Close
Search
Tags
Options
Related Posts




bikini_top cg cleavage headphones sonico super_sonico swimsuits tsuji_santa

Edit | Respond

Hiromekis
almost 13 years ago
i know bigger is better but...9626 x 6970 is overkill
possibly biggiest image EVER!
livorno99
almost 13 years ago
fireattack said:
hehe post #8424
is this the largest one in the site?the pool which contains the picture has so many imges larger than 10000x10000
fireattack
almost 13 years ago
livorno99 said:
is this the largest one in the site?the pool which contains the picture has so many imges larger than 10000x10000
yes. order:mpixels -flash
Hermes666
almost 13 years ago
fireattack said:
hehe post #8424
my computer almost colapsed.
MosquitoJack
almost 13 years ago
fireattack said:
hehe post #8424
You know that ImageOptim reduces this pictures size from 37.5 MB to 21.2 MB without altering a single pixel? (-43.5%)
Should I reupload the optimized Image?
itsu-chan
almost 13 years ago
Hermes666 said:
my computer almost colapsed.
the mine did
NeoReaper
almost 13 years ago
Hermes666 said:
my computer almost colapsed.
itsu-chan said:
the mine did
Sorry :S
fireattack
almost 13 years ago
MosquitoJack said:
You know that ImageOptim reduces this pictures size from 37.5 MB to 21.2 MB without altering a single pixel? (-43.5%)
Should I reupload the optimized Image?
I don't think it's necessary. BTW, I knew there're some tools can crush jpeg losslessly, but I don't think they can do so much (-43.5%). ImageOptim's official site doesn't say its operation is lossless either (can't try since i'm using Windows).
Kalessin
almost 13 years ago
Hiromekis said:
i know bigger is better but...9626 x 6970 is overkill
possibly biggiest image EVER!
How else do you think it could hold those boobs? ;)
itsu-chan
almost 13 years ago
Kalessin said:
How else do you think it could hold those boobs? ;)
Me
Its me or it looks like some 3D program I know? spoiler
admin2
over 12 years ago
MosquitoJack said:
You know that ImageOptim reduces this pictures size from 37.5 MB to 21.2 MB without altering a single pixel? (-43.5%)
Should I reupload the optimized Image?
Space and bandwidth is not a issue.
MosquitoJack
over 12 years ago
fireattack said:
I don't think it's necessary. BTW, I knew there're some tools can crush jpeg losslessly, but I don't think they can do so much (-43.5%). ImageOptim's official site doesn't say its operation is lossless either (can't try since i'm using Windows).
The application uses JPEGOptim and Jpegtran internally (as well as several PNG optimisers and Gifsicle). The work losslessly if given the proper params - I've checked. Usually they achieve savings of 2-10%. Larger savings like 25-50% are quite rare and speak against the quality of the initial compressor.