Discussion of bugs in Mozilla Firefox
Here's the image:
Here's the page that references it:
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)
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.
I say that because I have seen broken images be reported before.
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic ... ht=sinfest
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.
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.
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"
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.
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.
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
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.
Perhaps someone who understands this properly could post a <a href="http://bugzilla.mozilla.org">bug report</a> ?
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest