Packer Library - Improve Compression?

Everything else that doesn't fall into one of the other PB categories.
Ralf
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 1:29 pm
Location: Germany

Packer Library - Improve Compression?

Post by Ralf »

the docs are saying packing with level 9 will be slow but giving better results as ZIP compressed.

for one of my projects i tried to pack around 70 bitmaps (9 MB) using compression level 9 and write all packed bitmaps to one big datafile. the final result was: 5060 KB

i tried to pack all the same files with ZIP compression to one archive and this final result was just only: 4800 KB

Is there any way to improve the compression like ZIP or RAR?
Dreglor
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 759
Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2003 11:22 pm
Location: OR, USA

Post by Dreglor »

i think the compression isn't what fred developed you hacve to ask him..
~Dreglor
User avatar
NoahPhense
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1999
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2003 8:30 pm
Location: North Florida

Re: Packer Library - Improve Compression?

Post by NoahPhense »

The LZMA compression routine is the best that we have access to. Here is
the SDK.. maybe someone can convert it for us.. ;) I would, but I'm
swamped!!

- np

http://7-zip.com/sdk.html
Wolf
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 234
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 12:00 pm
Location: S.T

Post by Wolf »

You try to pack one big txt file in PB, ZIP and RAR file.

You can see PB Packer is very power of ZIP and RAR :D
User avatar
NoahPhense
Addict
Addict
Posts: 1999
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2003 8:30 pm
Location: North Florida

Post by NoahPhense »

Wolf wrote:You try to pack one big txt file in PB, ZIP and RAR file.

You can see PB Packer is very power of ZIP and RAR :D
It is.. and I'm all for RAR.. (my favorite).. but have discovered that LZMA
is even better..

Read about 3/4 of the way down the page.. Num3's comparison post.

viewtopic.php?t=11850&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0

- np
Ralf
Enthusiast
Enthusiast
Posts: 203
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 1:29 pm
Location: Germany

Post by Ralf »

@Wolf:
packing only text is very easy to compress and gives always very good results! just try it with other datas (executeables, bitmaps or any other complex datas)! i tried the compression results with different kind of datas (tons of bitmaps, and other complex dataformats)! in all tests, ZIP got better results as pb compression methode 9! ofcourse it depends on the data you want to pack!

@NoahPhense:
i agree with you! i would very welcome to have LZMA/Z7 compression/decompession lib for purebasic (no DLL)! someone here who can/want create the open source as pure lib? :D

General:
my standard archive program is ZIP. But my famous packing program and best packingrate comes with RAR! Even this two packers are standard! i am a very big fan of LZMA/7Z, even the results are better as ZIP, RAR... LZMA is my personal winner ;) Congratulation to the developers!

Results:
here are my results with packing around 70 bitmaps to one big file/archive:

PB Packer - level 9 - 5060 KB (packed) - some mins to compress!
ZIP - 4800 KB (packed) - some seconds to compress!
RAR - 4560 KB (packed) - some seconds to compress!
LZMA/7Z - level maximum (not ultra) - 4200 KB - 1 hour to compress on 1GHZ and required up to 200 MB of RAM (using swapfile) (strange!)

decompressing LZMA/7Z is fast enough!
Post Reply