Return-Path: <tiff-admin@remotesensing.org>
Received: from inmx005.isp.belgacom.be (inmx005.isp.belgacom.be [195.238.3.148])
        by mailst006.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.9/8.12.9/Skynet-MAILSTORE-2.14) with ESMTP id i4IEZVIc030076
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Tue, 18 May 2004 16:35:32 +0200
        (envelope-from <tiff-admin@remotesensing.org>)
Received: from yoda.imagelinks.com ([208.24.120.44])
        by inmx005.isp.belgacom.be (8.12.9/8.12.9/Skynet-IN-2.32) with ESMTP id i4IE6RVo025183
        for <joris.at.lebbeke@skynet.be>; Tue, 18 May 2004 16:06:28 +0200
        (envelope-from <tiff-admin@remotesensing.org>)
Received: from yoda.imagelinks.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1])
	by yoda.imagelinks.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with ESMTP id i4IE5En31848;
	Tue, 18 May 2004 10:05:14 -0400
Received: from mail.realviz.com (kate.nexen.net [217.174.203.91])
	by yoda.imagelinks.com (8.11.6/8.11.6) with SMTP id i4IE4wn31826
	for <tiff@remotesensing.org>; Tue, 18 May 2004 10:04:58 -0400
Received: (qmail 9757 invoked from network); 18 May 2004 14:04:43 -0000
Received: from anice-101-2-1-67.w193-251.abo.wanadoo.fr (HELO free.fr) (193.251.10.67)
  by kate.nexen.net with SMTP; 18 May 2004 14:04:43 -0000
Message-ID: <40AA17FA.4040602@free.fr>
From: Dlpnet <dlpnet@free.fr>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.6) Gecko/20040113
X-Accept-Language: en-us, en
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: tiff@remotesensing.org
Subject: Re: [Tiff] Compression
References: <40A8BA2C.8090107@free.fr> <20040517142429.GD26494@ak4719.spb.edu>
In-Reply-To: <20040517142429.GD26494@ak4719.spb.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: tiff-admin@remotesensing.org
Errors-To: tiff-admin@remotesensing.org
X-BeenThere: tiff@remotesensing.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.0.13
Precedence: bulk
List-Help: <mailto:tiff-request@remotesensing.org?subject=help>
List-Post: <mailto:tiff@remotesensing.org>
List-Subscribe: <http://remotesensing.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@remotesensing.org?subject=subscribe>
List-Id: TIFF and libtiff discussion <tiff.remotesensing.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://remotesensing.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff>,
	<mailto:tiff-request@remotesensing.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://remotesensing.org/pipermail/tiff/>
Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 16:04:42 +0200
X-UIDL: b752c965c02b9abd23f88310f68374ac

Hello,


Andrey Kiselev wrote:

> On Mon, May 17, 2004 at 03:12:12PM +0200, Dlpnet wrote:

> Efficiency of compression is depend on the nature of your data. In
> general LZW works better than Packbits and Deflate works better than LZW

> So your question does not make sense without data description (in terms
> of size, type and contents).

Thanks for your answer. In fact my main concern is to understand why I 
have no gain when changing the compression scheme. (is it because I m 
writing line by line ?)

And I m wondering if I ll have better result if I don t write line by 
line (if possible).

Thanks,

Dlp
_______________________________________________
Tiff mailing list
Tiff@remotesensing.org
http://remotesensing.org/mailman/listinfo/tiff
