搜尋 Mozilla 技術支援網站

防止技術支援詐騙。我們絕對不會要求您撥打電話或發送簡訊,或是提供個人資訊。請用「回報濫用」功能回報可疑的行為。

Learn More

jpeg does not show

  • 7 回覆
  • 1 有這個問題
  • 4 次檢視
  • 最近回覆由 RIDDICC

more options

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

所有回覆 (7)

more options

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:

more options

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

more options

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.

more options

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

more options

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

由 cor-el 於 修改

more options

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

more options

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

seems like it wont b fixed so soon...