[sane-devel] How come ghostscript compresses so much better than xsane

[m. allan noah]

unfortunately, the author of xsane is no longer subscribed to this
list. i would contact him directly with your suggestion, or try
another frontend.

allan

On 7/10/08, Julien Michielsen <julien at michkloo.xs4all.nl> wrote:
> Scanning aa A4 through my xsane (xsane-0.995-79.1 with
>  sane-backends-1.0.19-48.1 and iscan-free-2.10.0.1-26.1) to a pdf-file I
>  end up with a file that is bigger than a Mb. I specified compress
>  options under preferences as png compression level 9, and remain amazed
>  that running the pdf-ourput file through gs reduces the file-size with a
>  factor greater than twelve (a.pdf 4560401 , while test.pdf 370760) after
>  the command
>  gs -q -sPAPERSIZE=a4 -dNOPAUSE -dBATCH -sDEVICE=pdfwrite
>  -sOutputFile=test.pdf a.pdf
>
>  I raised this point earlier on this list, but either I didn't formulate
>  it right, or I didn't understand the answer. I still keep wondering that
>  the compressing knowledge of gs is not incorporated in xsane.
>  --
>  Julien Michielsen
>  julien_at_michkloo.xs4all.nl
>
>
>
>  --
>  sane-devel mailing list: sane-devel at lists.alioth.debian.org
>  http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/sane-devel
>  Unsubscribe: Send mail with subject "unsubscribe your_password"
>              to sane-devel-request at lists.alioth.debian.org
>


-- 
"The truth is an offense, but not a sin"