If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Images that display in IE, but not in Picture-and-fax viewer (nor FireFox)
On Tue, 18 Dec 2018 18:01:36 +0100, R.Wieser wrote:
Hello all, I've got some (old) JPG and GIF images here that display in IE, but not in picture-and-fax viewer (nor FireFox. The FreeImage DLL refuses them too). What is causing it, and what can I change (to the image) to fix it (other than trying to pull them thru some image convertor) ? Or, said otherwise: What is different to such JPG and GIF images that allows them to display on IE, but not on/in three other programs (ok, two and a DLL :-) ) Chances are that the images have corrupted data either unintentional or due to bad image encoder; or contains non standard image parameter(s). MSIE must have a persistent image handling where it serves more like an image salvager than a simple image decoder. If you use an image file analysis tool which breaks down the data structure on those image files, it should show the cause of the problem. |
Ads |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Images that display in IE, but not in Picture-and-fax viewer(nor FireFox)
R.Wieser wrote:
In other words, you doubt - without stating a reason for it - my findings. I find that offensive. Alright, you're cut off, dickhead. Why would you post a question with no physical evidence whatsoever to back up your premise, then *shun* any attempt at collaboration ? The mind boggles. Why not just sit in your ****ing room and solve it yourself ? You notice I'm finding the lack of logic... offensive ? Well, yeah, I do. Paul |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Images that display in IE, but not in Picture-and-fax viewer (nor FireFox)
JJ,
Chances are that the images have corrupted data either unintentional or due to bad image encoder I would expect that to be rather visible, especially on JPG files and on the ammount of images I've currently got that exhibit this problem. But they don't. From batch of 29 images *all* seem to show perfectly (just tested to make absolutily damn sure). or contains non standard image parameter(s) That was my first thought. I have no idea what such non standard parameters look like though. MSIE must have a persistent image handling where it serves more like an image salvager than a simple image decoder. Yeah, I also thought about that. But as with the first paragraph, such salvaging should leave marks. Which there seem to be none. If you use an image file analysis tool which breaks down the data structure on those image files, it should show the cause of the problem. :-) Pretty-much the reason I came he Either someone recognising this behaviour, or knowing about how to do such analysis / where to find such an tool. Beyond walking thru the GIF/JPG files block structure I mean. That I've already done. Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Images that display in IE, but not in Picture-and-fax viewer (nor FireFox)
On Wed, 19 Dec 2018 12:10:18 +0100, "R.Wieser"
wrote: Paul, How did your Irfanview tests go ? With all due respect, but I already mentioned three different programs that would not accept the images, and one that does. What more proof do you need ? In other words what should I try IrfanView for ? If its just about being able to view the images I can simply assign IE to the involved extensions and be done with it (wouldn't like it though). If you are hinting at image conversion, I've mentioned that I see such an action as a last-ditch option (doesn't mean that I'm not already investigating it. The build-in GdiPlus DLL shows some promiss). Regards, Rudy Wieser Probably suggested it because IrfanView seems able to find incorrectly coded images and offers to fix them. (and does) |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Images that display in IE, but not in Picture-and-fax viewer (nor FireFox)
Paul,
In other words, you doubt - without stating a reason for it - my findings. I find that offensive. Alright, you're cut off, dickhead. Ok, goodbye. What, aren't you gone yet ? Oh wait, first some ranting - to which a rebuttal ofcourse will be ignored (yeah, right :-) ). Why would you post a question with no physical evidence whatsoever to back up your premise, then *shun* any attempt at collaboration ? *WHAT* collaboration ? A demand that I prove that some random other program does(n't) exhibit the same problem ? WHAT WOULD THAT PROVE. Nul. Nothing. Zilch. Nada. .... to which I've not seen a single word claiming, let alone explaining otherwise. And I already tried to make clear why I do not like to install random crap on my machine. So, underbuild why you think its a good idea to do it regardless, or otherwise good riddance. Go away. Shoo. Why not just sit in your ****ing room and solve it yourself ? If you would have read my