TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- Turn a 700MB file into a 100MB file

Turn a 700MB file into a 100MB file

I've seen compression that can do that but I don't know any programs that do it. I've gotten games that were zipped and like 100MB and unzipped the contents were like 700MB. Programs liek WINRAR can only shave a few MB's off of it after RAR'd but I need a program that I can make 1 RAR/ZIP/EXE file that will be like half the size of the files or at least have amazing compression. Wether I have to span it into like 3 or 4 RARs I need a compression program that will ZIP/RAR/EXE a file and make it a lot smaller.

it all depends on the type and the size of the file.

the games were so compressed because there were a lot of little files that were either text or executables. if you wanna compress mp3/video, then forget about it. a 7:1 ratio does not exist... so far it's about 1.0001:1

quote:

Originally posted by TiestoInTheMix it all depends on the type and the size of the file. the games were so compressed because there were a lot of little files that were either text or executables.

No it was a single BIN file in a single ZIP archive.

quote:

Originally posted by trance_n_dance No it was a single BIN file in a single ZIP archive.

i'm sorry, but thats bullshit. don't you think we would be taking advantage of that if it was possible??? now...onto my traditional *slap*

.

BIN is a raw cd image, of course they can do that
ive seen a psx bootdisc that was like 48mb and comp'd down to like 1mb
not bad i suppose...

quote:

Originally posted by KilldaDJ BIN is a raw cd image, of course they can do that ive seen a psx bootdisc that was like 48mb and comp'd down to like 1mb not bad i suppose...

That most likely because the rest of BIN has empty sectors. Hence the ZIP compression was able to save up the repeated null characters.

Compression ratio depends just as much on the type of the fyle to be compressed as it does on the program you use to compress the file.
You can often get 7-1 ratio on text files, executable files and such but not on file formats like jpg, mpg, gif, mp3 and other types of media. That is because files in these file formats are already compressed. There is nothing left to compress there


In case you are interested, zip compression is working using Lempel-Ziv algorithm. Basically it works by finding many possible repeated subsequences and substituting them by shorter subsequences.
Here is the animation of how it works:
http://www.data-compression.com/lempelziv.html

O.K can someone please actually post something that helps me and help my problem.I'm looking for a program that compresses files to become as small as possible. If nobody knows the one that cuts the size in half then tell me one you know that is good.

quote:

i'm sorry, but thats bullshit. don't you think we would be taking advantage of that if it was possible??? now...onto my traditional *slap*

And why exactly would I lie about something like that? I'm trying to get people to help me not to piss people off. It's obviously possible if I've seen it done and I'm not gonna lie about something since the whole topic is me looking for that program or one thats good at archiving.

I like Irish beer and women. Does that count?

WinRar - absolutely the best!

well both winace and winrar compress @ 4096k dictionary.. so any of these are good

Modern compressing algorithms (zip, rar, etc) basicly use the multi-passing hoffman algorithm to compress... You can't expect it working miracles... You can't really compess video or audio much beyond the standard formats you find on the net since they are already "compressed". Recompressing a comrpessed forman is almost useless... It can shave off few kb though, but it's useful only if you can;'t fir a 705 meg file on a 703 meg cd.. On the other hand, some non-compressed data (such as long text files with few distinguished characters/patterns) is very compressable: from 40% to 80%, in fact.

quote:

Originally posted by trance_n_dance And why exactly would I lie about something like that? I'm trying to get people to help me not to piss people off. It's obviously possible if I've seen it done and I'm not gonna lie about something since the whole topic is me looking for that program or one thats good at archiving.

then why aren't we all doing it???

quote:

Originally posted by PatMcGroin then why aren't we all doing it???

Well I dunno maybe it's something few people have or an old DOS program. Considering there are lots of things on the net that not everyone has

quote:

Originally posted by trance_n_dance Well I dunno maybe it's something few people have or an old DOS program. Considering there are lots of things on the net that not everyone has

if it exsited, we'd all be using it

quote:

Originally posted by trance_n_dance Well I dunno maybe it's something few people have or an old DOS program. Considering there are lots of things on the net that not everyone has

Consider this: if this program, that could cut file sizes in half no matter what file you gave it, existed, try applying it again and again, until you ended up with a file of 1 byte, say. There's 256 possible value assignments for such a file and thus only 256 representable original files. So - since there's a lot more files - several files would be compressed to the same byte and the decompression algorithm would have no way of knowing what file to decompress back into.
Consequently such a compression algorithm cannot exists.

