Every day we offer FREE licensed software you’d have to buy otherwise.

FILEminimizer Pictures Giveaway
24.95 euro

Giveaway of the day — FILEminimizer Pictures

FILEminimizer Pictures compresses images and photos by up to 98% !
24.95 euro EXPIRED
User rating: 239 (57%) 184 (43%) 66 comments

FILEminimizer Pictures was available as a giveaway on December 17, 2009!

Today Giveaway of the Day
free today
Privacy Protector for Windows 10 helps to cope with privacy problems.

FILEminimizer Pictures from balesio compresses digital photos and images and achieves file size reductions by up to 98%. For example, a JPEG photo with a size of 5 MB can be reduced to only 0.08 MB. The software features an innovative image optimization technology: the powerful compression of an image is achieved without any visible quality loss and during the whole compression process the respective native image file format is maintained, making a subsequent decompression irrelevant.

FILEminimizer Pictures can compress any image or photo while always maintaining quality and image format. The optimized and much smaller image files are ideal to be sent via E-Mail or to be uploaded to portals like FlickR, MySpace, HI5 or Facebook. The software can also compress whole digital photo albums at once and features a search assistant which can find all image files on a computer.

System Requirements:

Windows XP/Vista/7





File Size:

4.93 MB


24.95 euro

Comments on FILEminimizer Pictures

Thank you for voting!
Please add a comment explaining the reason behind your vote.
(will not be published)
You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

Works fine on WindowsXP however Internet Explorer 7 and 8 both run exceptionally slow almost at a stand still eversince installation. The only way to be certain is to uninstall but then I'll loose my free licence. Great shame unless anyone has ideas for correcting IE8 reinstallationn does not solve the problem.

Reply   |   Comment by susiesdad  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)

#56 Thanks Fubar!

It'll take a while to fully digest the depth of available info - but from a quick look, JPEGsnoop does indeed appear to be exactly what I've been seeking. Some very useful background reading at the site too.

Reply   |   Comment by caulbox  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+4)

@TK, #52: Quoting you "no visible loss of quality is also possible if you shut your eyes or are visually impared"

First thing that came to my mind: "The man (or woman) is joking", but then I concluded you were serious.

You have to discriminate between visible details and invisible details. As long as you lose only the invisible details this will of course be invisible (per dedfinition; even when you have the sight of a hawk).
Losing the invisible details is only bad when you want to enlarge or fineprint, zoom in to details etc.

I am NOT talking about "special crafted files designed to be compressed with no visible losses" but about "normal image files of any user"

Compression without visible loss is a real posibility like I explained in #20.
Compression can mostly NOT be compressed in a lossless manner. This is absolutely the case for jpg. Even if the compression leaves no visible traces, you do lose resolutionpotential in case you want to enlarge.
Thsi means, never archive your pictures with a tool like this but you can reduce the size of a collection that you want to use on the internet or sending it by mail etc.

Reply   |   Comment by Funkster  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+3)

I have about 100GB worth of photos from my travels around the world - so anything that can reduce the file size but retain the quality is useful - this does a pretty decent job - shame it's limited to processing only 500 photos at a time though. Keeping the same size photos and same JPEG Quality setting I see about a 40% to %50 reduction in file size which is great. I like to use Proshow and turn my photos into moving slideshows and it has problems dealing with huge file sizes so something like this would be useful.

Reply   |   Comment by Dee  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

Compression? The program (not surprisingly) has to remove data from the original file in order to make it smaller. I would have thought that most everyone would at least understand this to some degree? Based on the 'disappointed' comments, it appears not. Remember the old adage: "if it seems to good to be true, it probably is"?

Fubar - someone other than myself who loves CRT monitors? It's gotten to the point where I have now stocked up on some high quality, large 22"+ CRTs so that I'll have them for the foreseeable future. Once they are all gone, I'm not sur what I will do then. I'll probably be a pensioner and won't be able to see much and I'll be stuck with some lousy LCD monitor, won't that be fun. :(

It's really unfortunate that almost everyone other than some specialty manufacturers have discontinued new manufacturing of the CRT monitors and TVs.

Reply   |   Comment by Fred  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+3)

Installed fine on Vista 64 using 'Run as Administrator.'

I set the configurations first, it appends (fileminimiser) to beginning or end of file by default, so it should not be overwriting your original file. You can change that to anything you want, I changed it to (FM) You can also select the output directory. Between those two elements your original files are safe as can be.