posts in this thread (just 8, this one included) you might have noticed that I've got at least two solutions lined up: Either set IE as my default image viewer, or re-encode the offending images. And, if its not just a matter of flipping a few bits in the image headers, I will most likely go with the latter one. I've already brewn me a small program to do so. You notice I'm finding the lack of logic... offensive ? I guess you *haven't* noticed - although I think I was rather clear about it - that your/other peoples the lack of underbuilding why throwing another image viewer at it would be a good idea does not really impress me in the least (understatement). Do I really need to be *this* blunt to get thru to you ? And you have problems with *me* ? Pot, meet kettle. :-) Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Images that display in IE, but not in Picture-and-fax viewer (nor FireFox)
Default,
Probably suggested it because IrfanView seems able to find incorrectly coded images :-) "incorrectly coded" ? If that where so IE would not be able to display them either. But I take it you ment "using a non-mainstream encoding" there. Yes, in retrospect that seems rather likely (though I had hoped for a simple image-header problem). and offers to fix them. (and does) I also mentioned that I only wanted to look at re-encoding as a last-ditch option. As such I cannot truly believe that IrfanView was offered for that reason alone. But it beats me what other reason they had, as it looks they are not quite certain themselves either ... And by the way, I can automatically find the offending images myself just fine. I even enjoyed the process of figuring out how get the OS to do the re-encoding for me and putting it into a small program. Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Images that display in IE, but not in Picture-and-fax viewer(nor FireFox)
R.Wieser wrote:
Beyond walking thru the GIF/JPG files block structure I mean. That I've already done. You could have pointed that out in your first post. If you've already used a parser/validator, it already contains the known defects information. Paul |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Images that display in IE, but not in Picture-and-fax viewer (nor FireFox)
On Thu, 20 Dec 2018 14:40:12 +0100, "R.Wieser"
wrote: Default, Probably suggested it because IrfanView seems able to find incorrectly coded images :-) "incorrectly coded" ? If that where so IE would not be able to display them either. But I take it you ment "using a non-mainstream encoding" there. Yes, in retrospect that seems rather likely (though I had hoped for a simple image-header problem). and offers to fix them. (and does) I also mentioned that I only wanted to look at re-encoding as a last-ditch option. As such I cannot truly believe that IrfanView was offered for that reason alone. But it beats me what other reason they had, as it looks they are not quite certain themselves either ... And by the way, I can automatically find the offending images myself just fine. I even enjoyed the process of figuring out how get the OS to do the re-encoding for me and putting it into a small program. Regards, Rudy Wieser Well, I'm way outside my depth here, but the error message I frequently encounter sounds more like there's some incorrect type information in the image compression protocol itself. Like the image is correctly encoded but not to the standard the header field claims it is. (if that makes any sense?) I encounter it so infrequently that I haven't really been paying attention to exactly what the error message is telling me. IrfanView just tells me there's a problem and would I like them fix it, click yes, and the image is shown. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Images that display in IE, but not in Picture-and-fax viewer (nor FireFox)
In message , R.Wieser
writes: John, Apart from that it's a dedicated image viewer, and opens a LOT quicker - and with less fuss - than IE, Not what I was-or-am looking for. As the thread proceeds, what you are looking for is becoming clearer (and possibly changing, though I'm not going to claim that definitely!). it also can tell you a lot _about_ the image: colour depth (or greyscale equivalent), number of colours, That I can do by simply looking at the JPEGs or GIFs header. You hadn't revealed that you've actually done that (which you are now implying you have). and probably other things, which I'm pretty sure IE can't And thats just guesswork. Like you, I don't want to load something - especially not something as complicated as IE (if it's different to the version I have) - just to try it. But I'm pretty sure IE does not offer much information about images. I do not really like to put a program on my 'puter just to "have a look" and be removed 15 minutes later. *Especially