Ok, tested all three images, then realized the JPG was already at 2048.
So the PNG images scaled properly without conversion to JPG. Then I turned on PNG to JPG, tried again, and they look rather good at quality 90. Especially if I view the full-size image, they look really sharp, but that was with ImageMagick.
So I switched to GD, since that is what the default is on most sites, and the quality was a little lower (using PNG to JPG), but not much. You’ll notice, because you know what the original looks like. Your visitors won’t have a clue that they are any worse.
As you noticed, GD does not seem to be capable of scaling those PNG images without creating a larger image. It must be less efficient than ImageMagick when it comes to the PNG format. You can certainly ask your webhost to enable the Imagick (ImageMagick) extension on your site, and that will let you either resize your PNG images, OR convert them to JPG and then resize them. You may even be able to do so via your hosting control panel.
JPG is certainly going to produce much smaller results for those two images, and I suspect you could even go lower on the quality and no one would notice.
EDIT: I forgot to mention my first tests with GD were using PNG to JPG conversion.
-
This reply was modified 7 years, 10 months ago by
nosilver4u. Reason: clarifying when I used PNG to JPG