I ran it on some small not great to start with files. I only got 21% on the one I cross checked using IrfanView. An odd thing though, it actually has more unique colors than the original. Orignal had 12717 and minimized has 13450. File size reduced from 48.05KB to 37.91KB memory size remained the same. It loads a little slower. 15ms as opposed to 0ms on the original. Pixil size stayed the same and it reported (on Irfanview information window) dpi of 300x300, the original didn't report anything, fields are blank. But checking under the resize/resample window in Irfanview, it is only 72dpi the minimized is 300dpi. Go figure!

I will agree with one (or more) of the commentary's it would be good to have a better help file. I didn't know what 'pack and go' was, I had to deduce from the faq's what it does, it didn't really explain it some folks wouldn't be able to. I was surprised to learn about the other types of files it minimizes also. Any Office document with pictures can be minimized and packed also.

All in all, it does a pretty good job, I will be trying some of my larger files down the line. Thanks GAOTD and Balesio.

Reply   |   Comment by CKOShea  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+1)

For anyone having trouble registering, make sure you have capitals to start each of the three words in the second registration line.

Reply   |   Comment by oliviab  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-1)

Regarding my comment on ImpulseAdventure JPEGsnoop, the approximate quality factor is listed near the top, after the first "Marker: DQT" decode.

Reply   |   Comment by Fubar  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+5)

#36, caulbox, no, JPEG quality isn't stored in the file, and it's meaningless if the file has been processed multiple times. It is possible in some cases to guess, based on the information in the JPEG file, what camera/editor processed the file, and what JPEG quality was used. Try ImpulseAdventure JPEGsnoop, which is a free, standalone (no-install) program which does substantial analysis and decoding of JPEG files, and can return the original quality settings if a known camera or editor was used (see the end of the image analysis).

Reply   |   Comment by Fubar  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+5)

I've forgotten to add
with huge HDs or external back-up HDs
fast broadband internet connections these days
do you really care about the size of a file or rather of its quality,
especially if one is a pro & has to keep or send a file.
Reducing image size only make sense when posting images on pages,
O.K. I get it, not everybody has fast connections.
png was reduced to 12,944 kb from 18,699 kb
bmp stays the same as I thought.
I have no more time for testing, you have fun with it.

Reply   |   Comment by Al  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-3)

#27 improved JPEG compression without significant image detail loss is possible using regional compression where each jpeg sampling square on a picture is assigned a different compression setting, I believe there was a company that produced a demo jpeg wizard for proving their enhancment of the jpeg file format... I tink it was pegasus imaging corp. Now to be found at http://www.accusoft.com/jpegfeatures.htm#3

Reply   |   Comment by TK  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-2)

O.K. I did try FILEminimizer Pictures 2.0, however;
I'm trying to understand what the fuss is all about.
Here is my take:
always keeping the same size & the same resolution of jpg:
original size...................................6,675 kb
FILEminimizer Pictures..................686 kb web e-mail, strong compression
Adobe Photoshop..........................427 kb with Image Options: quality 1 Low
No visible lost of quality when view at 100% to the naked eye... ha ha.
You do the math.
I'm using the old Adobe Photoshop 4.0 full version,
where one can choose a sliding scale:
Image Options from 1(low) to 10 (max)
I still do not know why I should use FILEminimizer Pictures 2.0
Nothing beats Adobe Photoshop compression.
Nothing beats Adobe Photoshop, period.

Reply   |   Comment by Al  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-5)

#20 no visible loss of quality is also possible if you shut your eyes or are visually impared so you cannot see all the detail in an image too. No visible loss of quality when you are not viewing all the detail in a picture is not what the description claims. The claims should be representative of what the average user can possibly achieve with normal image files and not specially crafted files designed to be compressed with no visible losses.

Reply   |   Comment by TK  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-3)

#39 'tdg'; #42 'jordy'; anyone else:

Why are you under the impression that something offered here should be unique in a way that it makes it unparalled to any other software? This is a ridiculoous presumtion to uphold a healthy critisism.

The software is simply offered by GAotD for you or anyone else to try, if you are interested (unregarding any other software).
When you're not interested, no harm done, move on or better come back tomorrow for may be a better pick.

Very likely there is concurrent software; do tell us all about it: why is it concurrent, what is better or what is bad about it. You will make many people happy when you point out alternative freeware.

