01-02-2012, 04:31 AM
(01-02-2012, 04:24 AM)AceInfinity Wrote: No, lol the smallest possible PNG filesize is 64 bytes. But that's basically nothing. You're down to grayscale, a bit depth of 1, dimensions of 1x1, removed sRGB, transparency, and everything else. The only way to do that is basically to make a PNG file identicle to that of a filesize, which would result in almost complete quality loss. PNG is already a fairly minimal filesize, which is why you don't see the compression ratio of mine very large. There's only so much data you can compress and remove before you start loosing quality. You basically end up converting down to grayscale and downsizing the bit depth to further reduce the filesize, which is completely useless to everyone.
By creating a PNG with a 1x1 frame, the smallest i've been able to compress the data to, is 64 bytes. Here's the byte structure, which basically consists of the PNG header, the IDAT, and nothing else...
Code:89 0x50 0x4E 0x47 0x0D 0x0A 0x1A 0x0A 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x0D 0x49 0x48 0x44 0x52 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x01 0x01 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x37 0x6E 0xF9 0x24 0x00 0x00 0x00 0x13 0x49 0x44 0x41 0x54 0x78 0xDA 0x62 0xF8 0xFF 0xFF 0x3F 0x03 0x00 0x00 0x00 0xFF 0xFF 0x03 0x00 0x08 0xFC 0x02 0xFE 0xD3 0xA5 0x75 0x61
So by reducing the PNG you did earlier, you haven't lost any quality since you were only removing junk bytes, right?