MozillaZine

The image cannot be displayed, because it contains errors.

Discussion of bugs in Mozilla Firefox
eternal
 
Posts: 87
Joined: June 18th, 2003, 7:10 pm

Post Posted December 2nd, 2003, 7:54 pm

Here's the image:

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel_strip.jpg

Here's the page that references it:

http://www.tawbaware.com/maxlyons/gigapixel.htm

It displays in IE fine, and I can open it in all my image editing programs if I save it to my machine, so this seems like a bug and not a standards issue.

Also, in Firebird, you still get the "image resize" cursor, and it even responds to clicks by changing the browser title bar text, but there is no image to click on. This was actually liked off of Slashdot so I'm surprised I seem to be the first to mention this.

Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.6b) Gecko/20031129 Firebird/0.7+ (aebrahim)

alanjstr
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 9100
Joined: November 5th, 2002, 4:43 pm
Location: Anywhere but here

Post Posted December 2nd, 2003, 9:51 pm

If Firebird says there is a bug in the image, there is a bug in the image. It has happened before.
Former UMO Admin, Former MozillaZine General Mod
I am rarely on mozillaZine, so please do not send me a private message.
My Old Firefox config files

old momokatte
 
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post Posted December 2nd, 2003, 10:08 pm

The image is probably just too big for Firebird to handle. The dimensions are 40784px by 100px.

See this old topic.

eternal
 
Posts: 87
Joined: June 18th, 2003, 7:10 pm

Post Posted December 3rd, 2003, 5:19 am

alanjstr wrote:If Firebird says there is a bug in the image, there is a bug in the image. It has happened before.


So my 5 image editing applications have no problem with it, IE has no problem with it, but you automatically assume its a bad image because Firebird, the youngest of them all, can't display it?

It turns out this IS a Firebird bug related to the size of the image. So don't be so quick to jump to conclusions, it doesn't help get these issues resolved.

alanjstr
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 9100
Joined: November 5th, 2002, 4:43 pm
Location: Anywhere but here

Post Posted December 3rd, 2003, 5:32 am

I say that because I have seen broken images be reported before.

http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... ht=sinfest
Former UMO Admin, Former MozillaZine General Mod
I am rarely on mozillaZine, so please do not send me a private message.
My Old Firefox config files

eternal
 
Posts: 87
Joined: June 18th, 2003, 7:10 pm

Post Posted December 3rd, 2003, 5:53 am

alanjstr wrote:I say that because I have seen broken images be reported before.


With that logic, I should write off all Firebird crashes as a problem with Windows, because I've seen Windows crash reports before.

Each bug report has to be looked into individually before its assumed it has any relation to another report. In this case, it doesn't have anything to do with a bad image. That would have been obvious very quickly if you had taken a small amount of time to investigate before writing it off.

Ok enough ranting. :)

asquithea

User avatar
 
Posts: 1533
Joined: March 17th, 2003, 2:43 pm
Location: Guildford, UK

Post Posted December 3rd, 2003, 6:30 am

I just downloaded it and attempted to open it in Photoshop. No joy. Nor does it open in IE6. That image is FUBAR.

old momokatte
 
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post Posted December 3rd, 2003, 7:09 am

asquithea wrote:I just downloaded it and attempted to open it in Photoshop. No joy. Nor does it open in IE6. That image is FUBAR.

The image is just too big. Copying it as a bitmap and then resaving in JPEG format gives the same result, but reducing it to 30,000 pixels wide allows it to display in Photoshop/IE/Firebird/Opera on my computer. IrfanView is the only program on my computer that can display the original file.

*tries to find the dimensional breakpoint*

UPDATE: the breakpoint is > 32767 pixels, the maximum value of a 16-bit unsigned integer. When getting close to that limit, IE has painting problems but Firebird and Opera have no problem displaying the image. Photoshop has a lower breakpoint, somewhere between 30000 and 32766 pixels.

alanjstr
Moderator

User avatar
 
Posts: 9100
Joined: November 5th, 2002, 4:43 pm
Location: Anywhere but here

Post Posted December 3rd, 2003, 7:28 am

IE says it is 848x2px when I loaded it. Maximizing IE changes it to 984x2. That's IE doing its "fit to width" thing.

MS Photo Editor from Office XP can't open it.

MS Paint in XP says that it is 40784x100

Windows Picture and Fax Viewer has issues drawing it other than "Fit to Width"
Former UMO Admin, Former MozillaZine General Mod
I am rarely on mozillaZine, so please do not send me a private message.
My Old Firefox config files

old momokatte
 
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post Posted December 3rd, 2003, 8:44 am

alanjstr wrote:If Firebird says there is a bug in the image, there is a bug in the image.

The text in question says "The image “[filename]” cannot be displayed, because it contains errors."

That's the default 'alt' text for all images displayed alone in Mozilla Firebird, even after they are loaded successfully. Even if they don't contain errors.

If Firebird says there is a bug in the image, it might be wrong.

asquithea

User avatar
 
Posts: 1533
Joined: March 17th, 2003, 2:43 pm
Location: Guildford, UK

Post Posted December 3rd, 2003, 11:24 am

Is there a specification anywhere that says what the maximum width of a JPEG can be? The author obviously hasn't been too smart in creating an image that is unreadable in most packages, and I assume Firebird uses a standard library to decode the images.

old momokatte
 
Posts: 0
Joined: December 31st, 1969, 5:00 pm

Post Posted December 3rd, 2003, 11:44 am

asquithea wrote:Is there a specification anywhere that says what the maximum width of a JPEG can be? The author obviously hasn't been too smart in creating an image that is unreadable in most packages, and I assume Firebird uses a standard library to decode the images.

Yes, the JPEG File Interchange Format Specification v.1.02 specifies that 2 bytes (16 bits) are to be used for storing each of the values of the Xdensity and Ydensity parameters. Which means the maximum size for a standard JFIF image using a 1:1 pixel aspect ratio is 32767x32767 pixels. At least, that's what it looks like to me.

Source: http://www.w3.org/Graphics/JPEG/jfif3.pdf

Mook
 
Posts: 1752
Joined: November 7th, 2002, 9:35 pm

Post Posted December 3rd, 2003, 12:59 pm

Actually...
It specifies two bytes, but not signed/unsigned; and I'd imagine an image of negative width/height would not be too useful.

16 bit int, signed: -32768 ~ 32767
16 bit int, unsigned: 0 ~ 65535

So the code Mozilla uses a signed 16-bit int (as opposed to unsigned). Maybe that could be fixed?


Oh, IE6 on XP shows the image fine. Other than having the resize image button outside the image that is :p

eternal
 
Posts: 87
Joined: June 18th, 2003, 7:10 pm

Post Posted December 3rd, 2003, 5:34 pm

asquithea wrote:I just downloaded it and attempted to open it in Photoshop. No joy. Nor does it open in IE6. That image is FUBAR.


I don't know how that's possible because it opens fine for me in IE6. I can also open it in Paint Shop Pro, Windows Picture and Fax Viewer, and Paint.

It also seems like it is a valid JPG image, both the binary and as per the specifications, so I still think this is a bug and not a limitation.

Azaar
 
Posts: 161
Joined: November 25th, 2002, 1:19 pm
Location: UK

Post Posted December 3rd, 2003, 5:45 pm

Perhaps someone who understands this properly could post a <a href="http://bugzilla.mozilla.org">bug report</a> ?

Azaar

Return to Firefox Bugs


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest