Logo by Pauldelbrot - Contribute your own Logo!

END OF AN ERA, FRACTALFORUMS.COM IS CONTINUED ON FRACTALFORUMS.ORG

it was a great time but no longer maintainable by c.Kleinhuis contact him for any data retrieval,
thanks and see you perhaps in 10 years again

this forum will stay online for reference
News: Support us via Flattr FLATTR Link
 
*
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register. August 15, 2022, 12:20:39 PM


Login with username, password and session length


The All New FractalForums is now in Public Beta Testing! Visit FractalForums.org and check it out!


Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down
  Print  
Share this topic on DiggShare this topic on FacebookShare this topic on GoogleShare this topic on RedditShare this topic on StumbleUponShare this topic on Twitter
Author Topic: Buddhabrot fractals  (Read 8915 times)
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pauldelbrot
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 2592



pderbyshire2
« Reply #60 on: May 24, 2010, 10:43:10 PM »

This is frankly unbelievable. One of you even photoshopped an image to make it look like they'd successfully loaded it in Firefox? All to avoid admitting that some incompatibility exists between Firefox and a PNG encoder they used?

And of course someone suggests that a "problem" exists at "my end", even though that's impossible -- I haven't made any peculiar changes to Firefox that could cause it to not decode PNGs properly, and the machine has plenty of memory and disk space. It's also clean of viruses and other such things.

Please, give it a rest. The PNG "contains errors". Firefox says so. So, just admit it and re-encode the darn thing already. The longer you spend defending the honor of your broken PNG encoder instead of fixing things, the longer the broken PNG sits there wasting space on the server and causing those who try to view it in FF to be unimpressed.
Logged

Sockratease
Global Moderator
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 3181



« Reply #61 on: May 24, 2010, 10:45:08 PM »

One of you even photoshopped an image to make it look like they'd successfully loaded it in Firefox?

 rolling on floor laughing rolling on floor laughing rolling on floor laughing

Now you're just being silly...
Logged

Life is complex - It has real and imaginary components.

The All New Fractal Forums is now in Public Beta Testing! Visit FractalForums.org and check it out!
Pauldelbrot
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 2592



pderbyshire2
« Reply #62 on: May 24, 2010, 10:54:21 PM »

Two pieces of additional info:

1. The PNG will view in the Windows previewer, so the PNG isn't completely trashed, just not compatible with Firefox's decoder.

2. Here is my own "photographic evidence" that I am not lying. Of course, anyone who views this thread cannot be sure which image was photoshopped and which was not ... until they try visiting that URL with FF 3.6.3 themselves, and then they'll know. smiley

Logged

Sockratease
Global Moderator
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 3181



« Reply #63 on: May 24, 2010, 11:04:54 PM »

Nobody here has ever accused you of lying, and nobody has ever lied to you about this!

My screenshot was not photoshopped - I don't even Own photoshop!!

Nobody ever doubted that there was a problem with you viewing the image - but nobody else has the error problem you describe.

I fail to see why you are taking this personally.

The image shows up Perfectly here, and for others.

Perhaps it's an issue with your ISP?  22 MB images are kind of rare online - maybe there is a limit in place somehow?

Or maybe it's an issue with johandebock's site and your server?

Since permission was given, I'll upload it to my own site and you can try to view it there.

Here:  http://www.sockrateaze.com/stuff/BuddhaBrotMT-8000x8000-002-by-johandebock.png

Give that link a try.  We really are trying to help you out here (and I honestly thought you were joking with the comment about "photoshopping" a screenshot).

Either way - there is some sort of problem, and it would be interesting to try to solve it without accusations of lying and faking images!


EDIT - Is it possible you just have a bad install of Firefox?  Re-installing the program may help!
« Last Edit: May 24, 2010, 11:52:56 PM by Sockratease » Logged

Life is complex - It has real and imaginary components.

The All New Fractal Forums is now in Public Beta Testing! Visit FractalForums.org and check it out!
cbuchner1
Fractal Phenom
******
Posts: 443


« Reply #64 on: May 24, 2010, 11:43:27 PM »


I suspect the PC may have run out of virtual memory in the PNG decoder.
Logged
Pauldelbrot
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 2592



pderbyshire2
« Reply #65 on: May 25, 2010, 06:47:15 AM »

First of all, one of the two screenshots must be doctored, unless Firefox 3.6.3's PNG decoder does not respond deterministically to a particular PNG file. Moreover, for your theory to be correct (it consistently fails on my machine but actually works for everyone else) it would have to consult not even an RNG but some stable feature of the machine it's running on, like its MAC address, to decide whether that particular image should be decoded or treated as "having errors".

Tell me, now, why Mozilla would design Firefox to check the MAC address (or whatever other equally-irrelevant stable feature of the machine it's running on) to decide whether to decode a PNG normally or to falsely state that the PNG file contains errors? This seems to amount to a conspiracy theory with no apparent motive and a particularly implausible villain, whereas someone being embarrassed by their encoder not being compatible with a browser with significant market share, wanting to pretend it isn't so, and a couple other people jumping misguidedly to their defense is far more plausible.

As for the notion that it's running out of virtual memory, or anything similar:

1. I viewed another 8000x8000 png with FF recently without issue, on the same hardware and with the same copy of FF.

2. The hardware in question has 3GB RAM.

3. 22 megs is a joke compared to 3GB.

4. The error is not "out of memory", it is "the file contains errors". It clearly indicates that the FILE ITSELF is wrong, not something else in the decoder's environment, such as the available memory.

5. There is very little data downloaded before it gives up and says the file contains errors. To judge by the screenshot, it reads the PNG header, determines the width and height and the scale-factor to use initially when displaying it, then sees something in the PNG header that it doesn't like, closes the stream, and reports an error. This points to a header that is, according to the decoder in FF, malformed -- probably because it uses some newer PNG feature that FF's decoder doesn't support. This fits the incompatibility theory much better than it fits any theory that makes the problem somehow local to my machine. Out of memory, in particular, would manifest with it spending a while chugging downloading data and then horking it all up at some point with an error message saying "out of memory" or even an outright crash.

Once again, I invite skeptical readers to click the link in FF 3.6.3 themselves and see what happens. I also invite them to examine the rightmost taskbar button in the screenshot purporting to show FF 3.6.3 successfully decoding the png at issue. It does seem to be true that the user who posted that screenshot does not, specifically, use Adobe Photoshop ... smiley
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 06:50:43 AM by Pauldelbrot » Logged

Tglad
Fractal Molossus
**
Posts: 703


WWW
« Reply #66 on: May 25, 2010, 08:16:47 AM »

it works in Chrome  tease
Logged
aluminumstudios
Conqueror
*******
Posts: 135


« Reply #67 on: May 25, 2010, 09:37:01 AM »

This is silly.  Computers always have been and always will be full of quirks and bugs and incompatibilities even when things are supposed to follow "standards."  Sometimes it's a software flaw, sometimes it can be local condition that exists on one machine such as a bad cached file, file locked by a process, etc., etc.

If you can't view an image in your web browser, right-click->save and view it in your favorite viewer or troubleshoot by updating software/clearing caches/testing with alternative browsers/etc.  It's silly to stick to a position that the problem must be external in nature.

Having worked in the I.T. world for many years I have seen tons of problems that shouldn't be and I know that spending too much time focused on what one wants a problem to be rather than what it possibly really is only brings frustration and not information exchange.

If a browser isn't displaying an image that it should I would recommend disabling all plug-ins/add-ons, rebooting, and clearing the cache as well as trying another browser as a control.

EDIT:  
4. The error is not "out of memory", it is "the file contains errors". It clearly indicates that the FILE ITSELF is wrong, not something else in the decoder's environment, such as the available memory.

Firefox may not be able to distinguish between errors reading a file from a site, and errors reading data for display from it's local cache or memory.  Errors of this nature can quite generic with the true cause existing a possible variety of points along the download/decode/display chain.

EDIT2:  Another thought - right-click, save the file, then try to file > open from Firefox and see if it can open the file.  Also check that the downloaded file can be opened by another image viewer.  This may give clues to the location and nature of the problem.
« Last Edit: May 25, 2010, 09:45:48 AM by aluminumstudios » Logged
Sockratease
Global Moderator
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 3181



« Reply #68 on: May 25, 2010, 11:41:10 AM »

First of all, one of the two screenshots must be doctored...

So you admit to doctoring your screenshot now??  Mine is not doctored in the way you say (just reduced in size, no image editing) so that leaves only yours as "one of the two" which "must" be doctored!

...I also invite them to examine the rightmost taskbar button in the screenshot purporting to show FF 3.6.3 successfully decoding the png at issue. It does seem to be true that the user who posted that screenshot does not, specifically, use Adobe Photoshop ... smiley

Yup - I stated the shot was reduced in resolution by 50% - How else can one do that without Arcsoft Photo Studio 5??  It's IMPOSSIBLE to shrink an oversized image with any other software.

{Right Back Atcha, Sweetie}  (Yes - that was Sarcasm above!)

I did not post a 1600 pixel wide image out of courtesy to the forum, not to mess with you.  Shrinking the image was done with my image editor - and I was joking earlier about your incorrect use of the Noun photoshop as a Verb.  Lighten up.

I suggest you stop making accusations or else you may have some levied at you!!   police  

The problem *IS* at your end.  If you don't believe it - get out of the house for a change of view.  Go to the local library, and try to view it on their machine  (if they don't have firefox, ask them to install it).