not* when it needs to install itself, most always meaning it drops stuff all over my OS and registry. Fair enough. I don't think IrfanView touches the registry much, certainly if you don't let it become the default viewer for filetypes. You _can_ just copy the executable - I think it's called i_view.exe - from a running system, and it'll work on its own (though I think if you change settings, it will make a .ini file). Basically, IrfanView is a well-written piece of software that I think you'd actually like; I don't know anyone who has removed it who has tried it, though obviously there must be some. However, you definitely don't _need_ it for what you want, and with your knowledge of image headers (I presume you are using a hex editor/viewer of some sort). [] If push-comes-to-shove my current experiments seems to show that I can re-encode the images using the GDI+ DLL. The resulting JPGs even seem to become smaller, with no discernible visible differences. Other than pixel-by-pixel comparison, you can't be sure, though; JPG coding (and thus re-encoding) is very subtle. (Yes, I did see you'd used the word "discernible".) -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I'm the oldest woman on primetime not baking cakes. - Anne Robinson, RT 2015/8/15-21 |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Images that display in IE, but not in Picture-and-fax viewer (nor FireFox)
In message , R.Wieser
writes: Default, Probably suggested it because IrfanView seems able to find incorrectly coded images :-) "incorrectly coded" ? If that where so IE would not be able to display them either. Not necessarily; as JJ has said, IE may be repairing too. [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I'm the oldest woman on primetime not baking cakes. - Anne Robinson, RT 2015/8/15-21 |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Images that display in IE, but not in Picture-and-fax viewer (nor FireFox)
In message , R.Wieser
writes: JJ, Chances are that the images have corrupted data either unintentional or due to bad image encoder I would expect that to be rather visible, especially on JPG files and on the ammount of images I've currently got that exhibit this problem. But they don't. From batch of 29 images *all* seem to show perfectly (just tested to make absolutily damn sure). If the "bad" data was in the header, and IE corrects it, then there's be nothing visible. (When JJ said "corrupted data", he I'm pretty sure was not distinguishing between the various parts of the file, such as header and pixel data.) or contains non standard image parameter(s) That was my first thought. I have no idea what such non standard parameters look like though. You _have_ said that you could examine the headers (-:. I took that to mean you _do_ have knowledge - more than I do, anyway! - of the structure of a .jpg image. MSIE must have a persistent image handling where it serves more like an image salvager than a simple image decoder. Yeah, I also thought about that. But as with the first paragraph, such salvaging should leave marks. Which there seem to be none. See above: if the salvaging involved only header correction, it would leave nothing visible. If you use an image file analysis tool which breaks down the data structure on those image files, it should show the cause of the problem. :-) Pretty-much the reason I came he Either someone recognising this behaviour, or knowing about how to do such analysis / where to find such an tool. Beyond walking thru the GIF/JPG files block structure I mean. That I've already done. And not found anything, presumably. Regards, Rudy Wieser As an aside, what sort of _size_ are these images (I mean in pixels)? Not that I'm suggesting that has anything to do with the problem, I'm just being curious (nosey). As a second aside, you've I think spent enough time on this thread that you could have recoded them by now (including installing IrfanView [and uninstalling it]; or, using the software you've written yourself). Not that I'm saying you should do that: I think I now do understand your question: was it "has anyone else encountered images that view OK in IE version ## or Fax viewer ??, but not in zzzz, and _knows why_?" -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf I'm the oldest woman on primetime not baking cakes. - Anne Robinson, RT 2015/8/15-21 |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Images that display in IE, but not in Picture-and-fax viewer (nor FireFox)
Default,
