I have a problem and it definitely seems to be PixInsight

[Terry Danks]

All this sounds nuts but I am at a loss. I'll make it as short as I can.

A short time ago I started to have trouble with jpg uploads to my personal website.
Calls to both my ISP and web hosting service went nowhere. All was fine as far as they were concerned.

The manifestation of the problem is that jpg uploads to the site either never finishing the upload or, if it does finish , the image will not display at all. Two FTP clients verify the files do reach the server. Sometimes they are a lot smaller than they should be. Occasionally they seem to be the right size but still will not display. Usually the uploads will not finish . . . the server keeps trying over and over.

OK, I have a problem with my web site.
Well, then I find I have the same trouble uploading to Flickr.

Then it seems to be only astro images I am having trouble with and then, only very recent astro pictures at that. You get the picture. Only since I started using PI has this problem become evident.

I have checked this out. PI is “poison” as far as being able to upload my images! It doesn't seem to matter if I use PI to make the final save as a jpg or save as a 16 bit tif, transfer to Photoshop and use PS to make the save as a jpg. The result is the same . . . bad!

I know this sounds crazy! But does any one have any ideas as to what can be going wrong?

I have checked this out pretty thoroughly. I have no explanation for it but the conclusion seems pretty inescapable.

Help, please!

Terry Danks

[georg.viehoever]

I have never seen something like this, and jpg definitely still works for me.
- Which OS?
- Which version of PI?
- Do you run a virus scanner?
- When did you re-install the software?
- ...
Mysterious.
Georg

[Terry Danks]

I have never seen something like this, and jpg definitely still works for me.
- Which OS?
- Which version of PI?
- Do you run a virus scanner?
- When did you re-install the software?
- ...
Mysterious.
Georg

I was afraid of this. 

Version: 1.7
OS: Win7 64 bit
Installed: Sept 29

I checked the properties of files with and without being edited/processed by PI.
Only difference I can see is that images NOT processed by PI have "Pictures saved with settings embedded" in the title and subject properties. Screenshot of properties  http://danks.netfirms.com/capturepi.jpg

[Terry Danks]

I've done more work on this.
I uninstalled PI and re-installed it. Same result.
It's DEFINITELY PI! 

[georg.viehoever]

And it does not happen while PI is uninstalled?

[Juan Conejero]

I have a problem and it definitely seems to be PixInsight

So now we have something in common

Seriously, there's nothing in PixInsight and in JPEG images generated by PixInsight capable of such an exploit. For example, our website is composed of thousands of JPEG images that have of course been created with PixInsight, and we have absolutely no problem to upload and browse our site (other than some issues with obsolete versions of Internet Explorer, but that's a different story).

So the only helpful thing that I can figure out right now is the rather standard: please upload a couple of those evil JPEG images and I'll investigate them. Or since you can't upload them, better send them by email to support<at_sign>pixinsight<dot>com.

[Terry Danks]

Thank-you, Juan:

More investigation has shown:

1/ If I process in PI on my laptop, there is no problem.
2/ The problem only occurs on my desktop machine. Both are Win 7 64 bit.
3/ The problem only occurs with files processed in PI.

I will send by email two files. One uploads and shows the correct size on the server . . . but will not display in either FF or IE browsers.
The other will not upload at all and generates the following error message in Filezilla:

Could not write to transfer socket: ECONNRESET - Connection reset by peer
Response:   450 Transfer aborted. Link to file server lost
Error:   File transfer failed after transferring 262,144 bytes in 19 seconds

Terry Danks

[georg.viehoever]

262,144 bytes are extactly 2**18. Coincidence?
Georg

[Terry Danks]

262,144 bytes are extactly 2**18. Coincidence?
Georg

It's not always that figure, Georg. One I tried earlier today while experimenting bonked out at 327,680. Not a nice round power of 2.

Seems I'm just not going to be able to use PI on this particular machine.

Terry

[georg.viehoever]

327,680 is 50000 (hexadecimal). So not really random again. My impression would be that your machine has a fundamental problem, either a virus, a corrupted library or even a hardware issue (e.g. random memory failures) that for some reason show up mainly with PI. If this was a problem caused by PI, more people in this forum would have it.

If you have the opportunity to do so:
- run a memory test program
- run your virus checker (I assume you have one ?!?)
- reinstall everything (including Windows)

Georg

[Philippe B.]

Hi Terry
On the JPEG option panel of PI when you save an image, what parameter do you check ?

JPEG compression
o Quality in % :
o Optimized coding
o Progressive 

Embedded data
o ICC profile
o Metadata
o Thumbnail image

Did you test some configuration ? Like just JPEG compression at 100% and nothing else
If you select ICC profile, which profile do you apply in the profile menu ?

It is very strange PI can cause this. The JPEG routine has not been reinvented and they use standard C++ routines.
I use PI since a while on win XP32, Win7 64, Mac OSX 32/64, and I never got a problem like this. I save many JPEG.

very strange...
Is it possible for you to install PI on another computer and redo the test (jpg saving action)

regards
 

[Terry Danks]

Hi Phillipe:

It doesn't matter if I make the save to jpg with PI or not. In fact, I rarely do. I save in PI to a 16 bit tif and then open that in PS for final tweaking. The final save to jpg is almost always made in PS, not PI. But, it doesn't matter. Just letting the file even smell PI seems to be enough to cause the problem! 

I also have PI on my laptop. No problem with PI there at all. Of course I did not know that when I first posted about this. So it appears pretty certain there is something wonky with the desktop.
I have not the heart to rebuild the machine from scratch. I just use these machines and rather hate having to fiddle about with the things!

So, this problem will likely die when I get a new computer in the future. Until then I likely have to live with it. In all other respects that I know of, it is fine.

I will do a full scan but have precious little reason to think a virus is involved.

Thanks . . .

Terry