X
Tap here to go to the mobile version of the site.

منتدى الدعم

jpeg does not show

Posted

Hi!

Why cant i c this jpeg on Firefox 65.0.1 (64-bit) on Archlinux: https://images.gutefrage.net/media/fragen/bilder/blaubeeren--weisser-pelz--schimmel/0_original.jpg?v=1544201728000

Thx.

Bye

Hi! Why cant i c this jpeg on Firefox 65.0.1 (64-bit) on Archlinux: https://images.gutefrage.net/media/fragen/bilder/blaubeeren--weisser-pelz--schimmel/0_original.jpg?v=1544201728000 Thx. Bye
Quote

Additional System Details

Installed Plug-ins

  • Shockwave Flash 32.0 r0

Application

  • User Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:65.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/65.0

More Information

cor-el
  • Top 10 Contributor
  • Moderator
17278 solutions 156177 answers

This looks like an very large image (6697728: 2584 × 2592 pixels; 64 MB) in a format that Firefox doesn't support. Does this image show in other browsers? It does show in GIMP.

Try this link instead for a format that works:

This looks like an very large image (6697728: 2584 × 2592 pixels; 64 MB) in a format that Firefox doesn't support. Does this image show in other browsers? It does show in GIMP. Try this link instead for a format that works: *https://images.gutefrage.net/media/fragen/bilder/blaubeeren--weisser-pelz--schimmel/0_big.jpg?v=1544201727572
Was this helpful to you? 0
Quote

Question owner

hmmm... interesting theory... but: when i download it with wget and convert it to png with gimp then i can view it in firefox (that png)... why does firefox like big pngs but not big jpegs? i think firefox has a problem with that jpeg standard: "JPEG image data, JFIF standard 1.01" (according to file)...

can firefox use an up to date jpeg decoder? or would that be a security risk? or is it something legal?

thx.

-arne

hmmm... interesting theory... but: when i download it with wget and convert it to png with gimp then i can view it in firefox (that png)... why does firefox like big pngs but not big jpegs? i think firefox has a problem with that jpeg standard: "JPEG image data, JFIF standard 1.01" (according to file)... can firefox use an up to date jpeg decoder? or would that be a security risk? or is it something legal? thx. -arne
Was this helpful to you?
Quote
WestEnd
  • Top 25 Contributor
61 solutions 5308 answers

Tried the link in firefox, chrome, IE12. The image is a unsupported format or improperly formatted for web usage. You should contact the WebMaster and inform them of the problem viewing it.

Tried the link in firefox, chrome, IE12. The image is a unsupported format or improperly formatted for web usage. You should contact the WebMaster and inform them of the problem viewing it.
Was this helpful to you? 0
Quote

Question owner

hmmm... interesting theory... but: when gimp understands JFIF1.01... ...why does firefox not? do we need to wait for formal verification of that JFIF1.01 decoder? lol -arne

hmmm... interesting theory... but: when gimp understands JFIF1.01... ...why does firefox not? do we need to wait for formal verification of that JFIF1.01 decoder? lol -arne
Was this helpful to you?
Quote
cor-el
  • Top 10 Contributor
  • Moderator
17278 solutions 156177 answers

I seems to be a progressive JPG image with a SOF10 header.

  1. SOI
  2. APP0
  3. COM
  4. DQT
  5. DQT
  6. SOF10 (AC progressive DCT)
  7. 0xcc
  8. SOS
  9. 0xcc
  10. SOS
  11. 0xcc
  12. SOS
  13. 0xcc
  14. SOS
  15. 0xcc
  16. SOS
  17. 0xcc
  18. SOS
  19. SOS
  20. 0xcc
  21. SOS
  22. 0xcc
  23. SOS
  24. 0xcc
  25. SOS
  26. EOI
I seems to be a progressive JPG image with a SOF10 header. <ol><li>SOI</li><li>APP0</li><li>COM</li><li>DQT</li><li>DQT</li><li>SOF10 (AC progressive DCT)</li><li>0xcc</li><li>SOS</li><li>0xcc</li><li>SOS</li><li>0xcc</li><li>SOS</li><li>0xcc</li><li>SOS</li><li>0xcc</li><li>SOS</li><li>0xcc</li><li>SOS</li><li>SOS</li><li>0xcc</li><li>SOS</li><li>0xcc</li><li>SOS</li><li>0xcc</li><li>SOS</li><li>EOI</li></ol>

Modified by cor-el

Was this helpful to you? 0
Quote

Question owner

ok... r they somehow too dangerous to decode? or just too new? or too obsolete? :) -arne

ok... r they somehow too dangerous to decode? or just too new? or too obsolete? :) -arne
Was this helpful to you?
Quote

Question owner

it is an old bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680385

seems like it wont b fixed so soon...

it is an old bug: https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=680385 seems like it wont b fixed so soon...
Was this helpful to you?
Quote
اطرح سؤالا

You must log in to your account to reply to posts. Please start a new question, if you do not have an account yet.