Caesium Image Compressor: 90% Compression and No Quality Change Free

Published on August 17, 2013 By DrJBHL In Personal Computing

For photographers, bloggers and graphics folks good news. This is a great way to compress images up to 90% and reclaim some space on your disk.

When you compress images you change the quality. Sad fact of life. You even use types of storage which keep quality yet use large file types to prevent loss. This costs you space and therefore, as you produce more, you have to buy more storage and maintain it. It’s available for Windows OS only, and has a user friendly interface.

“Features of Caesium Image Compressing Tool

It supports a wide range of file format and can compress image files saved in any file format such as JPG, PNG, JPEG, WMF or BMP. After compressing it saves the images in BMP, PNG and JPG.

Caesium allows compressing the images in bulk. You can set the compression level, image size and quality changes for every picture individually or can also apply it to bulk.

Caesium has a preview mode where you can check the compression results before saving them. You can check all the details of the compressed picture with zoom before you save them to final folder.

Drag and drop feature makes it ever simpler and handy tool for compressing images.” - http://caesium.sourceforge.net/

It comes in its regular form, and as a portable app. There are also no hidden costs in its use.

The dev even provides its source code. He asks only a donation if you can, to help him improve the software.

I can find no minuses with this software.

Screen shots:

Download link:

http://caesium.sourceforge.net/#main

The download is 15.2 Mb and you can choose one of two mirror sites (one Sourceforge). It requires 60.2 Mb disk space and is an x86 program.

As always, before installing ANYTHING on your computer:

1. Do your own research about the software.

2. Determine your need.

3. Create a restore point in case anything goes wrong during the installation.

4. If you haven’t done a backup within the past week, do one. It’s painless and saves quite a bit of regret.

5. Always choose "Custom" or "Advanced" installation if offered. That will allow you to view whether the software comes in a wrapper with toolbars, home page and search engine switchers or other software/Adware you might not want.

Comments

teddybearcholla

on Aug 17, 2013

Heavenfall

on Aug 17, 2013

Next week: how to make pigs fly.

Edit: To clarify, 90% compression and maintaining the same quality is not possible. Heck, the default for the program is even set to 80%.

teddybearcholla

on Aug 17, 2013

Heavenfall

reply 2

ext week: how to make pigs fly.

I am looking forward to your post on that subject!!

c242

on Aug 17, 2013

A little late. Pink Floyd did that 35 years ago.

athelasloraiel

on Aug 17, 2013

so, whats new compared to jpg compression?

DrJBHL

on Feb 24, 2014

Do not navigate to the link in reply #6. It has an extreme negative WOT rating.

*Thanks, Jafo. Could have deleted the comment,
but then you might have one less scalp on your tepee wall.

Jafo

on Feb 25, 2014

DrJBHL

reply 6

Do not navigate to the link in reply #6. It has an extreme negative WOT rating.

But wait.....yours is Number 6 ....

[I deleted it...and him]...

Uvah

on Feb 25, 2014

Whew! Missed that one.

Crastiloowa

on Feb 25, 2014

I'm pondering just exactly why this is a 60MB program if it's only doing image compression...that is space for a lot of algorithm. I see that it also does format conversion though, so...I suppose if he pulled in a lot of additional libraries for that...

Leaving that aside though, even though 90% compression will certainly cause some artifacts, there are times when the space savings outweigh image quality. I have to wonder if this dev's algorithms are enough better than just using the appropriate settings in your graphics editing tool of choice, though (e.g. if it's 1% smaller, it's probably not good enough to be worth the extra program hanging around. If it's 10%, then perhaps, if you've already got a use case in mind.)

MarvinKosh

on Feb 25, 2014

When you think about it, the reason why images aren't straightforward to compress is because there's a lot of pixels that are not the same colour. Higher levels of compression essentially negate the difference between colours that are almost the same, allowing more pixels to be shrunk down to x pixels of colour y.

So for example, one way you could take advantage of that is to create a difference layer which tells you how the crappy compressed image is different to the original image. You then store that diff as an image as well, hoping for some sort of overall saving without losing any information. Then when you uncompress the image, the diff is used to reverse the loss of quality.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!