0

www.thinkwithgoogle.com says my website is slow (3.9sec loading speed, yea it's truly slow...). To increase loading speed it tells me to use "next-gen" format for my pictures, e.g. jpeg2000 instead of jpg.

All pictures (except logo) on my website are jpg. If I try to convert them into jpeg2000, the are not getting smaller in size, they are getting MUCH BIGGER.

E.g. one picture had 39kb of size in .jpg, after converting it to jpeg2000 the exact same thing had 261kb. So why to use jpeg2000 then?

  • I don't think changing the question to match the answer is an appropriate admin thing to do here. Especially when the question is now completely different than the original. – Rob Mar 27 '19 at 10:58
  • I changed the question title to include more details from the body. The title of "Why use jpeg2000?" didn't have any of the important detail about the encountered problems. It is also not an appropriate title because it is encouraging opinion answers. I am certainly open to editing the title further, maybe even appending something that expresses the doubts about whether or not it is an improvement over jpg if we can find a way to do so succinctly while not calling for opinions. – Stephen Ostermiller Mar 27 '19 at 14:11
  • For what it is worth, I don't think the accepted answer is all that great. It doesn't delve into any of the pluses and minuses of using jpg over jpg2000 including browser support, speed, and size. It gives product recommendations which could get stale or attract more spammy answers. Since it is useful and well intentioned, I don't think it should be deleted, or even down-voted. But there is certainly room for more answers to this question that are not focused on service recommendations. – Stephen Ostermiller Mar 27 '19 at 14:14
0

Use any of the online image compressors available (there are many more):

But best to use Google's own tool: - https://squoosh.app/

the only drawback compared to other tools is that you can't convert multiple images, just one at a time.

| improve this answer | |
  • thank you very much, squoosh worked perfectly fine for me :) – ForeverNewbie Mar 27 '19 at 10:14
  • 1
    The question is, "Why use jp2000 over jpg?" not which compression tool should I use. – Rob Mar 27 '19 at 10:56
  • On the other hand, it was marked as accepted because it solved the problem of making the images larger. I'm not sure if that is because it is compressing the jpg2000 images or the original jpg images though. – Stephen Ostermiller Mar 27 '19 at 11:37
  • @Rob Sorry for that confusion i caused! I marked it as solved, because I didn't know, if this question will be answered or just be seen as: "kid this is a question too basic for me" . So actually the answer helped solving the problem I had, by showing the different settings you have in this converter, to reduce or even increase the size of the picture and other converters may use high quality settings by defaul,t which leads probably to a really big size in comparison. – ForeverNewbie Mar 28 '19 at 10:06

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.