updated descriptions

compression_benchmark.ipynb

@@ -27,6 +27,7 @@
    "metadata": {},
    "source": [
     "Round 1 : Using PIL to compress the tiff file.\n",
+    "\n",
     "Conclusion : The best that I could get using the lzw compressor from PIL was 61.5%. This is worse than the other one at 40, which is likely because it is using multiple channels instead of just one."
    ]
   },
@@ -267,6 +268,7 @@
    "metadata": {},
    "source": [
     "Round 2: Trying the same thing but with tifffile and doing grayscale\n",
+    "\n",
     "Conclusion: The documentation was terrible. It advertizes compression but doesn't say how it's done, and the specifics of it. Moving on to something else, but still worth a shot."
    ]
   },
@@ -328,7 +330,9 @@
    "cell_type": "markdown",
    "metadata": {},
    "source": [
-    "Round 3: Trying numcompress, something that compresses numbers. Should provide an ok benchmark, and is actually documented."
+    "Round 3: Trying numcompress, something that compresses numbers. Should provide an ok benchmark, and is actually documented.\n",
+    "\n",
+    "Conclusion: The headline spoofed, it said I could get over 80%, I got under 30%. So that's worth looking into. Also this algorithm doesn't look into verticle changes, just horizontal, so I don't know why they advertized it to be as good as it is. No way it could be better than PNG, which doesn't advertize anything that high."
    ]
   },
   {