Its a hosted tool and everything runs in the browser. It would be interesting to compare results because it could be that c++ is better suited for these kinds of operations.
underline960@sh.itjust.works 4 days ago
I use Caesium for image compression.
Not shilling, since both seem to be free and open-source image compressors.
How’s MAZANOKE different?
jogai_san@lemmy.world 3 days ago
lent9004@lemmy.world 3 days ago
To preface a bit. I occasionally run my images through Sharp over CLI, and I am also a daily user of the Caesium desktop app. However, I haven’t explored the details of how Caesium is implemented.
The biggest difference is that MAZANOKE targets a different user group, essentilly those who would use online tools over installing applications, which is something you see more of these days. I wanted my family and friends to have a safe drop-in replacement for those shady websites. For those who want to use a “native app”, installing MAZANOKE as a PWA is also a great opinion.
In terms of core functionality, they are very simiilar and support the same output image formats. But at the end of the day, MAZANOKE is privacy-focused too, and have plans to add a simple image editor for obfuscation, cropping, and related features. You can also access MAZANOKE anywhere, whether it is self-hosted or on the official instance.
Fundamentally, MAZANOKE relies heavily on the device, and the browser’s Canvas API. This means that the speed and quality could slightly differ depending on which device/browser you use. I believe Caesium’s performance would be more consistent.
(I didn’t know where to put this, but my favorite feature is being able to paste to compress an image right away.)