Neocities.org
Alriiiiight, now I feel my page is at a more presentable level. I'd say it's probably almost no longer WIP anymore. Now I'll probably slow down a bit on updates, to work on more substantial ones now. :)))))
2 likes
1 like
1 like
goofyahhbingus
1 hour ago
Oooooo thank you so much!! ;u; I'm glad to know people appreciate my art. (and don't worry about my self-depreciating humor, I do it a little too often though hahah)
regarding lossless compression: Why do you think pngs should be converted to webp? I've made a png compression program and have found pngs to be consistently smaller if compressed well. jxl is best, but theres unfortunately no browser support yet
2 likes
goofyahhbingus
20 hours ago
Well, in my tests I've gotten the opposite results, WEBPs being consistently smaller than PNGs. That's quite strange... Could you give me more info on how you compress PNGs? I'm rather curious about it!
2 likes
goofyahhbingus
20 hours ago
Oh also some context on my workflow: I save images as PNG, compress them using Minuimus.pl, then I convert them to WEBP using libwebp (command being: cwebp -q 100 -lossless "[file]").
1 like
skullmund
19 hours ago
i run optipng pngout and deflopt, theyre all lossless and pretty fast, makes for a small image already. then to shave off a few more bytes i run my own code which (somewhat brute-force) tries to find even better filter combinations / palette order / bit depth (8 might compress better than lower numbers, strange but true) and deflate with zopfli. i'll release it eventually but right now it only "works on my machine"
2 likes
goofyahhbingus
19 hours ago
Oh nice, that's interesting. If I'm not mistaken Minuimus.pl internally uses pngout and optipng only. I'll have to check deflopt and zopfli now! And I can't wait for your code release, hoping it'll be open sorce! :))))
1 like
skullmund
19 hours ago
i just downloaded libwebp and have to say, webp compresses a lot better now than im used to. some are actually smaller as webps now but the differences are only about 1-5% either way
2 likes
skullmund
19 hours ago
i quickly tested 5 files: png is 109.742 bytes total and webp 108.946 although 3 out of 5 files are smaller as pngs. but tbfh the webp compression is nicer and faster
2 likes
skullmund
19 hours ago
also tried jxl with the same 5 images and while it performs best on 3/5 images leaving 1/5 for png and 1/5 for webp, it actually has the highest total size because it messes up on the largest image (116.765). so from my quick test they all perform well and theres no clear winner
2 likes
2 likes
goofyahhbingus
1 hour ago
I've also done a few tests myself using your method, and I did get a few PNGs that were better compressed than WEBPs. Maybe it's the way the images' pixels themselves are structured that decides it? Compression sure works in mysterious ways... :)))
1 like
There we go, finally got a styling for the subpages now! I dunno if the font is too easy to read though, it's like the 2nd font I've ever made. (the BOO!!!!!!! section will STAY THAT WAY!!! >:C for now at least, I'll probably find something more interesting for it later)
1 like
2 likes
Me when 241 updates in just a week.... I think I should make local updates instead of dumping every tiny change live, I dunno if this overloads the feed for followers or something.
miela583
2 days ago
It'll only show your changes every 24 hours, so it prevents feed flooding that way.
1 like
goofyahhbingus
2 days ago
Ah alright, thank you for the info! Although I still think daily updates would probably annoy people, so I'll probably slow down a bit regardless. At the very least to add more substantial changes, that is.
Still stumped on the styling for the subpages.... Don't worry, I'll resolve this conundrum eventually. (hopefully)
1 like
(also if you're wondering how I got my page to have sound... I used the Web Audio API to generate sound waves programatically, it was so fun and I'm strangely so proud of it for some reason????)