P: Jpg exposes bugs in QImage and ZoomBrowser

Report · Jun 22, 2011

Since a recent upgrade to CS5 (I guess 12.0.4 and certainly the current version) JPG files I've saved take about 1000x times longer to open in Canon ZoomBrowser 6.7.2.33 (the latest version). When I say 1000x I mean 1000x. Recent jpg are taking over 30s to open a single image! I raised this with Canon sending then old and new jpg (created using an older version of CS5 and the latest) from the same CR2 file. They said:

Extracting the EXIF data from both the good and bad images we found that the JPEGInterchangeFormatLength (JpegIFByteCount) value is bigger in the bad files.
JPEGInterchangeFormatLength shows the number of bytes of JPEG compressed thumbnail data.

We believe that this higher number is causing the problem as the ZoomBrowser EX application is trying to use the EXIF data to generate the thumbnail images, and to display the files. We were able to reproduce the issue in our test environment.

We would recommend you to contact the Adobe support in order to find out if there were any related updates released in the last few weeks that possibly was installed on your computer manually or automatically.

Please can you investigate what changed recently in CS5. And how I rescue my recent jpg images that I've needed to create for my clients. If you need the images that I sent Canon for your investigation then please let me know.

Report · Sep 14, 2011

You are belaboring it, and continuing your attempt to shift blame onto Photoshop for the bugs in your software (or just your misunderstanding of file format standards and how to parse file formats correctly).

Report · Oct 14, 2011

I have a problem with pse 10
When I have processed an image in pse 10 and store in as a jpg-file,the canon zoombrowser has big problems with showing it (it takes appr. 20sec). If I then open the same image in pse 8 an then save again in jpg the canon zoombrowser has no problems with showing it. Can anyone tell me what to do ?

Report · Oct 14, 2011

Talk to Canon about getting an updated version of Zoombrowser that fixes the bugs.

Report · Dec 29, 2011

Hi, I've got an issue as above since changing from APE8 to 10

The problem occurs when opening a folder containing an edited image or images in Canon's Zoombrowser software which I use for collecting, collating and viewing images.

Problem is only when opening folders containing images (and the images themselves) which have been edited in APE10. Unedited folders and pictures or those edited with other software (including elements 8) open immediately as usual.

However, if a folder contains an APE 10 edited image, or images, it takes about 30 seconds before the folder completely opens for each picture it contains that's been edited in APE 10. So for example, a folder with 1 APE 10 image takes about 30 seconds to open, while a folder containing 4 APE 10 images takes 2 minutes to open and a folder with 6 APE10 images takes about 3 minutes etc.. If I then want to view an APE 10 edited image, it then takes about another 30 seconds to open that particular image.

As stated, never had the problem viewing images edited with APE 8 or other editing software.

Picture sizes (all jpegs) are the same and if I edit in APE 8, all is still fine in opening and viewing through Zoombrowser, the problem only occurs with images that have been through APE10.

This was the response from Canon:

"This still reads as an Adobe issue due to the fact that you state APE 8 was compatible with Zoombrowser and the problems occur since upgrading to APE 10. The only suggestion I have is make sure you are using the latest version of Zoombrowser. As for the compatibility issue with APE 10, I am unable to offer support on third party software."

Any help would be much appreciated

Thank you

Report · Dec 29, 2011

See previous comments. Canon needs to debug their code, or contact Adobe and we can help them debug their code.

Report · Dec 30, 2011

Technic al BS aside I have windows 7 new adobe elements 10 and zoom browser 6.7 (newest).
Don't care about who or what causes this issue but now I have it and I can't use my zoom browser as I have in the past as it's too slow to load adobe edited images. As a simpleminded consumer I just want this fixed - don't care by whom - seems to me that the company that helps me 1st wins my dollars in the future. Who wants my money most?

Report · Dec 30, 2011

Again, Adobe can't do a thing about the bugs in Canon's code. Adobe has investigated and found nothing wrong on our side, but we don't know the nature of the bug in Canon's code, nor can we change Canon's code.
Adobe cannot help you fix bugs in Canon's product.
Canon is the only company that can fix the bugs in Canon's code.

Report · Dec 31, 2011

So, how do we get the two firms talking to each other?