Don't tell us software is no good because there is other software doing the same. If that were a valid reasoning, the opposite would be true too. All the software you know that does the same is no good because the software offered here does the same.

Reply   |   Comment by SwineFlu Piggy  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+7)

@22 Worked fine for me on Windows 7, 64bit - installed into Program Files (x86)- registered & ran no problems, tried several jpeg files from digital camera, reduced size from 1.13 MB to 186.7KB approx with no apparent loss of quality at full screen size. Thanks for this giveaway.

Reply   |   Comment by Trish  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+5)

Will not work on Windows Xp Pro x64. When I tried to install I got the message that it wouldn't work on a Windows server and that I need the server version of the software. However they only allow that to go to a business.

Reply   |   Comment by Don  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-1)

this program does nothing special with compression. I compressed an original with ACDSee and got the same result in quallity at the same file size.

Reply   |   Comment by steve  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-2)

Installed with no problems. Registration email arrived instantly.

I have been giving it a try on some jpeg images, and I am really impressed with quality of the compressed images; even when reducing a 4.4mb image to 0.6mb with no size reduction! It is so simple to use and is really quick, so I will certainly be keeping it and would suggest to all that it is worth downloading and trying at least!
Thanks GAOTD and Balesio....

Reply   |   Comment by BigPhil  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

Installed fine on WinXP SP2, registered with no problems. I just wanted to thank GOTD and Balesio for providing this today. I am in a rural area and on dial-up, and my family is also, so I always need to reduce pictures for email or upload. Yes, it can be done with my existing photo software, but in my case, this software with a single purpose is perfect for my needs. It launches fast, even from the right-click menu on files in Win Explorer, and has a nice interface that's easy to use. I like that it lets me configure it to put the output in a separate folder and specify text to use as a prefix/suffix of the file name. Nice tool, good functional software. Thanks!

Reply   |   Comment by Terri  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+3)

Works on mine win7 x64 - with no problems , used 10 min email and registered with no probem- my spam filter seems to be eating their email. Used on Tiff and i got 1Mb from 3Mb, As a free not bad !

Reply   |   Comment by Hert  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+3)

FILEminimizer Pictures seems to be a cool, useful utility, not because it does anything that unique, but because it's fast, easy, & does batches.

Images are compressed [file sizes reduced] by improving the efficiency of how the data is stored [i.e. png vs. bmp], or by selectively tossing out data [i.e. jpeg]. With jpeg you can control how much data gets tossed [i.e. quality levels], & thus the final size of the file... it's not much different than the quality levels for/with MP3, where higher quality = bigger files. FILEminimizer Pictures, or any similar app, (oversimplified) looks for the least noticed data & it gets thrown out. After all, with a pallet encompassing millions of colors, just how many shades of blue do you need for the blue sky in the background of a family snapshot? Reduce the number of blues, reduce the file size... Again, oversimplified, but you get the idea -- get rid of some of the color detail (for any/all colors), & done right, it can be near undetectable.

Reply   |   Comment by mike  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+11)

This don't do anything a regular paint program can. Compress the jpg
more and more artifacts show up. Forget the hype.

Reply   |   Comment by jordy  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-5)

Seems to Work just fine in Win7 64 when I used Universal Extractor [with updated innounp027] on downloaded trial. While I didn't use it, the install script includes the following -- could try adding the parameters to a shortcut if having problems in 64 bit Windows:
"Filename: "{app}\FILEminimizer.exe"; Parameters: "/WEADDINX64"; Check: "IsWin64";"

Reply   |   Comment by mike  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+7)

Registration is a bit more complex, u have to visit http://www.balesio.com/gotd2009.php and add ur email address to get the registration code. Fast process, though.

Roaring Siren(Blog)

Reply   |   Comment by Rear Guy  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-6)

Am I missing something here? This is a simple photo "RESIZER" ...NOT compression! Any photo editing software (even IExplored with "email picture" option) can do this by changing the size and resolution of the original photo.

I rarely post comments here, but feel this is highly deceptive. If you "compress" with this software, your original quality will be GONE!! ...and gone for good (if you deleted the original).

Reply   |   Comment by jjmich  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)

sorry to disturb you,
but this doesn't do anything different than free software does.

I tested it, it just uses standard comprimizing techniques just like for example


so, not worth the download.

