On Wed, 9 Jan 2002, Hans B Pufal wrote:
> In general I agree with you that PDF files seem to be bloated. In this
> case however the .pdf file (1,463,895 bytes) of 6 .png images was
> smaller than a zip (1,940,938 bytes) of the same 6 .png images. So
> (for this particular case) PDF was 25% more efficient than zip!
My guess is that it did some sort of image down-sampling.
Sellam Ismail Vintage Computer Festival
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
International Man of Intrigue and Danger
http://www.vintage.org
* Old computing resources for business and academia at www.VintageTech.com *
Received on Wed Jan 09 2002 - 13:20:32 GMT