Or ask one of your friends to try it.  Or stop by any other place that offers public web access (colleges, internet cafe's, etc).

You can't prove anything from just a single machine.  That's why we are trying to help you, but if you insist on being confrontational - you will find people less willing to help you.

Did you even try a fresh install of firefox on your machine as I suggested?

Or viewing it on the other site to which I uploaded it?

Or are you just being confrontational for the fun of it??  
Logged

Life is complex - It has real and imaginary components.

The All New Fractal Forums is now in Public Beta Testing! Visit FractalForums.org and check it out!
johandebock
Explorer
****
Posts: 59



WWW
« Reply #69 on: May 25, 2010, 01:01:31 PM »

Or are you just being confrontational for the fun of it??  

That is probably the case.

If not just try to download the image and try to view it with for example xnview:
http://www.xnview.com/
And show us the result.
Logged

stigomaster
Guest
« Reply #70 on: May 25, 2010, 09:27:43 PM »

I just have to step in here. I'm using Firefox 3.6.3, in Ubuntu, and it views the image without problems. Here's another screenshot, scaled down 50% in GIMP. I deliberately put the mouse between the "About" window and the image because that would have been difficult to edit in in GIMP or similar.
Logged
mephisto69
Guest
« Reply #71 on: May 25, 2010, 10:22:14 PM »

I don't have any problems with Firefox, either...   Using FF 3.6.3 on a Win7 x64 machine and I can also see the image fine, so it is definitely not an issue with my install of Firefox.  I would also suggest a re-installation - that would be the quickest way to tell whether it's a problem with Firefox, or if it's because of some other issue?
Logged
Pauldelbrot
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 2592



pderbyshire2
« Reply #72 on: May 25, 2010, 11:42:54 PM »

So you admit to doctoring your screenshot now??

I most certainly do not. I just point out that either one of them is photoshopped or there's some weird conspiracy at Mozilla to make PNGs with certain headers not view in Firefox on computers with certain MAC addresses (or something equally outlandish).

Quote
I was joking earlier about your incorrect use

No. Nothing about me is "incorrect".

Quote
The problem *IS* at your end.

It's the same exact software, same exact version, viewing the same exact file. The results of that should be deterministic. You are claiming that they are not -- that is, that Firefox's behavior when viewing a PNG does not solely depend on the PNG bit-sequence, the Firefox binary, and whether sufficient memory is available to hold the image in RAM. I find this claim dubious, for why would Mozilla program it to behave in such a manner? Consider also that if your theory were correct it could not be an accidental, innocent bug either, because an accidental bug would result in random or unpredictable behavior of some sort, not a systematic dependency on something like the machine's MAC address. For the latter to occur a programmer at Mozilla would have to have specifically included code in the PNG decoder that looks at the machine's MAC address, and I cannot think of any legitimate reason they would have to do so.

Quote
You can't prove anything from just a single machine.  That's why we are trying to help you, but if you insist on being confrontational

Pardon me, but in my opinion what's confrontational is implying someone is a liar and then later calling him "incorrect" and "confrontational" when he reports, in good faith, corruption in a file hosted on a site.
Logged

kram1032
Fractal Senior
******
Posts: 1863


« Reply #73 on: May 26, 2010, 12:04:07 AM »

The results of that should be deterministic.

Yay, Firefox is a fractal cheesy

I can't help it but I smell hacked spamburgers...
Logged
cKleinhuis
Administrator
Fractal Senior
*******
Posts: 7044


formerly known as 'Trifox'


WWW
« Reply #74 on: May 26, 2010, 12:03:52 PM »

i will have to close down this thread, because it is way off its original theme, and
i dont really know where to break this thread down into its 2 parts ...

i havent read it completely, i just see that it is an ever longer thread, that is not following its main theme

Logged

---

divide and conquer - iterate and rule - chaos is No random!
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6   Go Down
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Related Topics
Subject Started by Replies Views Last post
3D Buddhabrot 3D Fractal Generation David Makin 1 2875 Last post January 12, 2008, 02:36:31 PM
by twinbee
Low iteration anti-buddhabrot Mandelbrot & Julia Set ker2x 1 1517 Last post December 30, 2009, 03:51:32 AM
by ker2x
A generic name for buddhabrot-like fractal ? General Discussion ker2x 3 1748 Last post January 02, 2010, 06:24:55 PM
by Melancholyman
buddhabrot in fortran :) Programming « 1 2 » ker2x 21 5808 Last post June 10, 2010, 03:26:00 AM
by decayer
BuddhaBrot! Images Showcase (Rate My Fractal) « 1 2 » emmmile 17 3446 Last post June 22, 2010, 11:53:15 PM
by Nahee_Enterprises

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS! Dilber MC Theme by HarzeM
Page created in 0.183 seconds with 24 queries. (Pretty URLs adds 0.011s, 2q)