Thread:Galaxy Agate/@comment-5956954-20170726023638

If you compare the compressed image and the original upload, there is visibly no quality loss in any way since the image already has the PNG effect with its pixels and is a poor cut-out module of the attack pod.

On the technical side with regards to data as well, an image is loaded every time one loads a webpage, so it will take this much data to do so. The uncompressed image is 38 kb, which is a lot compared to 13 kb. When we times the number by 10 for ten page visits, we get this result:


 * Compressed = -120+ kb used
 * Uncompressed = -380+ kb used (260 kb saved)

The numbers are not too impressive, but if we times it by 100:
 * Compressed = -1,200+ kb used
 * Uncompressed = -3,800+ kb used (2.6 mb saved)

This is very bad for people with limited data plans, and this is just for one image, not including the rest of the page. It would be best to think about them as the mobile market continues to grow and for people with limited data plans.

Overall, since there is no real difference besides the very few added artifacts from lossy compression and the need to compress images for this reason, I would like the image to be reverted to the compressed version. The resulting benefit is significantly less data being used up on limited data plans over a period of time.

Any thoughts? 