new image should be in cache folder yes, but will be hard to guess what folder it is, due to how the folder structure gets designed (main reason is to not have to many subfolders as it might crash windows explorer on that)
?quality=X param is fine, but don't see a diff between the original and new one? And what if you lower the quality significantly (ex 25%)?
I was just assuming that since the image cropper creates a new file for each crop size these two packages would takes these into consideration and loop through the media folders and compress whatever they find in here.
I'm hoping I'm not wrong or these two packages will be useless.
We are planning to add image cropper support in the 1.6.0 version.
It's not a one hour task (just make a loop through folders) because we support different media storage providers (e.g. Microsoft Azure Storage) and each new feature shouldn't break it.
Really looking forward to that feature. I've seen a lot of Umbraco websites and most are making use of the image cropper. This is going to be a much welcomed feature I'm sure.
There is no point wasting developer time to do that. The bandwidth overhead will make it unwieldy and you are operating too late in the pipeline process. An image has to be optimized before it is served or else the first request will always receive the unoptimized image. That's why the ImageProcessor.Web.PostProcessor plugin exists. I wish you were more honest with users about the functionality of your package because serving an image without using the cropper is reckless.
@David
Cached files are stored wherever the current ImageProcessor.Web IImageCache implementation chooses to store them. For the disk cache alone this could be either internal or external to the website location with differing folder depths. There are unlimited caching configurations due to the pluggable nature of the ilbrary so supporting all would be impossible.
I'm the author of ImageProcessor.Web, the underlying library the Umbraco Image Cropper uses and I will not provide any technical support requests from developers who doctor a cached/processed image. Manipulating a cached image could potentially violate that cache causing unnecessary overhead.
I use the Kraken Image Optimizer plugin for Umbraco, and it's a great solution for both compression and resizing images. Alternatively, you can also try JPEG Compressor for quick and high-quality image compression.
Image compression in Umbraco 7
Hi,
in previous projects I have used ImageGen to compress my images on the fly.
But if I remender, in Umbraco 7 there is a built-in processor for images.
Where can I find docs about this? Or can someone show me how to use this?
/Michaël
Starting point is here: http://imageprocessor.org/
Need plugin in Umbraco for image compression
Hi Michaël,
Do you want to resize images or compress?
For compression we need some tool like - https://tinypng.com/
Package for compression - https://our.umbraco.org/projects/backoffice-extensions/official-kraken-image-optimizer-plugin-for-umbraco/
Thanks,
Alex
Hi Alex,
is for compression and resizing on the fly, so for images comming from the media section and static images located in the directory
images./Michaël
Than as mentioned Dirk - http://imageprocessor.org/ for you
Are there examples by using it in Umbraco?
/Michaël
Hi Michaël
Just add params to GET Url of your image :
Read more imageProcessor functions - http://imageprocessor.org/imageprocessor-web/imageprocessingmodule/resize/
Thanks,
Alex
Hi Alex,
If I use the following I don't see any difference:
So I take an image from the media section and set the quality to 90%.
Where is this new image located? Does it get stored in a cache folder?
/Michaël
Michaël,
new image should be in cache folder yes, but will be hard to guess what folder it is, due to how the folder structure gets designed (main reason is to not have to many subfolders as it might crash windows explorer on that)
?quality=X param is fine, but don't see a diff between the original and new one? And what if you lower the quality significantly (ex 25%)?
Any difference then?
--Dirk
Hi Dirk,
If I change it to 25% then I see a difference, so its working correctly!
/Michaël
yup, although i'm sure 90% will also make a diff, also in file size on disk
--Dirk
I want to implement the image compression. Which plugin is best for umbraco CMS
Hi taimoor
I think there no new plugins and you can use only "Kraken Image Optimizer plugin for Umbraco" - https://our.umbraco.org/projects/backoffice-extensions/official-kraken-image-optimizer-plugin-for-umbraco/
Thanks,
Alex
Install the ImageProcessor.Web.PostProcessor plugin from Nuget. It will compress any cropped images.
Thanks your comment. Is it free or paid ?
Hello guys,
We have released a free alternative for Kraken. Tinifier is based on TinyPNG service which was mentioned by Alex.
You can get more and download it from the link https://our.umbraco.org/projects/backoffice-extensions/tinifier/
Thanks, Dmytro
Hi Guys,
I tested the tinifier @Dmytro suggested and its a pretty good package. It seems to do the trick and has a nice user interface.
It connects on the back of tinypng.com API. I've used this website in the past for compression too and it works good.
I think the tinifier package is a viable option and worth a look. https://our.umbraco.com/projects/backoffice-extensions/tinifier/
Kind Regards
David
How do you then ensure images are compressed when serving them with the cropper?
As soon as you use it the image will be re-encoded, losing any optimization.
Oh ok. I understand what you mean.
I was just assuming that since the image cropper creates a new file for each crop size these two packages would takes these into consideration and loop through the media folders and compress whatever they find in here.
I'm hoping I'm not wrong or these two packages will be useless.
Kind Regards
David
Hi all,
We are planning to add image cropper support in the 1.6.0 version.
It's not a one hour task (just make a loop through folders) because we support different media storage providers (e.g. Microsoft Azure Storage) and each new feature shouldn't break it.
Regards, Dmytro
Ok got ya.
Thanks for the support!
Really looking forward to that feature. I've seen a lot of Umbraco websites and most are making use of the image cropper. This is going to be a much welcomed feature I'm sure.
Kind Regards
David
@Backend Devs
There is no point wasting developer time to do that. The bandwidth overhead will make it unwieldy and you are operating too late in the pipeline process. An image has to be optimized before it is served or else the first request will always receive the unoptimized image. That's why the ImageProcessor.Web.PostProcessor plugin exists. I wish you were more honest with users about the functionality of your package because serving an image without using the cropper is reckless.
@David
Cached files are stored wherever the current ImageProcessor.Web
IImageCacheimplementation chooses to store them. For the disk cache alone this could be either internal or external to the website location with differing folder depths. There are unlimited caching configurations due to the pluggable nature of the ilbrary so supporting all would be impossible.I'm the author of ImageProcessor.Web, the underlying library the Umbraco Image Cropper uses and I will not provide any technical support requests from developers who doctor a cached/processed image. Manipulating a cached image could potentially violate that cache causing unnecessary overhead.
I use the Kraken Image Optimizer plugin for Umbraco, and it's a great solution for both compression and resizing images. Alternatively, you can also try JPEG Compressor for quick and high-quality image compression.
is working on a reply...