转载一篇关于Fireworks 和Photoshop两者之间比较

stonelau

原创地址：http://www.webdesignerwall.com/general/fireworks-vs-photoshop-compression/
英文的谁能给翻译一下：
Fireworks vs Photoshop Compression
Surprisingly enough, based on the findings from my recent survey there are quite a bit of Fireworks users. Personally, I never used Fireworks. Photoshop is alway my first choice for designing—from image editing to designing mock-ups. But, did you know that Fireworks is way better than Photoshop in term of image compression? I’m not a software engineer, I can’t explain why Fireworks can compress better. But I can prove it to you by showing a series of experiments I did.

PNG Compression
For testing purpose, I used an un-compressed image with transparency. I used Photoshop to export the image to PNG-24 with transparency and the resulting file size is about 352 kb. Then I used the same image and exported it to PNG-32 with Fireworks. The file size is about 332 kb. Visually, they both look the same (at least to me). In term of file size, the image exported with Fireworks is about 20 kb less.



GIF Compression
Next I exported the image to GIF 256 colors, adaptive, with no dither. The results are: Fireworks = 88kb, Photoshop = 92kb. That is 4 kb less. Also, they don’t look the same. I prefer the image exported with Fireworks because it has more image details.



JPG Compression
Now, I’m going to try the JPG compression with a different image. I exported the image with Photoshop to 60% quality JPG and the file size is 80 kb. Then I exported the same image with Fireworks to 80% quality JPG and the result is 72 kb. Both exported images look pretty much the same, but Fireworks beats Photoshop by 8 kb in this case.



Please note: Fireworks and Photoshop have different compression technology. 80% compression rate in Fireworks is relevant to Photoshop 60% compression rate.

What Is The Big Deal?
You’re probably thinking: what is the big deal? It is only a few kilobytes… Well, don’t under estimate the little difference in kilobytes, it can make a big difference on your bandwidth and load time. Lets use the background image on WebDesignerWall as an example. If I export the background with Fireworks, I can reduce its file size by 20 kb. I get about 16,000 visits per day on average. 20 kb x 16, 000 = 320, 000 kb. Yes, that is 320 megabytes per day! I’m only talking about the background image here. Could you imagine how much bandwidth I can save if I compress all the graphics on the site with Fireworks? Most importantly, I can make my site load faster and that is a big deal!



Conclusion
If you have Photoshop and Fireworks installed on your computer, try it yourself. You will be surpised with the results. From now on, I’m going to use Fireworks to export my web graphics, particularly the template graphics.

[[i] 本帖最后由 stonelau 于 2009-12-9 10:57 编辑 ]

WaveF

先鼓励一下，这篇文章对比的是FW和PS对图像的压缩比，其实在更高级的图像优化上，FW跟PS比还是有些劣势的，这个我以后找机会说明。
另外今天有点儿忙，在这里先留个位置，日后来翻译^_^ 勤奋的各位也可以先上

moonjeep

FWer其实在MacroMedia时代就已经知道FW在影像压缩方面相对于PS的优势了。作者应该是PSer，所以到了FW并入Adobe这几年才发现这个。

QUESTER

原帖由 [i]moonjeep 于 2009/12/9 11:04 发表
FWer其实在MacroMedia时代就已经知道FW在影像压缩方面相对于PS的优势了。作者应该是PSer，所以到了FW并入Adobe这几年才发现这个。

嚴重同意！

bujichong

http://hi.baidu.com/bujichong/bl ... 45a044925807f6.html

这文章不错，我简单讲了一下，并且注解了自己的想法

WaveF

bujichong先拔头筹啊，值得鼓励～
咱FW版就需要这样的热情，希望日后大家也能转载一些优秀的FW教程，哪怕是英文的 ^_^

punkrui

个人习惯,目前我用fw~

njhh

高人快点出现！

amengdos

感谢5#同学的翻译

ashows

有啥意义吗

CANDYDG

原来FW的图片可以做得比PS更小些。。