Reply   |   Comment by tdg  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+5)

Thanks for this offer! To help you (the developer) refine your product, it is good to know what other reviewers regard as being valuable for this class of software. You may wish to view the following then address any issues or add features in your next release:

8 Excellent Tools for Optimizing Your Images


Hope this helps.

Reply   |   Comment by harpo2448  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+4)

#17 confirms what I was afraid of. A program a long time ago claiming incredible compression (Jpeg is already heavily compressed) was actually writing directly to the disk and hiding where it was writing from the OS. That very bad program actually hid the free space you had also and it would not be a serious problem until your hard drive was full (but looked like there was still a lot of space) then you can kiss everything goodbye with just one more file write.

Reply   |   Comment by joedos  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-2)

Seems a very useful program - thanks. It has the 'sweet smooth' (non-bloatware) sort of 'feel' in usage that I like.

A question if I may - and maybe a suggestion for a possible future improvement? In the past I used to have a program installed which allowed me to view any current jpeg quality factor that might already be present in my jpg images. As I recall, this information was easily attainable by right-clicking, and viewing the properties of jpg files in the context menu.

Sadly such information is now lost to me. I may be mistaken, but I *think* it was a feature of ACDSee's 'mPower Tools' software (which hasn't been supported for years now, and which I was forced to uninstall because of compatibility problems). I have to say though that I miss it, and I've struggled subsequently to find other similar simple ways of viewing JPEG quality (percentages) already present within my saved jpg files. Anyone?

In practical usage, I used to find this info handy when deciding whether a particular image was (optimally) suitable for posting to a web site. When I knew in advance (knowledge gleamed from the same feature I now miss) that a particular site always imposed a pre-determined specific jpg compression ratio of (say) 20%, my own efforts to compress (e.g. bmp images) with image editing software by using the pertinent option when saving them as jpgs, tended to produce superior results than the website's default automatic compressions.

Where I become (remain) confused is when my original starting image is already a compressed jpg file. I've no way of knowing what compression factor was used when I first saved the file? True, my PaintShop Pro editor permits me to view the image information in some detail. But with regards to compression, I am only supplied with statistics about the memory used 'on disk' and 'in RAM'.

To be honest, I'm not totally sure if what I'm hoping for is even possible - i.e. a simple way to view any existing JPEG compression factor (quality), or whether a history of re-saving compressed jpgs may have complicated and thwarted such simple math making it somewhat pointless? But I can only repeat that I did once have this feature available to me, and it seemed very reliable. Keeping with my above example, when using custom settings in FILEminimizer Pictures, there seems little point of putting an image through the wringers to save it at 20%, if it's already (unbeknown to me) been saved in the past with a 30% quality? That's why I miss my right-click.

Am I demonstrating my ignorance, or might it be a possibility to incorporate details of already existing jpg compression factor (qualities) within a future update?

Reply   |   Comment by caulbox  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+1)

"...compresses digital photos and images and achieves file size reductions by up to 98%. For example, a JPEG photo..."

Notice the period at the end of the first sentence? They are not actually claiming it will reduce a JPEG by 98%, but the way they flowed their sentences together was very clever.
In reality, the only way they could achieve this 98% reduction, without any loss of quality, would be to change a bitmapped image (black and white?) into a vectored compressed image. i.e. Where xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx becomes 50(x).

Reply   |   Comment by Johnnie Walker  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-6)

installs, registers and runs nice on win7 x32. nice user interface. easy to use. fast. compression is good. pictures came out good. filenames were cryptic but i can live with it. watch those settings!
works for me. keeper!

thanks GAOTD!

Reply   |   Comment by John  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-2)

Thanks GOTD and Balesio for this very useful and reliable programme.
FILEminimizer Pictures is already in my photo toolbox since some time, so I know that it is stable, reliable, fast, and secure.
Besides that small design issue BuBBy found, I have only one request: Please insert a help file to the package. Though the programme is clear and self-explanatory, an onboard Help should always be included.

Thank you, Marc, for entering this arena and answering our questions.


PS: Please, friends and neighbours, read the "read me", and try to use the "settings", "options", and "configurations" before starting to whine about non existing malfunctions.
Thanks, Fubar :), for your explanations.

