Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345
Results 121 to 130 of 130

Thread: LZPM's future

  1. #121
    Moderator

    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Tristan da Cunha
    Posts
    2,034
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 4 Times in 4 Posts
    I'm looking forward to the first release of this PowerHouse!

  2. #122
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    611
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by encode
    Black_Fox, dont keep silence - tell what you think about future lzpm!
    OK As Im used to larger-dictionary packers, I have to ask, if 1MB dictionary isnt too small? On little files theres not much difference, but this is usually visible on my psd test file, which is bigger than usual files, but not i.e. tarred archives. On the other hand, winrar can score relatively good despite small dictionary...
    Otherwise, I dont mind little ratio decrease on text files, if its weighted out with a bit larger ratio improvement

  3. #123
    The Founder encode's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    3,954
    Thanks
    359
    Thanked 332 Times in 131 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Black_Fox
    if 1MB dictionary isnt too small?
    With my current implementation, LZ with 1MB is already very slow, 2MB becomes unacceptable slower, leading just tiny compression gain in most cases.

  4. #124
    The Founder encode's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    3,954
    Thanks
    359
    Thanked 332 Times in 131 Posts
    OK, the RZM defines a new level of LZ coders... Anyway, my LZ77 is still alive. Some testing results of a current version.

    dictionary size: compressed size, compression time

    valley.cmb

    64K: 9,092,191 bytes, 8 sec
    128K: 9,057,033 bytes, 13 sec
    256K: 9,024,111 bytes, 23 sec
    512K: 8,992,623 bytes, 41 sec
    1M: 8,960,040 bytes, 77 sec
    2M: 8,822,959 bytes, 162 sec

    world95.txt

    64K: 740,505 bytes, 1 sec
    128K: 696,532 bytes, 3 sec
    256K: 662,093 bytes, 6 sec
    512K: 633,617 bytes, 13 sec
    1M: 611,397 bytes, 43 sec
    2M: 597,464 bytes, 125 sec

    acrord32.exe

    64K: 1,453,684 bytes, 1 sec
    128K: 1,441,323 bytes, 2 sec
    256K: 1,430,293 bytes, 4 sec
    512K: 1,420,137 bytes, 8 sec
    1M: 1,413,440 bytes, 16 sec
    2M: 1,408,929 bytes, 32 sec


  5. #125
    Tester
    Nania Francesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,565
    Thanks
    220
    Thanked 146 Times in 83 Posts
    When it will go out the new release? seem to promise so much indeed!

  6. #126
    The Founder encode's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    3,954
    Thanks
    359
    Thanked 332 Times in 131 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nania Francesco Antonio
    When it will go out the new release?
    I just cant decide - what dictionary size to use? Also, what context for literals to use (the LC parameter in terms of LZMA)? Currently I keep 5-bit context. 4-bit one may be better for binary files like valley.cmb 8-bit is better for text files and already compressed files like A10.jpg. 5-bits should be the best in average.
    Like you see with larger dictionaries, and especially on text files new LZ77 becomes much slower (just look at wolrd95.txt timings!). Anyway, 1MB is also should be the best at some point.
    Check out results on pht.psd:

    64K: 4,664,242 bytes, <1 sec
    128K: 4,670,488 bytes, 1 sec
    256K: 4,665,568 bytes, 2 sec
    512K: 4,652,006 bytes, 3 sec
    1M: 2,314,232 bytes, 6 sec
    2M: 2,295,164 bytes, 14 sec
    4M: 1,166,111 bytes, 20 sec

    Overall, its a new QUANTUM-style encoder - LZ77 + arithmetic coding and a Storer&Szymanski parsing. Also for parsing I use constants plus a special cost function for offsets. We operate on a 16 MB blocks. During compression, the compressor shows progress:
    <div class=""jscript""><pre>
    optimizing 16384k block...
    12%
    [/code]

    i.e. you see percentage...

    Anyway, the release is soon - I just do an additional tests, tunings and improvements...

    By the way, the new compressors name is BALZ...

  7. #127
    Tester
    Nania Francesco's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    1,565
    Thanks
    220
    Thanked 146 Times in 83 Posts
    Good work! Hi!

  8. #128
    The Founder encode's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    3,954
    Thanks
    359
    Thanked 332 Times in 131 Posts
    But the main thing is a fast decompression and a very simple decoder. Decompression speed is even faster than LZPM's one. Of course it is faster than RZM's too - new LZ77 has about 2-4 times faster decompression than RZM...

  9. #129
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    611
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by encode
    1M: 2,314,232 bytes, 6 sec
    2M: 2,295,164 bytes, 14 sec
    4M: 1,166,111 bytes, 20 sec
    This is quite surprising for me, my guesses are around 3 MB to spot that images are identical... that seems actually true but how come that 1MB dictionary already gains 30% ratio?

  10. #130
    The Founder encode's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Moscow, Russia
    Posts
    3,954
    Thanks
    359
    Thanked 332 Times in 131 Posts
    It is also surprise for me - maybe with 1 MB we may find far more matches due to picture structure - i.e. beginning and ending of each image has repeated patterns. Like you see, 2 MB is not enough to find identical images, the gap between two images is larger or just slightly larger than 2 MB...

Page 5 of 5 FirstFirst ... 345

Similar Threads

  1. BCM's future
    By encode in forum Data Compression
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 9th August 2009, 01:00
  2. Future Bandwidth.
    By Tribune in forum The Off-Topic Lounge
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: 10th October 2008, 22:56
  3. ENCODE's music
    By encode in forum Forum Archive
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 16th October 2006, 23:19
  4. Dwing's UDA v3.00
    By spark in forum Forum Archive
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10th August 2006, 10:11
  5. TC - What's next
    By encode in forum Forum Archive
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 20th June 2006, 17:06

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •