------------- Original Message -------------- Aseem aseem@ports.cmc.net.in wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2001, N. Shrikant wrote:
Are *.gz files really compressed into smaller sizes?
try yourself. on linux note the file size before compression. and then then compress it with gzip, bzip2, winzip. and you will find that all these utilities do compress the files. compression you get depends on file format. i found that gzip compresses more for text files while bzip2 was good for binary file compression. i found both gzip and bzip2 better than winzip when it comes to maximum amount of compression. ---------------------- End ---------------
Yep, you are right, compression results do depend on the file format. Compression basically reduces redundancies in data. Some file formats are already in compressed form. Like JPEG, MP3 etc. An MP3 file is just a compressed WAV file. So compressing these file formats won't give you very high compression ratio, since most of the redundancies have already been eliminated.
Try saving a (fairly large) BMP as a JPEG file. Notice the reduction in size, which is a result of compression.
If, interested in compression techniques, you'll find loads of reading material on the Net. If you know someone from the engineering fraternity, try getting hold of books like 'Computer Networks' by Tanenbaum, or 'Principles of Comm. Systems' by Taub & Schilling. Look for Information Theory in the latter. These are the books I came accross. There are many more.
Regards, Nikhil.
____________________________________________________ Buy Feng Shui Package for Rs. 151/- only, at http://shopping.rediff.com/shopping/fengshui_mailer.htm
At 04:33 PM 6/29/01 +0000, Nikhil Karkera wrote:
An MP3 file is just a compressed WAV file.
err. IMHO WAV -> MP3 is more than just plain compression. A lot of sophisticated techniques are used to decide which data is redundant and can be removed. The resultant compression is "lossy" - original data cannot be retrieved after decompression. Ditto for BMP -> JPEG.
quasi
Sometime Today, Q u a s i assembled some asciibets to say:
At 04:33 PM 6/29/01 +0000, Nikhil Karkera wrote:
An MP3 file is just a compressed WAV file.
err. IMHO WAV -> MP3 is more than just plain compression. A lot of sophisticated techniques are used to decide which data is redundant
But at a higher level of abstraction, MP3 is a compressed Wav. Nothing wrong with the original statement, it's just at a different level of abstraction.
Philip
At 10:36 PM 7/1/01 +0530, Philip wrote:
Sometime Today, Q u a s i assembled some asciibets to say:
At 04:33 PM 6/29/01 +0000, Nikhil Karkera wrote:
An MP3 file is just a compressed WAV file.
err. IMHO WAV -> MP3 is more than just plain compression. A lot of sophisticated techniques are used to decide which data is redundant
But at a higher level of abstraction, MP3 is a compressed Wav. Nothing wrong with the original statement, it's just at a different level of abstraction.
Mr. Philip, At a still higher lever of abstraction a MP3 is just a file, if it comes to that. And, I did not mean that the "orignal" statement was wrong - just that it may have been a wee bit misleading and wanted to add another "level" of clarity. A whole lot of things happen to the WAV data before it is compressed at the end. Therefore my statement - "is more than _just_plain_ compression. But I gratefully thank you for bringing to my notice the "other level" of abstraction.
regards, quasi