Reply   |   Comment by graylox  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+13)

Tried it but didn't like it that much. Installed on XP Pro SP3. I use Picture Girdle which is free, works on everything up to and including 64bit Windows 7, supports JPEG, GIF, PNG, WMF, TIFF and BMP. It is only for individual images and not batches but as that is what I do most of then it is perfect. If you are installing it on XP then you need the Dotnet framework 2 for it to work but that is only a small download and is also free but most people will already have it for other applications. For batches I use Faststone Photo Resizer which is also free and works great as does all their products. Whilst you are looking at Faststone have a look for Faststone Capture 5.3 which is another brilliant tool for working with images amongst other things. Version 5.3 is the last freeware version and the newer paid versions do not offer much more.

Reply   |   Comment by Fox  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-1)

This is a new category of utilities for me and the information in the these posts has been very helpful.

I have encountered none of the negative issues mentioned above. The tool works surprisingly well. It ripped 1/3 out of a very large png with no visual change at 100% (on the monitor).

Thank you for this one!

Reply   |   Comment by JFC  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-1)

Easy to use and understand. Straightforward. Good results. Will be nice for posting pics to the web. Be careful as the default is to also resize the picture (i.e. from 3264x2448 to 1024x768). If you want original size, you have to change the settings. Keeping original resolution it took files down to 10-25% of original file size.

Reply   |   Comment by Joe  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (0)

If someone miss this there is a freeware option called Riot (Radical Image Optimation Tool) good enough to give it a try.
Best Regards

Reply   |   Comment by Nandor  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

This works very well!
Reduced a 3072x2304 2.96 mb image to 1024x768 76.35 kb image and it looked really good.
(Some loss of quality, but great results for about a 97% reduction in file size.)
Even keeping image size at 3072x2304 it reduced the file size by a bit over 80%. Not bad.
Try it for yourself....
I'm glad to say that I'm very happy with this one.
Thanks GAOTD!

Reply   |   Comment by Bruce  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+6)

This is a great little program. I batch compressed 11 images using standard compression and the results went from 5.4mb down to 1.1mb. Did I lose some of my original image quality? Probably, but you'd have a difficult time noticing. The images look terrific It preformed flawlessly for me and I am on Windows 7 64 bit.

About some of the previous comments:

Yes it does work with Window 7 (64 bit) and flawlessly I might add.
If you take some time to set the configeration to your preferences, you can prevent resizing, the program deleting your originals, you can even tell it to keep your original jpeg compression level. And, YES you can strip away all the EXIF tags.

The GUI is spectacular and very easy to fiqure out and navigate.

To sum it all up. I am using Window 7 64 bit, configured program to standard compression (default), Output to a differnet folder then where the originals were, maintain original image size, leave jpeg compression level alone (my images were at 90%) and strip away all the EXIF tags. Results were a huge reduction in size from 5.4mb down to 1.1mb.

Very rarely do any of these freebees get my 100% approval but this one did. I will be using this program for a very long time. Thank you Balesio and GAOTD. Job well done.

Reply   |   Comment by ajaxx  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+2)

#5, TK, #7, farther, #11, Petersum, FILEminimizer Pictures gives you options among changing dimensions and format. As for how much can be improved losslessly, that depends upon your options, formats, and data. Depending upon format and data, color information may be reduced losslessly or lossily. BMP is lossless, doesn't support internal compression, so it can't be improved without changing format, dimensions, or possibly color bits. JPEG may be improved a few percent without loss if the coding phase was sub-optimal. Significant improvement requires lower quality (modeling phase, which is lossy) or reduction in dimensions. PNG has internal compression, which can be improved losslessly if the coding phase was sub-optimal, so it's often possible to get a significant improvement in PNG compression without loss, reducing dimensions, or changing to a lossy format (sometimes, the color coding can also be improved). Generally, to get a significant improvement, you need similar image areas, like most screenshots, versus somewhat random data, like pictures.

Reply   |   Comment by Fubar  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+22)

I agree with #12, but to be clearer, copy the address given in the readme.txt:
to your browser and click enter. The rest is self explanatory but you have to have a valid email address to retrieve the activation codes.

That said, the prog seems to work o.k. though I seem to consistently get compression levels of upto 90%(which is great) and nearly no significant compression with smaller jpeg files when in batch processing mode, and all seem to show a slight reduction in size as per # 11 above.

