Rygle wrote:
> I'm wondering whether the file sizes might be to do with ascii vs
> binary. Looking at the contents of the spool file, it sure looks like
> ascii to me. Lots of repetition of phrases (not human readable but still
> phrases).
The binary image is encoded in an ASCII encoding that will increase the
size by either 1.25 or 2 times depending on the encoding used. Certainly
not enough to explain the file size difference.
Does the image look like it is 90dpi or something higher?
Rygle wrote:
> I'm wondering whether the file sizes might be to do with ascii vs
> binary. Looking at the contents of the spool file, it sure looks like
> ascii to me. Lots of repetition of phrases (not human readable but still
> phrases).
The binary image is encoded in an ASCII encoding that will increase the
size by either 1.25 or 2 times depending on the encoding used. Certainly
not enough to explain the file size difference.
Does the image look like it is 90dpi or something higher?