Re: [hylafax-users] HylaFAX performance vs regular fax machine.

["Bernd Proissl" <lists@proissl.de>]

> On Thu, 6 Sep 2001, Giulio Orsero wrote:
> 
> > On Thu, 6 Sep 2001 12:05:31 -0400 (EDT), you wrote:
> >
> > >Interestingly, when I manually converted the ps file the tffg4 output was
> > >larger than the tiffg32d. Not what I would have expected.
> >
> > In my case
> >
> > -rw-rw----   1 go       go          12836 Sep  6 16:22 test.ps
> > -rw-rw----   1 go       go          14761 Sep  6 19:43 test_3.tif
> > -rw-rw----   1 go       go          11474 Sep  6 19:43 test_32d.tif
> > -rw-rw----   1 go       go           7556 Sep  6 19:43 test_4.tif
> 
> OK, maybe I messed up my ghostscript command. What options did you use to
> generate the files above?

I guess there is no single compression algorithm which can achive the best 
compression for all possible input data.

What pattern(s) are in the ps file?
Maybe you want to exchange a ps file to make sure you work on the same
basis?

Bernd



____________________ HylaFAX(tm) Users Mailing List _______________________
 To unsub: mail -s unsubscribe hylafax-users-request@hylafax.org < /dev/null