<!DOCTYPE html><html><head><title></title><style type="text/css">p.MsoNormal,p.MsoNoSpacing{margin:0}</style></head><body><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div>On Fri, Dec 8, 2023, at 21:11, Even Rouault wrote:<br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt" style=""><div><br></div><blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:2d070c43-5426-4ef5-8e31-11b32245020e@app.fastmail.com"><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"> - GeoTIFF DEFLATE 280 MB<br></div></blockquote><div>Is it with PREDICTOR=3 ? (If not, then the ZARR datasets should
also be compressed with FILTER=DELTA to have a fair comparison)<br></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">I would expect a fair comparison to be between PREDICTOR=3 and FILTER=DELTA and not the other way around, but it does seem to level the field significantly:<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"> - GeoTIFF DEFLATE PREDICTOR=3 255 MB<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"> - Zarr DELTA BLOSC zlib NONE 290 MB<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"> - Zarr DELTA BLOSC zlib BIT 266 MB</div><div style="font-family:Arial;"> - Zarr DELTA BLOSC zlib BYTE 259 MB</div><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><blockquote type="cite" id="qt" style=""><blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:2d070c43-5426-4ef5-8e31-11b32245020e@app.fastmail.com"><div style="font-family:Arial;"> - Zarr BLOSC zlib NONE 281 MB<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"> - Zarr BLOSC zlib BIT 253 MB<br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;"> - Zarr BLOSC zlib BYTE 249 MB<br></div></blockquote><div><span style="white-space:pre-wrap;"></span><br></div></blockquote><div style="font-family:Arial;"><br></div><div style="font-family:Arial;">So FILTER=DELTA yields worse compression, while GeoTIFF PREDICTOR=3 does very well. No need for Zarr! I don't remember PREDICTOR=3 doing so well in the past, so.. no idea :-).<br></div></body></html>