RE: gzip vs. mtx compression ratios

On Tuesday, June 30, 2009 5:03 AM John Daggett wrote:
> 
> As suggested by several folks, tried LZMA.  Great stuff!
> 
> For basic webfonts like Arial, Georgia, etc. MTX compression is 8-14%
> better than LZMA but for Cleartype fonts LZMA is dramatically better
> than MTX, the MTX compressed version is larger by 30-40% for some of
> these fonts.  Likewise, CJK fonts for the most part seem to compress
> better:
> 
>   MS Gothic (Japanese)
>   raw:  8,272,028
>   gzip: 4,441,566
>   eot:  4,276,642
>   lzma: 2,958,214  (36% of original!)
> 

This is really impressive result, which means that there could be a significant room for MTX improvement if there is any interest. I am sure the MTX pre-processing and post-processing steps combined with LZMA compressor (instead of currently used LZCOMP) would produce even better results for fonts.

Vladimir

> Updated spreadsheet:
> 
>   http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=rKT_wNzraVrkXQcKSWb-

> jTA&output=html
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> John
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph Felps" <jfelps@gmail.com>
> To: www-font@w3.org
> Sent: Tuesday, June 30, 2009 12:59:12 PM GMT +09:00 Japan
> Subject: Re: gzip vs. mtx compression ratios
> 
> What about also looking at LZMA for comparison.  Average compression
> ratio is 30% better than gzip: http://tukaani.org/lzma/ .
> 
> There is also some benchmarks comparing gzip, bzip2, and lzma.
> http://tukaani.org/lzma/benchmarks

> 
>

Received on Tuesday, 30 June 2009 13:57:21 UTC