Received: by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com (940707.SGI.8.6.9/911001.SGI)
	for tiff-list id LAA19187; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 11:00:29 -0700
Return-Path: <owner-tiff>
Received: from sgi.sgi.com by cthulhu.engr.sgi.com via ESMTP (940707.SGI.8.6.9/911001.SGI)
	for <tiff-relay@cthulhu.engr.sgi.com> id LAA19180; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 11:00:26 -0700
Received: from lte.lte.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de by sgi.sgi.com via SMTP (940627.SGI.8.6.9/910110.SGI)
	for <tiff@sgi.com> id LAA11753; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 11:00:22 -0700
Message-Id: <199408261800.LAA11753@sgi.sgi.com>
Received: by lte.lte.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA12308; Fri, 26 Aug 1994 19:59:26 +0200
From: Uwe Bonnes <bon@LTE.E-TECHNIK.uni-erlangen.de>
Subject: g4-compression with tiffcp and xv
To: tiff@sgi.sgi.com
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 94 19:59:26 MESZ
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-tiff@sgi.sgi.com
Precedence: bulk

xv3.00 seems to do about a 25% better job in compressing data with the g4
scheme. I use  v3.3beta015, independent if linked with libtiff.a from
v3.3beta015 or "-ltiff" from libgr-1.3 on Linux. 
Does "xv" do something wrong or can the tifftools be improved?

Uwe Bonnes  bon@lte.e-technik.uni-erlangen.de


