XF 2.3 webp image optimization very low

[ekool]

I've done lots of 2.3 upgrades and enabled image optimization for webp. I usually leave the default src/config.php value which I believe is 85%. After optimizing all images I usually see a reduction in the attachment usage in the 50% range.

I ran it on one of our sites and the attachment folder went down from 58.2 GB to 53.8GB.

On another site I did the same optimization with the same settings and it reduced it from 40.1GB to 27.3GB. That's more inline with what I've seen previously.

I downloaded one of the images to my machine and ran cwebp on it with the default settings and it reduced the (already supposedly reduced) image substantially. What's going on here?

❯ ls -lh
total 1152
-rw-r--r--@ 1 ekool  staff   576K May 12 09:32 IMG_1014.webp
❯ cwebp IMG_1014.webp -o after.webp
Saving file 'after.webp'
File:      IMG_1014.webp
Dimension: 2990 x 2853
Output:    362296 bytes Y-U-V-All-PSNR 41.95 51.03 51.68   43.47 dB
           (0.34 bpp)
block count:  intra4:      22459  (67.10%)
              intra16:     11014  (32.90%)
              skipped:      1226  (3.66%)
bytes used:  header:            278  (0.1%)
             mode-partition: 103470  (28.6%)
 Residuals bytes  |segment 1|segment 2|segment 3|segment 4|  total
    macroblocks:  |       4%|      26%|      17%|      53%|   33473
      quantizer:  |      36 |      35 |      27 |      19 |
   filter level:  |      11 |      37 |      48 |      26 |
❯ ls -lh
total 1864
-rw-r--r--@ 1 ekool  staff   354K May 12 09:52 after.webp
-rw-r--r--@ 1 ekool  staff   576K May 12 09:32 IMG_1014.webp

I modified the src/config.php and set the optimization level to 70% and re-ran the image optimization job via cmd.php but it won't re-optimize the images since it thinks they are already optimized. I guess there is no way to force it to redo it at 70%.

I just find it strange that on this one system the optimization worked so poorly and clearly there is a lot of optimization that can be done. After I optimized the above image I viewed both and could not see any difference in image quality.

Anyone know what could be going on?

 

[briansol]

are they different servers?

 

[ekool]

are they different servers?

I've done a few sites on this server that went down by 50%. This is also the same setup on our other servers. We run centminmod on all servers so the setup is the same across the board.

 

[briansol]

any gd vs imagik differences?

 

[ekool]

any gd vs imagik differences?

All sites are configured for imagick. The setup is the same across all sites really. And all optimizations are done using cmd.php. I can't think of any difference on this site vs. any other sites which is what makes it so strange.

Is there any way to force it to re-optimize with the new lowered quality value? I wonder where the actual "code" is to optimize the images, perhaps I can get AI to write a version that actually runs cwebp on the images. I know that might be an issue because you can't just run it directly on the files and have the attachments work, too much other info is stored in the database

 

[philmckrackon]

The reduction is very dependent on how much compression is applied to the image before changing to webp. The greater the original image is compressed = less webp compression.

 

[ekool]

The reduction is very dependent on how much compression is applied to the image before changing to webp. The greater the original image is compressed = less webp compression.

I understand that but our compression ratio before on this site was the same as the others. In addition, I wouldn't expect me to be able to download a .webp image after it's been optimized by Xenforo and then optimize it even more with cwebp's default settings.

My test image went from a 576k .webp image to a 354k .webp image... so there's still a lot of optimization left on the table. I just checked and the default cwebp compression is 75%.