Oh, but for the record, with what I think is a completely straight reimplementation of PNG that isn't particularly intelligent in searching for the smallest size:
1: 256 x 141 : 5190 (774 bytes worse than you) 2: 256 x 141 : 6439 (826 bytes worse) 3: 256 x 192 : 10041 (938 bytes worse) 4: 256 x 192 : 9326 (732 bytes worse) 5: 256 x 192 : 10599 (496 bytes worse) Which puts me, on average, about 10% worse than you. On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Thomas Harte <tomh.retros...@gmail.com> wrote: > Sadly I'm already doing that and still doing a lot worse than you. At > this point I'd definitely suggest that if you're willing to donate > code then it be used over anything I can come up with. > > I'm still trying though! > > On Sat, Jul 31, 2010 at 1:23 PM, Adrian Brown > <adr...@apbcomputerservices.co.uk> wrote: >> Oh one thing ive found out that may help in your tests. Dont compress >> the data as nibble pairs. If you convert the data into bytes (only >> using values 0 - 15) then compress that. (obviously in the decompressor >> you need to patch it back so two bytes become one nibble). You may find >> you get a much better compression rate. >> >> Adrian >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: owner-sam-us...@nvg.ntnu.no [mailto:owner-sam-us...@nvg.ntnu.no] >> On Behalf Of Adrian Brown >> Sent: 31 July 2010 13:16 >> To: sam-users@nvg.ntnu.no >> Subject: RE: Dizzy (was:Porting spectrum games...) >> >> Ok, providing I havent made any mistakes on the compressor it looks like >> the sizes are down at: >> >> 1: 256 x 141 : 4416 >> 2: 256 x 141 : 5613 >> 3: 256 x 192 : 9103 >> 4: 256 x 192 : 8594 >> 5: 256 x 192 : 10103 >> >> Ill write the decompressor and check, depends how slow it is to >> decompress i guess ;) >> >> >> >> >> >