Well, I'm way outside my depth here, but the error message I frequently encounter sounds more like there's some incorrect type information in the image compression protocol itself. Possible. But not in a way which makes the image fully unusable. Like the image is correctly encoded but not to the standard the header field claims it is. (if that makes any sense?) It certainly does make sense. It was the first thing that came to my mind too. Only later I realized that the encoding itself could also be the problem.. IrfanView just tells me there's a problem and would I like them fix it, click yes, and the image is shown. I might be a bit odd in this regard, but I'd like to know what went wrong. Maybe even fix the header data myself. But I'll keep the "fix it" capability of IrfanView in mind. Thanks for the "this is why you could do worse than to install it " explanation/hint. Regards, Rudy Wieser |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Images that display in IE, but not in Picture-and-fax viewer (nor FireFox)
John,
As the thread proceeds, what you are looking for is becoming clearer (and possibly changing, though I'm not going to claim that definitely!). :-) When I posted I was thinking about some image-header related problem. Only later on I realized that the encoding itself might be it. So although the problem (and the question) itself hasn't changed, my idea to what might be causing it has. That I can do by simply looking at the JPEGs or GIFs header. You hadn't revealed that you've actually done that (which you are now implying you have). Does knowing it bring you closer to knowing what goes wrong ? I don't think so. Does me being able to look at that data, but not knowing what aspect of it is out of the ordinary - let alone if it actually has any influence on the mentioned programs - help in any way ? Again, no. That, and my experience with over-feeding - causing all kinds of discussions/arguments about all kinds stuff which only serves to muddy the waters - made me decide to keep that to myself. Like you, I don't want to load something - especially not something as complicated as IE (if it's different to the version I have) - just to try it. But I'm pretty sure IE does not offer much information about images. Having information is one thing. But that doesn't mean sh*t if you do not know what you should be looking at. And as I definitily do not know gathering such info would constitute to a waste of time. And you guys do not seem to know either. Not a single "you could take a peek at {X}", or a "what does {Y} say" mentioned anywhere. Just a blanket "go take look" suggestion (of sorts). :-( I don't think IrfanView touches the registry much, certainly if you don't let it become the default viewer for filetypes. ..... Basically, IrfanView is a well-written piece of software that I think you'd actually like Is it now *my* turn to say "You hadn't revealed that ..." ? :-p Other than pixel-by-pixel comparison, you can't be sure, though; JPG coding (and thus re-encoding) is very subtle. Having read about how JPEG encoding is lossy, and you should not re-encode such images I expected the visual changes to be more pronounced. I do not know which quality was used on the output file (just allowed it to use its default to see what the end result would be), but seeing that the filesize became less I think I can safely assume it wasn't a 100%. :-) "incorrectly coded" ? If that where so IE would not be able to display them either. Not necessarily; as JJ has said, IE may be repairing too. Apart from that being a (wild? educated?) guess, seeing that the repairing doesn't seem to take any noticable time (read: is easy to do), why would a browser like FF not have incoorporated it too ? Let alone some of Windows own default programs, like the mentioned picture-and-fax viewer, and paint. If the "bad" data was in the header, and IE corrects it, then there's be nothing visible. I'm sorry, but that is a bit to much "if"-ing to my liking, and *way* to little to back it up. Possible ? Ofcourse. Likely ? Not really. (When JJ said "corrupted data", he I'm pretty sure was not distinguishing between the various parts of the file, such as header and pixel data.) I don't think so either. But it does not make a difference either way. If its random corruption than the chance that my batch of 29 images (or the 80 I checked out later) all could be repaired is astronomical small. *Especially* as the JPEG encoding does not seem to have any error correction on its data, let alone on the header. If its *not* random corruption (but maybe just some programs writing malformed headers) than it should by now be known to a *lot* of people, most particulary the likes of FireFox and FreeImage. In short, corruption (either of them) isn't really likely. Than again, I also have nothing to back that up. :-( :-) Regards, Rudy Wieser P.s. Of the hunderd images FreeImage (the DLL) could not read I've got only a single one which also fails to be re-encoded using GDI+ P.p.s. Although GDI+ can read the "broken" JPG images and write them back to disk in another format (writing them back in the same format results in a simple file copy :-\ ), I cannot draw parts of it to a new "graphics" canvas (which I can do with non-broken images). It seems to indicate that something other than just an image header is involved ... |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Images that display in IE, but not in Picture-and-fax viewer (nor FireFox)
