Photo-style JPG sample
2400 × 1600 · 3,134,142 B
Open source fileTOOLDAM TEST LOG
Image and PDF tool test results
We measured image compression, format conversion, resizing and PDF workflows with the same sample files. Each table includes the setting used and the resulting file size.
Test conditions
- Test date: 2026-10-07
- Engine: Chromium 144.0.0.0 (Linux, headless)
- Image tests use a 2400×1600 JPG and a 1600×1000 PNG. Both files were created specifically for repeatable testing.
- PDF tests use a 6-page image PDF (18,808,266 B) and a 12-page text PDF (18,604 B), also created as repeatable test files.
- Image results use browser Canvas encoding. PDF results use the current PDF.js and pdf-lib processing flow with the settings shown for each tool.
Source samples for reproduction
UI-style PNG sample
1600 × 1000 · 9,278 B
Open source file
Measured results
| Source | Operation | Result size | Vs. source |
|---|---|---|---|
| Photo JPG · 3,134,142 B | JPG quality 60 | 291,587 B | -90.7% |
| Photo JPG · 3,134,142 B | JPG quality 80 | 606,966 B | -80.6% |
| Photo JPG · 3,134,142 B | JPG quality 90 | 1,040,535 B | -66.8% |
| Photo JPG · 3,134,142 B | WebP quality 60 | 312,892 B | -90.0% |
| Photo JPG · 3,134,142 B | WebP quality 80 | 619,276 B | -80.2% |
| Photo JPG · 3,134,142 B | WebP quality 90 | 1,028,460 B | -67.2% |
| Photo JPG · 3,134,142 B | 1200×800 + JPG quality 92 | 198,861 B | -93.7% |
| Photo JPG · 3,134,142 B | 1200×800 + WebP quality 80 | 74,038 B | -97.6% |
| UI PNG · 9,278 B | WebP quality 60 | 8,972 B | -3.3% |
| UI PNG · 9,278 B | WebP quality 80 | 10,402 B | +12.1% |
| UI PNG · 9,278 B | WebP quality 90 | 11,720 B | +26.3% |
| UI PNG · 9,278 B | JPG quality 80 | 69,419 B | +648.2% |
TOOLDAM TEST LOG
Measured results by tool
Measured on 2026-10-07 in Chromium 144 using the same settings as the current Tooldam processing flow. Results vary with file content and browser version.
The same JPG compressed at quality 90, 80 and 60.
Compress Image| Sample | Setting | Result | Change / size |
|---|---|---|---|
| Photo JPG · 2400×1600 · 3,134,142 B | JPG quality 90 | 1,040,535 B | -66.8% |
| Photo JPG · 2400×1600 · 3,134,142 B | JPG quality 80 | 606,966 B | -80.6% |
| Photo JPG · 2400×1600 · 3,134,142 B | JPG quality 60 | 291,587 B | -90.7% |
The same JPG resized to three smaller dimensions.
Resize Image| Sample | Setting | Result | Change / size |
|---|---|---|---|
| Photo JPG · 2400×1600 · 3,134,142 B | 1800×1200 · JPG quality 90 | 443,326 B | -85.9% |
| Photo JPG · 2400×1600 · 3,134,142 B | 1200×800 · JPG quality 90 | 170,491 B | -94.6% |
| Photo JPG · 2400×1600 · 3,134,142 B | 800×533 · JPG quality 90 | 112,577 B | -96.4% |
A photo JPG converted to PNG.
JPG to PNG| Sample | Setting | Result | Change / size |
|---|---|---|---|
| Photo JPG · 2400×1600 · 3,134,142 B | PNG · original pixel dimensions | 7,237,031 B | +130.9% |
A small graphic PNG converted to JPG.
PNG to JPG| Sample | Setting | Result | Change / size |
|---|---|---|---|
| Graphic PNG · 1600×1000 · 9,278 B | JPG quality 90 | 81,977 B | +783.6% |
| Graphic PNG · 1600×1000 · 9,278 B | JPG quality 80 | 69,419 B | +648.2% |
| Graphic PNG · 1600×1000 · 9,278 B | JPG quality 60 | 59,573 B | +542.1% |
A photo JPG converted to WebP.