Adobe seem to be putting the ball in Canon's court and are asking us to get Canon to contact Adobe. Canon point blank say it's an Adobe issue as earlier versions are OK.

Seems to me that given there are more than one or two Canon users out there in the big world who also use Adobe software and are going to be deeply frustrated by this. Adobe are coming across as a little more user friendly than Canon at present, so how about Adobe contacts Canon so that the two tech teams can talk to each other and sort it out?

In the mean time, I'll pin this stream to an email to Canon and see what they come back with.

Report · Dec 31, 2011

Canon told me a month ago that a fix was being planned. Here's what their Canon Consumer Support told me:

Sorry for the delay in answering your last correspondence, and thank you for the detailed report that you provided, the information you supplied to us was very useful it allowed us to use the system as you would and doing so we managed to replicate your problem.
I then escalated this to our HQ in Europe who intern escalated it to our quality assurance in Tokyo. The carried out an investigation and have confirmed that there is an issue.
The found out that Photoshop CS5 add an ICC profile to the thumbnail during this process which was not done in previous versions like CS4 etc. our QA division have informed us that they will implement a fix when they release the next version of software. Until then they advise us to inform you of a work around, the work around, please use the “convert and save” feature as this will not add the ICC profile to the thumbnail.

Please check our download centre to see when the next update to the software is release which would have the fix.

Report · Dec 31, 2011

OK Great, do you know if this is likely to fix similar issue in APE 10 by any chance?

"Convert & Save"? Is that something in CS5?

I have Zoombrowser 6.7.2 installed, still Canon's latest version...

Report · Dec 31, 2011

We keep trying to contact Canon, we send in bug reports, but we don't hear anything back. We've provided more than enough evidence to identify this as a bug in Canon's code.

Report · Dec 31, 2011

That's good to hear. (even if indirectly)

Report · Dec 31, 2011

Chris. Any indication when you guys (Adobe) will fix the file corruption bug? It's been months and no sign of this simple fix. The very fact (above) that you are embedding an ICC profile into a thumbnail constitutes file corruption since the JPEG spec is very clear about the fact that embedded thumbnails should be a simple image stream. It is also very specific in the fact that no JFIF/app markers are allowed in that area of the JPEG stream (the thumbnail) which is why a few programs are having problems with the corruption that results from embedding an ICC profile where it doesn't belong. Canon needs to do the same thing I did in Qimage: improve the code so that embedding an ICC profile in the wrong place doesn't cause an issue... BUT Adobe needs to hold up their end too. You're still producing JPEG files that don't follow the standard. It's not surprising that some programs have various issues when encountering a non-compliant JPEG. Yes, Canon software, Qimage (already fixed), some email software, etc. could handle the aberration better, but the best solution is to fix this at the source: fix the Adobe code that is embedding ICC profiles where they clearly do not belong.

Report · Dec 31, 2011

There is no corruption - just sometimes including the profile in the thumbnail. Yes, poorly written JPEG parsers are hitting problems -- as they do every time something minor changes in the way we write files. And yes, we've been testing a fix for a while -- but such a minor issue won't be included in a dot release and waits for the next major release.

Report · Dec 31, 2011

Minor issue for some...
Could you send those on this message board the fix when it arrives? We'll test it really well for you!
Bill

Report · Dec 31, 2011

The only thing that I see that is poor or "poorly written" is the code that is generating the corrupted JPEG's, and the fact that the problem has gone 4 months without a fix. The problem with the other software (what you call the poorly written parsers) is one of *error correction* because they are not properly handling an error when being fed a JPEG that does not follow JPEG standards. A JPEG that has an ICC profile embedded in the thumbnail is corrupted because embedding *ANY* JFIF markers inside a thumbnail is a violation of the standards. My recommendation if you are still claiming that a JPEG with an ICC profile embedded in the thumb is not corrupted: look it up. Learn the standards. Then follow them... rather than trying to create your own.

Report · Dec 31, 2011

"poorly written" applies to code that claims to read JPEG but does not parse the JPEG structure correctly, or is thrown into bad states by perfectly valid JPEG files.
Again, there is no real problem in Photoshop - the files are still valid. The minor issue in Photoshop will be fixed, but it is so minor that it should not be included in a dot release.
And I work with the standards folks quite a bit - their judgement was "it's not optimal, but not a problem."

