Multi Commander > Support and Feedback
Bug in image viewer
nietrupek:
--- Quote from: Mathias (Author) on October 02, 2026, 07:04:43 ---[IFD1 (thumbnail)] at offset 64, 3 entries
0x0103 Compression LONG count=1 inline (6,) <-- WRONG TYPE, expected SHORT
0x0201 JPEGInterchangeFormat LONG count=1 inline (106,)
0x0202 JPEGInterchangeFormatLength LONG count=1 inline (1891,)
--- End quote ---
All clear now. I simply misunderstood your previous post. I was looking for KEY 0x0103 as LONG while you meant its VALUE (6). So, your AI was right. Here they are:
00000a0 00 03 01 04 00 01 00 00 00 06 00 00 00 01 02 04
00000b0 00 01 00 00 00 6a 00 00 00 02 02 04 00 01 00 00
If someone is interested how to repair such files: as JPEG compression is lossy, we must re-write matadata only while leaving image data intact.
This command reads metadata and writes them back:
c:> exiftool -all= -tagsfromfile @ -all:all -unsafe -icc_profile plomyki.jpg
The result is attached. Viewer shows it properly.
Thank you for your support. I definitely learned something new.
Mathias (Author):
Microsoft reader is a bit to strict. yes reading a value that is expected as SHORT as LONG can be a problem. But only if the value read actual is larger then MAX SHORT value. and this value can only be 0-6
But I guess Microsoft just follow the spec very strict.
However for the next version.. If it fails to loading an image because of metadata.. It will retry loading it without metadata.
nietrupek:
--- Quote from: Mathias (Author) on October 03, 2026, 11:36:26 ---Microsoft reader is a bit to strict. yes reading a value that is expected as SHORT as LONG can be a problem. But only if the value read actual is larger then MAX SHORT value. and this value can only be 0-6
--- End quote ---
No, value can be even MAX_SHORT - 1. This is the best and most detailed documentation I am aware of:
https://exiftool.sourceforge.net/TagNames/EXIF.html#Compression
It was created in 2005 and is refined and updated for 21 years.
--- Quote from: Mathias (Author) on October 03, 2026, 11:36:26 ---But I guess Microsoft just follow the spec very strict.
However for the next version.. If it fails to loading an image because of metadata.. It will retry loading it without metadata.
--- End quote ---
Kudos to Microsoft. They SHOULD be strict. Years ago they added their own "enhancenents" everywhere, making a mess in programming world. Glad they stopped.
If you accept the suggestion: please show at least warning informing user that his file is problematic. If not, even a red dot in menu area would be better than nothing.
nietrupek:
Is there any restriction on image dimension in WIC? I have some very tall images and all but one are displayed by image viewer:
610x10789 - OK
540x16635 - fails
I don't think it is metada problem because rewriting file using my favourite tool (exiftool) doesn't help.
WebView displays image correctly.
Mathias (Author):
I don't this so as long as it fits into memory.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[*] Previous page
Go to full version