From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Dov Grobgeld Subject: Re: [OT] djvu? Date: Sun, 31 May 2015 14:56:20 +0300 Message-ID: References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=f46d043c7e82cc009e05175f6564 Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:42744) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yz1qp-0001VV-CX for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 07:56:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yz1qo-0007d0-5d for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 07:56:23 -0400 Received: from mail-wg0-x22e.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c00::22e]:35966) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yz1qn-0007cu-V4 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Sun, 31 May 2015 07:56:22 -0400 Received: by wgbgq6 with SMTP id gq6so94038569wgb.3 for ; Sun, 31 May 2015 04:56:20 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: =?UTF-8?B?TWFydGluIFNjaMO2w7Zu?= Cc: "emacs-orgmode@gnu.org" --f46d043c7e82cc009e05175f6564 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable A number of years back I was very excited about DJVU and used it to compress my scanned documents. But at a certain point did I realize that scanned bitmaps (as well as TeX'd documents width pk fonts) in PDF were just as small, and I stopped using it, as PDF is much more widely available. I'm not sure if the almost equal sizes of djvu and postscript were because bad djvu compressor or because the PDF compressors improved at some point. I would be interested to hear if someone else has other experience. Regards, Dov On Sun, May 31, 2015 at 1:41 PM, Martin Sch=C3=B6=C3=B6n wrote: > Anyone using djvu? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DjVu > http://www.djvu.org/ > > Just curious. > > -- > Martin Sch=C3=B6=C3=B6n > > http://hem.bredband.net/b262106/index.html > --f46d043c7e82cc009e05175f6564 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
A number of years back I was very excited about DJVU an= d used it to compress my scanned documents. But at a certain point did I re= alize that scanned bitmaps (as well as TeX'd documents width pk fonts) = in PDF were just as small, and I stopped using it, as PDF is much more wide= ly available. I'm not sure if the almost equal sizes of djvu and postsc= ript were because bad djvu compressor or because the PDF compressors improv= ed at some point. I would be interested to hear if someone else has other e= xperience.

Regards,
Dov


On Sun, May 31, 2015 = at 1:41 PM, Martin Sch=C3=B6=C3=B6n <martin.schoon@gmail.com>= wrote:
Just curious.=
=
--

--f46d043c7e82cc009e05175f6564--