This is called the counting argument. I've done projects on compression at the university I attend, and can assure you that it does hold.

There are basically four kind of compression algorithms in use today:
1: Enthropy-based unique prefix coding (such as Huffman codes), which replaces every symbol in the source file with a code of varying length according to the frequency with which the symbol appears. Normally you can gain about 40% reduction in filesize using this technique.
2: Run lenght encoding, which simply replaces long runs of similar symbols, with a single copy along with a counter. Reduction is about 25% for your typical file.
3: Lemple-Ziv sliding window algorithms, which searches the previously encountered part of the file for occurences of the next x symbols, and replaces them with a reference to the previously encountered occurence. Reduction is usually about the 55% mark, but it does vary a lot.
4: Lossy compression, which removes true information from the file. A lot of techniques exists for this, but they all ruthlessly exploit shortcommings in our senses, so the loss isn't noticeable to ordinary humans. Reduction can reach over 99.5% in cases such as uncompressed video.

Most standards use a variety of these techniques. Mpeg, for instance, use all but the Lemple-Ziv methods. Generally, WinRAR has very good reduction ratios, but like all other programs, files containing little redundancy cannot be compressed further.

I hope some of this made some sense and you won't spend a lot of time searching for that super-compressor.

that was all complete jibberish to me

UHARC is dos based and works better than winrar and winace, it is used for the gamez rls on the w*r*z scene... you can save a few megs with it. But 700 -> 100 it's impossible (except if there is empty sectors on your bin files... some dreamcast releases took about 40Megs compressed, then 700 uncompressed, that was only to fill the cd entirely)

Well games can be compressed easily, coz they usually contain wav files, and files which dont have any or little compression.

But files like mp3s are already highly compressed, so zipping doesnt make much of an effect on them, and can decrease quality.

Hope that helps a bit

notice: i stopped caring

na, just to lazy to read all that crap

quote:

Originally posted by mr_sick some dreamcast releases took about 40Megs compressed, then 700 uncompressed, that was only to fill the cd entirely)

See told you . Exactly the type of image I was talking about as well.

okay this is one of those "it depends" response...

the compression ratio depends on the type of data you are working with!

in general, the greater the redundancy (number of repeating patterns); the greater the compression ratio

example file formats:

Bitmap:
- this is an uncompressed file format, thus, there is a lot of redundancy. one could convert this file into a jpeg or gif image....in the process of the conversion a compression techinque(s) is used.
- note: this technique 'usually' uses 'lossy' compression, meaning that shit is thrown away....so thats why your pictures become grainy.

Wav:
- this is also an uncompressed file format, hence, a lot of redundancy here too. one could convert this file into either a file format that uses 'lossy' or 'lossless' compression.
- so say i want to maintain ALL sound quality...this means that when i compress the file i must not throw away anything, hence, i use 'lossless' compression.
- if we convert this to the "monkey audio" file format we can achieve about 50% compression, but maintain full sound quality
- but, if we convert this to the "mp3" file format we can achieve a much greater compression ratio because the mp3 format uses 'lossy' compression....thus, we can throw away some data such as frequency ranges that fall above or below the hearing ranges of 'normal' human-beings and also apply a compression techinque(s).

(i could talk about video (pictures & audio combined), but naw

Now, so say i have a bullshit directory on my computer that contains bmp, jpeg, wav, mp3, bin, etc...
Compressing the whole directory's contents with winrar will considerably reduce the size of ONLY the 'uncompressed' file formats. files such as mp3, gif, jpeg have already been compressed.

Thank you Intense_Sounds for explaining it to me . I didn't know how the whole thing worked exactly so thanks for explaining to me in pure english exactly how it works .

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.