Just remember to uncheck "Replace Original Files" in the settings tab if the size reduction might affect your future use of the original files.
Also wonder if they have an app which can compress other native files like .cdr & .ai


Reply   |   Comment by KenyanPhoenix  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+9)

install fine but program,Dosent start at all. mouse cunsor just spinning and stop ???? windows7x64 :(

Reply   |   Comment by Hansj  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-10)

also will not run on win7 x64, looks like it would have been useful, shame it doesn't work. (tried all compatibility modes, still NG)

Reply   |   Comment by wayne k.  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (-7)

Just checked it out. It's GREAT. Some notes:

1. Of course, it does not compress ALWAYS by 98%. Sometimes it's just 7-8%, sometimes it's 80-90%. Good enough, because the picture is visually the same, I didn't notice any degradation or deformation, and I intentionally tried various sorts of pics - photos of landscapes, faces, scanned documents, drawings

2. Whoever complaints that the program resizes the pictures should try the options/preferences tab. Just clear the option that allows resizing, and no resizing it is.

3. Same for the renaming issues. I checked the possibilities, choose the defaults, and - voila, no problems at all. ame for the option of keeping/clearing the EXIF info of the picture.

I will use this nice thing a lot. I will sure consider buying the suite/server version. Thanks GAOTD!

Reply   |   Comment by Vanya  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+23)

Rather good program but has its shortcomings.

1)You have to be careful not to get your original pictures deleted. (Make sure you only work on copies in a new folder).

2)The result is rather good for the high compression rate but the resulting image needs to be sharpened to come closer to the original.

Probably the best use for this program is when you want to e-mail large pictures and quality is not the main concern.

Reply   |   Comment by urban  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+10)

Having tried this I'd say it's pretty good - far better than using Paint or similar. The issues mentioned (overwriting, same folder, size reduction, etc) can all be controlled from the configuration menu. Quality is quite acceptable for pics you want to email. Registration is a pain, but you can see their view - after all they are providing it free. All in all a useful little app.

Reply   |   Comment by Rick  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+11)

@TK, 5:
First of all you can register with a disposable email-address. This will not add in a usefull way to a "new email address database" if that makes you feel comfortable and you don't have to worry about spam or forgettiing to opt out.
This works, I just did.

Compressing a .jpg by defintion will purge some information, but claiming "no visible quality loss" after compressing is possible.
When you look at your screen at the best resolution, almost every picture taken with a modern digital camera has more pixels then your screen. Showing an original picture on your pc calculates group-means for the pixels in the original picture and depicts one pixel defined by a mean for every group of pixels in the original on your screen. If you were able to save the depicted screenpicture and you would show it on your screen later you would ofcourse see exactly the same pixels (without the need to calculate means now), but the stored screenpicture is much smaller in the amount of pixels stored.
Sure you lost resolutionpotential, but there was no visible loss.

This is just something to think about demonstrating "no visible quality loss" is a real possibility.

The fileminimizer does a good job (picture dependant), I do sometimes see some quality loss though (so it's not perfect), but I really couldn't care less. Quality is still very good (many times visible equal good; nearly perfect is in reach) and very useable for showing them on my pc (not for printing) or on the web.

Reply   |   Comment by Funkster  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+24)

Anyone worried about using their email address for registration purposes should use a disposable one, such as 10 minute mail...

The reply with reg code is almost instantaneous.

Reply   |   Comment by oddbodd  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+20)

I did a little experiment to see how good this program is. I put it head to head with Irfanview. I set FILEminimizer to a custom setting of 1024x768 and 85% quality. This decreased a 3.55MB file to 71.4KB.
I did the same with Irfanview. The file size was a just a tad higher at 92KB, but the quality of Irfanview image compared to FILEminimizer image is like night and day. Irfanview looks crystal clear in comparison.

After further testing, I figured out why it looked so much better. Irfanview had "Apply sharpen after resample" turned on. That also accounts for the extra 20KB's. Without sharpening on, the pic was 76KB. (Just 5KB bigger than FILEminimizer, and I'm sure that's probably due to another setting, since Irfanview is full of options. FILEminimizer doesn't seem to have many options at all. Honestly, I can't see the difference between the pics, but the picture sharpened after resample with Irfanview looks better than the original and FILEminimizer's. Irfanview is, and always has been, free. It has tons of features, and is capable of making much prettier pics when compressed or reduced.

So, it compressed the file a tiny bit more, but at the cost of some quality. I'll stick with Irfanview. Thanks.