In message , R.Wieser
writes: John, As the thread proceeds, what you are looking for is becoming clearer (and possibly changing, though I'm not going to claim that definitely!). :-) When I posted I was thinking about some image-header related problem. Only later on I realized that the encoding itself might be it. So although the problem (and the question) itself hasn't changed, my idea to what might be causing it has. That I can do by simply looking at the JPEGs or GIFs header. You hadn't revealed that you've actually done that (which you are now implying you have). Does knowing it bring you closer to knowing what goes wrong ? I don't think so. Not me, but it might you: if you've looked at the headers (which to some extent at least implies you know what you're looking at!), you might detect a pattern in the rogue images that you don't see in others. (I presume you've looked at the headers of some problem-free images too.) [] Like you, I don't want to load something - especially not something as complicated as IE (if it's different to the version I have) - just to try it. But I'm pretty sure IE does not offer much information about images. Having information is one thing. But that doesn't mean sh*t if you do not know what you should be looking at. And as I definitily do not know gathering such info would constitute to a waste of time. Someone (was it you yourself?) suggested the images might be to more than 8 bits (256 levels) of greyscale, for example. And you guys do not seem to know either. Not a single "you could take a peek at {X}", or a "what does {Y} say" mentioned anywhere. Just a blanket "go take look" suggestion (of sorts). :-( I don't think IrfanView touches the registry much, certainly if you don't let it become the default viewer for filetypes. .... Basically, IrfanView is a well-written piece of software that I think you'd actually like Is it now *my* turn to say "You hadn't revealed that ..." ? :-p Go on. Give it a try. Even if nothing to do with the current subject (-:. Other than pixel-by-pixel comparison, you can't be sure, though; JPG coding (and thus re-encoding) is very subtle. Having read about how JPEG encoding is lossy, and you should not re-encode such images I expected the visual changes to be more pronounced. I do not IME, the corruption due to re-encoding is a lot less than I'd expected, on the images I've done it on; almost never visible (to me anyway) at full-image view, and only visible in certain areas even close up. YMMV. know which quality was used on the output file (just allowed it to use its default to see what the end result would be), but seeing that the filesize became less I think I can safely assume it wasn't a 100%. I don't _think_ there is such a thing as 100% (i. e. lossless) JPEG compression, other than just file copying (which isn't JPEG compression of course). There _is_ lossless _cropping_ of JPEGs, and also lossless rotation. (The cropping has to be on block boundaries - 16 pixels, I think.) :-) "incorrectly coded" ? If that where so IE would not be able to display them either. Not necessarily; as JJ has said, IE may be repairing too. Apart from that being a (wild? educated?) guess, seeing that the repairing doesn't seem to take any noticable time (read: is easy to do), why would a browser like FF not have incoorporated it too ? Let alone some of Windows own default programs, like the mentioned picture-and-fax viewer, and paint. If the "bad" data was in the header, and IE corrects it, then there's be nothing visible. I'm sorry, but that is a bit to much "if"-ing to my liking, and *way* to little to back it up. Possible ? Ofcourse. Likely ? Not really. If the source of your strange images is unusual, then it is possible. I think you did hint that it might have been the output of a particular scanner (driver), which, if not a popular make/model, might produce output that complies with the standard (or possibly with a draft version thereof), but in a way that isn't often seen. (When JJ said "corrupted data", he I'm pretty sure was not distinguishing between the various parts of the file, such as header and pixel data.) I don't think so either. But it does not make a difference either way. If its random corruption than the chance that my batch of 29 images (or the 80 I checked out later) all could be repaired is astronomical small. Agreed, actual corruption likely to be in the image part of the data. *Especially* as the JPEG encoding does not seem to have any error correction