided to found a company and make it happen, as it just made sense. Moreover, it's really difficult working out a pricing strategy for a product such as an image optimization API, and expect to make amendments to our pricing strategy in response to feedback and other learnings.
How would I use this as part of an asset pipeline? If I'm running it as part of an automated process, I'd love to see prices that support that model, as well as caching so that doing the same image multiple times doesn't increase my bill. Any thoughts?
I bring this up because kraken is competing with free programs I already have installed. This is something I can do with those programs that I can't with kraken.
2. You need a (good) Wordpress plugin.
Kraken seems to do a tad better in the handful of images I handed it (all PNG sprites), but not remarkably so.
The Google PageSpeed extension for Chrome will also give you optimized images as one of the steps, if it thinks there is room for improvement.
This is very small. Imagine if someone wanted to take a bunch of photos straight out of a camera, send it to Kraken for optimisation then have it back. They would have to do optimisations client-side beforehand, which kind of ruins the point of Kraken.
Would love to use something like Kraken as we'll be processing a TON of images, but 8MB limit would be a deal breaker.
Maybe you should charge per MB.
It's fantastic that you've made a free web interface, but it would be great if we could enter a URL and it would find all the images on the page and optimise them rather than enter the URL's manually.
Just click Kraken Button, added after the plugin has been installed and wait until all the images displayed on a currently opened page are kraked.
You're welcome! :)
And here's the link: https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/krakenio-image-opt...
I'm finishing up a project I've been working on for quite a while, and I would be really interested to hear if anyone has any advice on best times to post?
Stripping out the EXIF/IPTC copyright information creates an orphan work (no apparent creator), makes it harder to track down copyright infringements, and may be DMCA violation (http://www.flickr.com/groups/nomorefreephotos/discuss/721576...). Ideally, you should strip out all the non-copyright EXIF fields (aperture, camera make etc) but leave the copyright info.
EXIF stripping is one of the subtle crimes us web developers have committed against content creators and it's mostly out of laziness: a few hundred bytes of copyright info will not kill us, our users or our servers.
In a couple of the images I did notice a few artifacts with lossy compression, but nothing obvious, you'd have to look for it like I did, and if it were a priority you could always lossless.
Overall I'd say nice work, but I agree the "per image" price might not be optimal.
Nice work! I'll be looking into this service more seriously for a project I have coming up.
