Super compress GaMeS with Compressors

[great_compressor_pain]

I use UHARC , LAME for compression
I need help with Audio\video compression and with batch files

[Salmon Trout]

Due to inescapable facts of nature of compression algorithms, it is useless to try compressing material that already is compressed; examples: jpeg, mpeg, DivX, wmv, mov, mp3, etc. For help with batch files post in DOS section of Windows forums.

[smeezekitty]

For help with batch files post in DOS section of Windows forums.

@Salmon Trout (aka fish man)
the dos section is not on the windows forum
and you can compress the compressed
try putting mp3 or wmv in a zip archive
you will see it will reduce in size

[patio]

Hardly at all...

[Salmon Trout]

Hardly at all...

Max compression:

Code: [Select]

Directory of S:\Multimedia\Music\Adam Green - Sixes & Sevens

12/11/2008  18:30         2,798,646 18 Bed of Prayer.mp3
07/09/2009  20:38         2,789,939 18 Bed of Prayer.zip

You beat me to it

[BC_Programmer]

@Salmon Trout (aka fish man)
the dos section is not on the windows forum
and you can compress the compressed
try putting mp3 or wmv in a zip archive
you will see it will reduce in size

however it is futile, in 90% of cases where you use an adequate compression algorithm twice, the reduction will be both insignificant and possibly also redundant due to the overhead of whatever file headers are being used.

While using two different compression algorithms can sometimes bring a further reduction in size, to be frank such reductions are so small as to be insignificant.

[Salmon Trout]

You can even end up with increases in size, several steps down the line.

[Salmon Trout]

the dos section is not on the windows forum

I meant the Microsoft forum

[Salmon Trout]

By the way I paid for that Adam Green

[smeezekitty]

Salmon :
i can tell your trying to increase your post count

[patio]

Salmon :
i can tell your trying to increase your post count

This is ludicrous coming from someone who went from zero to a thousand posting rubbish like this....
Please refrain from these offhand comments in the future.

patio.

[mroilfield]

This is ludicrous coming from someone who went from zero to a thousand posting rubbish like this....
Please refrain from these offhand comments in the future.

patio.

Patio,

You forgot to mention that he did it in less then a month and a half.

[Salmon Trout]

Patio,

You forgot to mention that he did it in less then a month and a half.

He has got 43 thanks so far though.

[Quantos]

however it is futile, in 90% of cases where you use an adequate compression algorithm twice, the reduction will be both insignificant and possibly also redundant due to the overhead of whatever file headers are being used.

While using two different compression algorithms can sometimes bring a further reduction in size, to be frank such reductions are so small as to be insignificant.

It's actually higher than 90%, it's far closer to 99.9%.  I've never run across a file that will get smaller by compressing it twice.  The second compression is ALWAYS larger than the original compression.

[BC_Programmer]

if you use two different algorithms- take for example Zipping an MP3.

[Quantos]

if you use two different algorithms- take for example Zipping an MP3.

What is worth a gain that small though?

[BC_Programmer]

What is worth a gain that small though?

heavens no. like- another 1 or 2KB.

never worth the bother.

[Quantos]

So like I said, 99.9% of the time.