on its data, let alone on the header. If its *not* random corruption (but maybe just some programs writing malformed headers) than it should by now be known to a *lot* of people, most particulary the likes of FireFox and FreeImage. See above - not if it's from a rare source. (Can you tell us what the origin _was_ for these 29 rogue images? That might jog someone's memory ["oh yes, I remember now, images from xyz scanner model n never "played nice" with any but their own viewer and IE"]!) In short, corruption (either of them) isn't really likely. Than again, I also have nothing to back that up. :-( :-) (-: Regards, Rudy Wieser P.s. Of the hunderd images FreeImage (the DLL) could not read I've got only a single one which also fails to be re-encoded using GDI+ Is it 29 images or 100? [] -- J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf The early worm gets the bird. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Images that display in IE, but not in Picture-and-fax viewer (nor FireFox)
John,
Not me, but it might you: if you've looked at the headers (which to some extent at least implies you know what you're looking at!), I know how to display the header data, and that (at least in GIF images) *some* of the fields are effectivily duplicates (not sure abot JPEG anymore). you might detect a pattern in the rogue images that you don't see in others. Yeah, I could try to go that way. Though it assumes that there is an actually detectable pattern, and not something subtile or certain combinations of (not always the exact same) of values. In short, it would take quite some time, and lots of guessing. And its not even certain that the problem is located in those headers ... Which is pretty-much why I posted here. Someone (was it you yourself?) suggested the images might be to more than 8 bits (256 levels) of greyscale, for example. That wasn't me, but I gave a reason why such a thing could happen (in short: old, limited capable viewers). Stemming from never having heard about GIF images with more than 256 colors (which is exactly why PNG was created :-) ) Go on. Give it a try. Even if nothing to do with the current subject (-:. I might, even if I currently (do not seem to) have no use for it. As you said, I like well-behaving software. :-) I don't _think_ there is such a thing as 100% (i. e. lossless) JPEG compression There is though. As far as I know the "quality" has to do with how similar the colors of a certain square of pixels need to be to combine them into a block. With %100 indicating they need to be *exactly* the same. So yes, AFAIK JPEG is able to store an image in a loss-less way. It comes at a (high) cost though: the filesize will normally exeede that of a GIF or PNG - because it doesn't use compression (but just "similar color" collapsing - which at 100% quality is effectivily disabled). If the source of your strange images is unusual, then it is possible. I think you did hint that it might have been the output of a particular scanner (driver), which, if not a popular make/model, might produce output that complies with the standard (or possibly with a draft version thereof), but in a way that isn't often seen. I have no clue if the involved "bad" images came from the same or similar encoder programs, it was just something that crossed my mind as a plausable explanation - because of something you (better than I did) described as "possibly a draft version". Agreed, actual corruption likely to be in the image part of the data. That, and the chance that *all* the header data (regardless of where the corruption struck in it) can be recreated from the surrounding/following (image) data is not too high either. If its *not* random corruption (but maybe just some programs writing malformed headers) than it should by now be known to a *lot* of people, most particulary the likes of FireFox and FreeImage See above - not if it's from a rare source. More likely that it its known, but either considered too insignificant or just not being part of the specs anymore. But than its funny that IE still supported it though (XP, and IE that comes with it, is already rather old). Maybe one of MicroSofts own extensions to the specs ? Would not surprise me in the least. Can you tell us what the origin _was_ for these 29 rogue images? Nope. Sorry. Just that there where multiple sources. A quick peek at possible metadata did not turn up anything either. Of the hunderd images FreeImage (the DLL) could not read I've got only a single one which also fails to be re-encoded using GDI+ Is it 29 images or 100? Both. The first scan I did was a limited one (because having too much to look at is as deadly as having too little) and turned up 29 images. A later, full scan revealed the others. Regards, Rudy Wieser |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|