Close
High-res pics getting lost on server?
I was browsing through Wave Ride - Over Drive 15 HD (pool #519) and noticed that the original super high-res pics (those with more than 10,000 pixels in width) "cannot be displayed, because it contains errors" (e.g.: post #67465).

It seems only those that have a huge width are affected, as those with similar huge heights display fine.

Are the originals lost, or is there a restriction for displaying images with a width above a threshold?
It's just your browser. Save the image through the full size link, open it in another program, and it'll be fine.
Ah, you're right. I never even tried saving it when I saw it can't display it.

It seems even most desktop apps have trouble opening it. I'll have to remember to check the pic's resolution when I get errors like this.

Thanks for your help! :D
a English teacher (`・ω・´)

spoiler
(I hate mods too nitpicking and deleting comments obsessed.)
Haha, well, at least I got to read it before it got deleted. :P
Cloud737 said:
It seems even most desktop apps have trouble opening it.
It's probably more memory allocation than anything. I'm assuming you don't have an excessive amount of RAM if you're having issues with even your own apps. Irfanview should be sufficient (also assuming you're using a Windows system).
Because it was totally not pertaing to the topic "at all" that's why it's gone.

edit - sorry, bad grammar :)
(I hate you too nitpicking and deleting comments obsessed.)
I see there are still comments here not relating to the topic that are not yet deleted... *whistles* :*

@gohanrice

I thought 4GB would more than suffice for almost anything. And yes, I'm using a 64-bit Windows.

I haven't tried any 3rd party apps, just the Windows ones. The only one that worked was Windows Live Photo Gallery, but it had actually made a temporary resized copy the image and displayed that.
I guess with Windows trying to care for casual users more, they never thought of making their apps work in every possible instance.
aoie, do not delete messages because they're "not pertaining to the topic". Only delete messages that are clearly abusive. Every time I've ever had a message censored pointlessly on a board it's pissed me off and I stopped using the site, and I won't have moe turn into that.
Cloud737 said:
I thought 4GB would more than suffice for almost anything. And yes, I'm using a 64-bit Windows.
Wow, 4GB and still having an issue? I'm not sure what it is then. I don't think I had any issues when I had 4GB on 32-bit XP/Ubuntu (I know I didn't have access to all of it), but then again I may not have looked at the really big images.

Are you using Internet Explorer? If you are, it's just like Aurelia says... it's just your browser.
aoie, and other mods.

I have got some messages from some regular members who afraid commenting because of mods censorships.

the reason I'm doing some meaningless, and topic derailing comments is on purpose of encourage them.

it's the time you guys should know that you guys are threatening members.
Well, I did purge the Spanish language thread as it was being quickly de-railed by English members.

Mod guidelines should be to only delete abusive comments or posted personal details. Do we need to re-think this?
Since my English is poor, I only deleted the comments which is actually spam (e.x. reply a lot of posts with only interjection).
Imho anything but offensive, post containing personal information of poster or any other people and spam should not be deleted, it doesn't mean you can't send warnings to posters or ban them.
But spams will flood the comments page..
fireattack, it's the thing we discussing on the IRC.
go on

I'm deleting only spams & flames.
when s/he post personal info, I just send a PM to delete it, not delete by mod power.
if it causes a problem to her/him, it's not the thing we should care.
we aren't his/her parent.
midzki said:
if it causes a problem to her/him, it's not the thing we should care.
we aren't his/her parent.
But it will cause a problem for admin2.
ah :D
then this case, I'll dell it immediately.
@ gohanrice

I think I get what the problem is now. I should have figured it seeing how long I've been confronted with bad RAM, but the symptoms are so diverse it's hard to figure out sometimes.
You see, from time to time, mostly if my computer is left to run for more than 12 hours (on rare occasions even less, lasting for a few days, then back to the 12 hour limit or more), my RAM gets faulty and produces errors and memory corruption everywhere. This is my third set under warranty (first set was even worse, second set was the same), and since the problem can be resolved fairly quickly just by shutting down the computer and turning it back on again (restart won't work), I won't change it again for another defective pair unless this one really starts to annoy the hell out of me. Since it has lifetime warranty, I have no worries there. :P

Anyway, I think the problem may be due to this, as I see the browser and Windows Photo Gallery now being able to display the pics I couldn't before. Some pics alternate between being able to display and not in the browser right now (mostly a matter of chance), and the 10k x 10k pics still won't display, but that's expected.

This is just short on the heels of a fresh shut down and boot up again, so it may either be because of more stable RAM or because the browser was restarted, thus using little resources (I tend to think it's the former).

No, I'm using Firefox, though I keep lots of tabs open usually and keep the browser running for a long period of time, even if I don't use it.

Please tell me, does post #67643 (the original) display correctly to you every time you open it?
order:mpixels -flash is the order of the resolution.
my 1.5 GB RAM can show every images with irfanview, but not tried on Opera browser I'm using.
gohanrice said:
Wow, 4GB and still having an issue?
It's quite possible - browsers are usually still 32bit, and as such, they can only use slightly less than 2GB of RAM. I imagine that most image loaders in browsers are pretty simple, and thus require a continuous chunk of memory to decode the image to, which can easily become a problem with large images (while the browser may only be using 100MB of those 2GB, these 100MB are in many small pieces scattered all over the place, which doesn't leave a hole big enough to fit the whole decompressed image into).
I also thought about the 32bit/2GB limit, but most pics don't even reach that much (Edit: I stand corrected, it seems there are pics occupying up to 890MB or RAM).

The problem most probably is, as you said, memory fragmentation. Guess that means that restarting the browser will make it work with some pics not previously showing, like I just experienced.
Cloud737 said:
@ gohanrice
Please tell me, does post #67643 (the original) display correctly to you every time you open it?
Yes it does, although Firefox process memory jumps to 894M when I scroll (and also if I switch tabs and then tab back into it). 32-bit Firefox on Windows 7 64-bit.

What brand/model of RAM do you have? 3 faulty sets kind of makes me want to steer clear of it.
Ouch, you're right. It jumped from 130MB to 880MB (what actions you take are irrelevant). Definitely RAM fragmentation as the cause if it tries to place the whole image in a contiguous part of memory. No wonder programs are having problems with it.

Strangely enough, it's Corsair, and they are renowned for making very good RAM modules. I still can't believe it to this day that I could get 3 faulty RAM sets in a row. Maybe it's my motherboard that's slowly killing it? But then the guys at service would've said my warranty is void, and I'm sure they've tested it thoroughly to see if I was at fault.
I guess I should be happy I have lifetime warranty. Still, there are times I'd prefer a 3 year warranty and a good ol' pair of stable RAM than lifetime warranty with frequent replacements.
Corsair is usually a pretty good brand. A couple friends swear by the Dominator line. Not sure what's up, but might want to check and see if the RAM's memory timings match up to the timings specified in your motherboard's BIOS. It should be automatic, but I've seen instances where it's been completely off and started screwing up systems.
Yes, I thought so too. And I have the XMS2 Dominator (with DHX). The memory is excellent in every way (especially the design, love that), and I still stand by the product, though I'm a bit disappointed about these strange errors (again, all that's needed is a shut-down and boot-up, and everything's fine for another 12 hours).

I looked at the timings and set them to manual since the mobo (mmmm... moebo! XD) would set them too lax (5-5-5-18 instead of 5-5-5-15 @ 1066 Mhz as advertised). Even if I let them lax as the mobo "auto-defects" :P, it still happens.
I even tried 5-5-5-15 @ 800 Mhz, and it still does it.