Reply   |   Comment by SloppyGoat  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+1)

It works pretty well,but quality is not as good as original.I opened an original and one compressed picture-at first view they look similar.But when I zoomed them the true is that the quolity is bad-compressed one looks out of focus.
And you can change the place where you want new files to be written in.Generally I am satisfied.Thanks!

Reply   |   Comment by idon  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+11)

The coding could be better, requires a DEP exception if you have DEP enabled for everything, and requests direct disk access, which it doesn't need. Has a number of options, I only tried lossless (I doubt JPEG can be recompressed without some additional loss) keeping the same dimensions and format, because that's generally what I want. Works very well, much better than I expected. Fast for an image compressor with very good results. I batch-compressed a PNG and a JPEG. The JPEG compression was very impressive and visually looks the same, although I didn't do a difference of the rendered images. It handily beat PNGOUT (default settings). Not quite as good as OptiPNG (default settings), but close, and much faster. There are lots of image "optimizers"/compressors, punypng is supposed to have outstanding compression, but it's an online service. By the way, if you install OptiPNG, don't install the third-party GUI/shell-extensions, it was written by an idiot and will seriously screw up your file associations (beyond repair, unless you've done a trace, backup, or perhaps set a System Restore Point).

FYI, I doubt this will matter to anyone, since most people don't even remember CRT's, but I use a CRT as my primary display and a 16:10 1920x1200 cheap LCD as my secondary. I was considering replacing my CRT with an LCD, mostly because I'm fed up with nVidia's horrendous drivers, which have endless problems with dual-monitor setups, are always screwing up my screen resolution settings big-time (I run the CRT at higher than its "native" resolution, which nVidia doesn't like and doesn't support as well as ATI), and has numerous other bugs (although those aren't related to type of display). I wanted to test using an LCD as my primary display, but the nVidia drivers are so screwed-up, that's impossible, so I tried working in front of the LCD, even though the CRT is primary. Naturally, I had to retune ClearType, since the idiots at Microsoft don't actually support multi-monitor setups (ClearType settings should be per-monitor, along with numerous other Microsoft bugs). LCD's don't visibly flicker, and have perfect geometry, but in all other respects, CRT's stomp them. Sure, LCD's are clearer, but the pixelation and ClearType color artifacts (not to mention the lousy LCD colors) drive me nuts, so I have to increase the distance to the LCD, and I don't care for the aspect ratio (the CRT is 4:3, 1920x1440, ATI can drive it at 2048x1536). I mention these issues because many people may not be aware of things besides screen resolution, such as the necessity of tuning ClearType to your liking (an impossible task, since settings that look good with some fonts and sizes look terrible with others), and possibly needing to back off from the display when reading text to get a clearer image (opposite of what you would expect, due to the extremely low resolution of displays). It still annoys me that LCD displays with resolution comparable to my CRT are the way-overpriced 30" 2560x1600 LCD's, which are inferior to cheap CRT's in almost every other respect (and except for resolution, are inferior to cheaper flat-screen TV's).

Reply   |   Comment by Fubar  –  7 years ago  –  Did you find this comment useful? yes | no (+38)
Add a comment

iPhone app giveaways »

Aureus Giveaway
Lights out!
$2.99 ➞ free today
Eyehacks - eye exercises - yoga for eyes Giveaway
Do you want to improve your eyesight, but forget to perform eye...
$1.99 ➞ free today
Track and Field Combined Events Calculator Giveaway
This Track and Field Combined Events Calculator is meant for...
$2.99 ➞ free today
Be Red Cloud-Warriors & Tribes Giveaway
Be hunter and warrior of your tribe and complete dangerous quests in...
$0.99 ➞ free today
Supply Chain Management Giveaway
Forecast, optimize your logistics, focus on your customer or use the...
$0.99 ➞ free today

Android app giveaways »

Meme Maker 1 Giveaway
Meme Maker is an application for creating even from the 50 images...
$0.99 ➞ free today
Alphabet Iconpack (BETA) Giveaway
This topic contains beautiful and unique icons and wallpapers.
$0.99 ➞ free today
OneLifeMen A Life Quest  Giveaway
Your sorcerer has put an idea in mind : finding the sacred artifact...
$0.99 ➞ free today
Adventure House Escape Game 2 Giveaway
Adventure House Escape Game 2Welcome to Point and Click Room Escape...
$0.99 ➞ free today
KLWP OS-10 Giveaway
$0.99 ➞ free today