steganography VS oxipng

joke's on you, the first commit to that repo is from 2022, this crate's way older

While mostly true, there's a large problem with lots of these Rust CLI tools (and I use some of them, don't misunderstand me): they often discard the UNIX philosophy in favour of newbie friendliness and glitter.

For example, ripgrep shouldn't merge find and grep (actually, I use a personal wrapper around `find ... -exec grep ... {} +` because my only beef with this is that find's syntax to exclude stuff is horrible, https://git.sr.ht/~q3cpma/scripts/tree/master/item/find_grep). Or you see something like https://github.com/shssoichiro/oxipng/issues/629 because people don't even know how to use xargs...

I have had good experiences with https://github.com/shssoichiro/oxipng . Although, I suspect this wouldn't give you nearly enough space savings as jpg.

If you do want the file as a PNG (for transparency and a common format that's well supported), but don't want it so huge, consider something like oxipng. https://github.com/shssoichiro/oxipng

oxipng, pngquant and svgcleaner — optimizing images

I wonder how `pngcrush` compares to `oxipng` (https://github.com/shssoichiro/oxipng).

Personally, I use `oxipng` if I want lossless compression. However, most of the time, I use `pngquant` instead, since it gives significant size reduction even at `99%` (I can't even distinguish between the original and reduced image).

    pngquant --quality=99 --ext=.png --force file.png

Depending on your workflow it might make sense to export PNGs directly from Affinity and then reduce their size with a utility like Oxipng, which uses all your cores to find the best algorithm for each particular image.

Assuming your frames are PNG files, you could use a lossless optimizer like optipng to try if their size can be reduced. I prefer oxipng, which is faster and multithreaded, and seems to have more active development.