In looking at this further ... when copying the raw base64 encoded text from a tiddler and processing it through a separate online decoder, a sample image turns out to be a PNG file (verified by looking at the first line in a text editor) of about ~1/3 MB in size. So it is no surprise that ~80 images results in a 28MB file. Zipping this image file does not achieve any further reduction in size.
I am shocked at the compression that is achieved in the PDF file though. While there is some commonality between photos (they are all head shots with a white border around them, I don't know how they are getting losslessly compressed so effectively within the PDF file beyond the compression that PNG is offering. Even zipping up the entire TW only shrinks things down to 20 MB. I am also surprised that no matter what extension I used, the image viewer opened it and identified it as the image type of whatever extension I used when it obviously ignored the extension completely and used some file magic identify and decode it correctly. So this is not browser-only behaviour. Just some thoughts. /Mike -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TiddlyWiki" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tiddlywiki. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
