On Mo, 2015-08-31 at 10:55 +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
> Am 28.08.2015 um 13:56 schrieb Gerd Hoffmann:
> > On Do, 2015-08-27 at 14:46 +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
> >> I have observed that depending on the contents and the encoding it happens
> >> that sending data as RAW sometimes would take less spa
Am 28.08.2015 um 13:56 schrieb Gerd Hoffmann:
On Do, 2015-08-27 at 14:46 +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
I have observed that depending on the contents and the encoding it happens
that sending data as RAW sometimes would take less space than the encoded data.
This is especially the case for small upd
Am 28.08.2015 um 13:56 schrieb Gerd Hoffmann:
> On Do, 2015-08-27 at 14:46 +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
>> I have observed that depending on the contents and the encoding it happens
>> that sending data as RAW sometimes would take less space than the encoded
>> data.
>> This is especially the case f
On Do, 2015-08-27 at 14:46 +0200, Peter Lieven wrote:
> I have observed that depending on the contents and the encoding it happens
> that sending data as RAW sometimes would take less space than the encoded
> data.
> This is especially the case for small updates or areas with high color images.
>
I have observed that depending on the contents and the encoding it happens
that sending data as RAW sometimes would take less space than the encoded data.
This is especially the case for small updates or areas with high color images.
If sending RAW encoded data is beneficial allow a fall back to RA