JPG to WebP| Sample | Setting | Result | Change / size |
|---|---|---|---|
| Photo JPG · 2400×1600 · 3,134,142 B | WebP quality 90 | 1,028,460 B | -67.2% |
| Photo JPG · 2400×1600 · 3,134,142 B | WebP quality 80 | 619,276 B | -80.2% |
| Photo JPG · 2400×1600 · 3,134,142 B | WebP quality 60 | 312,892 B | -90.0% |
A small graphic PNG converted to WebP.
PNG to WebP| Sample | Setting | Result | Change / size |
|---|---|---|---|
| Graphic PNG · 1600×1000 · 9,278 B | WebP quality 90 | 11,720 B | +26.3% |
| Graphic PNG · 1600×1000 · 9,278 B | WebP quality 80 | 10,402 B | +12.1% |
| Graphic PNG · 1600×1000 · 9,278 B | WebP quality 60 | 8,972 B | -3.3% |
A WebP photo converted back to JPG.
WebP to JPG| Sample | Setting | Result | Change / size |
|---|---|---|---|
| Photo WebP · quality 80 · 619,276 B | JPG quality 90 | 972,934 B | +57.1% |
| Photo WebP · quality 80 · 619,276 B | JPG quality 80 | 594,613 B | -4.0% |
| Photo WebP · quality 80 · 619,276 B | JPG quality 60 | 294,191 B | -52.5% |
The same compression method applied to an image PDF and a text PDF.
Compress PDF| Sample | Setting | Result | Change / size |
|---|---|---|---|
| Image PDF · 6 pages · 18,808,266 B | 40% reduction target | 199,220 B | -98.9% |
| Image PDF · 6 pages · 18,808,266 B | 60% reduction target | 99,326 B | -99.5% |
| Image PDF · 6 pages · 18,808,266 B | 80% reduction target | 62,245 B | -99.7% |
| Text PDF · 12 pages · 18,604 B | 60% reduction target | 1,093,734 B | +5,779.0% |
One PDF page converted at different formats and resolutions.
PDF to Image| Sample | Setting | Result | Change / size |
|---|---|---|---|
| Text PDF · 12 pages · 18,604 B | Page 1 · JPG · 1× · quality 85 | 135,025 B | 612×792 |
| Text PDF · 12 pages · 18,604 B | Page 1 · JPG · 2× · quality 85 | 369,223 B | 1224×1584 |
| Text PDF · 12 pages · 18,604 B | Page 1 · PNG · 2× | 404,859 B | 1224×1584 |
| Image PDF · 6 pages · 18,808,266 B | Page 1 · JPG · 2× · quality 85 | 97,074 B | 1224×1584 |
| Image PDF · 6 pages · 18,808,266 B | Page 1 · PNG · 2× | 1,021,961 B | 1224×1584 |
Photo and graphic images converted to PDF.
Image to PDF| Sample | Setting | Result | Change / size |
|---|---|---|---|
| Photo JPG · 2400×1600 · 3,134,142 B | A4 · auto orientation · fit · 10 mm · quality 92 | 1,164,639 B | -62.8% |
| Graphic PNG · 1600×1000 · 9,278 B | A4 · auto orientation · fit · 10 mm · quality 92 | 86,268 B | +829.8% |
| Photo JPG + graphic PNG · 2 files · 3,143,420 B | A4 · 2 pages · default settings | 1,250,309 B | -60.2% |
What this test shows
WebP is not automatically smaller
For the photo sample at quality 80, JPG was 606,966 B and WebP was 619,276 B. A format name or matching quality number is not enough to guarantee a smaller result.
Changing dimensions can matter more than changing format
Resizing the photo from 2400×1600 to 1200×800 and saving WebP at quality 80 produced 74,038 B. When an image is much larger than its display size, resize can have a major effect.
Re-encoding an already efficient PNG can make it larger
The simple UI PNG started at only 9,278 B. WebP quality 80 became 10,402 B and JPG quality 80 became 69,419 B. Conversion itself is not a guarantee of optimization.
Notes on the results
- The samples are controlled test files and do not represent every photo or document.
- Results can vary with browser version and operating-system encoder implementation.
- The same numerical quality value does not mean identical visual quality across JPG and WebP.
- PDF compression rebuilds pages as images, so a small text/vector PDF can become larger and selectable text or links can be rasterized.
- For your own files, compare output size together with visual quality and document behavior.
Update schedule
When the browser version or processing logic changes, the same tests are rerun and the results are updated.