Report · Jan 01, 2012

I'll make this my last post since I really came here to find out when the problem in CS5 would be fixed and I guess you sorta answered that: "in the next major release"... whenever that will be.

I also realize that you will continue to claim that CS5 created JPEG files are "perfectly fine", so I'll just leave you with the actual specs. Not only are they not "perfectly fine" but they are in direct violation of the standards. I understand that Adobe likes to add their own "extensions" to a standard sometimes but this doesn't even fall into that category. Since the files are non-compliant, rather than "perfectly fine", we have to call them one of two things: (1) corrupted or (2) not a JPEG file (some other undefined format).

From the JPEG/JFIF specification, JFIF Extension: Thumbnail Coded Using JPEG, I quote: "no “JFIF” or “JFXX” marker segments shall be present".

From the EXIF specification, section 4.5.5 Basic Structure of Thumbnail Data, I quote: "No APPn marker, COM marker, nor restart marker is recorded in the JPEG stream."

So no matter which way you decide to embed your thumbnail(s) (JFIF or EXIF), embedding of an ICC profile in those thumbnail(s) is specifically forbidden. It's not that it's just an "extra" or not accounted for by the format: that would be fine if the file structure was adhered to. This is a case of clear violation of the standards as they (JFIF/EXIF) are both very specific that such markers "shall not" be present in the thumbnail JPEG stream. Such markers are to be tied only to the main JPEG stream to avoid "nesting" issues like the ones experienced by Canon's software and Qimage. Sure, they could handle the ERROR better. Qimage does (did 4 months ago), Canon says they will, but that does not change the fact that this is first and foremost an Adobe problem for creating non-compliant JPEG files. This problem would not exist if the Adobe software created JPEG files that comply with standards.

Report · Jan 01, 2012

Yes, the extra profile does violate the strict specification. But it doesn't break any correctly written parsers.

There was no "nesting" issue -- simply bugs in the code in QImage and Canon's zoombrowser where they failed to parse the JPEG stream correctly. The bugs existed in those products independent of Adobe's minor bug, and could have been exposed by files from other manufacturers. Given the nature of the bug in QImage (scanning for tags that look like a profile instead of parsing the file structure to find the profile for the image), it could easily have been triggered even by 100% spec. compliant files (and may have been without people noticing the pattern causing it).

And, again, any change Photoshop makes to files will end up breaking some poorly written code, somewhere. If applications are not parsing the file format correctly, then they will get tripped up even by completely valid changes to the files. And there are so many different file parsers out there, that a few are almost guaranteed to break with any given change.

Report · Jan 02, 2012

OK - so to work around this issue in Elements 10 I am not saving the thunbnail data via unchecking the box in preferences.
"Thumbnail Saves thumbnail data for the file. This option is available when the Ask When Saving option for Image Previews is set in the Preferences dialog box."
Does anyone know if this will cause me issues using the photo in the future?
Thanks,
Bill

Report · Jan 02, 2012

No idea, most the above is beyond my ken but thanks for that work around Bill

Report · Jan 05, 2012

Hi,

I have found this same problem with PSE 10 simply with a JPG.

My test was to take the same JPG image and open it with PSE 9 and PSE 10 (not at the same time of course). I then did a Save as without making any changes and with using the same defaults (slight name change).

The PSE 10 causes a delay and the PSE 9 doesn't.

I can understand that there may well be a problem with ZoomBrowser (as other browsers work OK) but why the change in format between PSE9 & PSE 10?

Brian

Report · Jan 05, 2012

A minor issue in the JPEG files written by Photoshop exposed a bug in Canon's Zoombrowser and QImage. QImage has fixed their bug, and Canon is working on theirs.

Report · Jan 05, 2012

Accepted that other software may be at fault as well but are Adobe working on a fix to their software?

Report · Jan 05, 2012

Yes, Adobe is working on a fix to the minor issue that triggered the bugs in the other software. But it is not a big priority for Adobe because it is a very minor issue, and the other software really had bugs in it.