Version: 0.6.2 (using KDE 4.6.3) OS: Linux I can't edit canon 400D jpg files. When press F4 on picture, I can see "Failed to load image ... " in the editor windows and digikam(5432)/digikam (core) Digikam::DImgInterface::getImg: d->image is NULL in the console. Don't have problems with other jpgs I've tried. I use libjpeg-turbo-1.1.0-2.fc14.i686. Reproducible: Didn't try OS: Linux (i686) release 2.6.35.13-91.fc14.i686 Compiler: gcc
You use really 0.6.2 ? digiKam will support jpeg-turbo with next 2.0.0-beta6 (current code from git master repository) Gilles Caulier
No, I use code from git. I used the report bug dialog in digikam, which reported wrong version.
Can you provide a sample file? Could be a libjpeg-turbo issue.
I tried, but picture too big to atach. But it is not a problem with format. I copied the jpg to some subalbum and no problem, I can edit them, but in the old location still the same. I think that it might be some raw+jpgeg problem. With new set of files the same problem, but the first jpeg in album can be edited, the rest not :/
Send to me by private mail, I will copy it to our test images collection. If the mail is too large and rejected by your mail provider, there is good old Unix "split" to split it.
Test images are here: http://digikam3rdparty.free.fr/TEST_IMAGES/RAW/HORIZONTAL/IMG_8135.CR2 http://digikam3rdparty.free.fr/TEST_IMAGES/JPEG/Horizontal/IMG_8135.JPG
As expected, no problem with normal libjpeg. A libjpeg-turbo regression? I dont have access to a libjpeg-turbo system at the moment.
Same for me. I waiting next lead Mandriva update, but i'm not sure if jpegturbo will be integrated. Gilles Caulier
I forget to put the comment after sending the files. I was playing a bit with this problem and discovered that it only happened when the raw and jpeg was in the same directory after import. When I removed the raw files, I could edit the jpegs. It was not easy to reproduce, since after deleting all files and importing again, the problem didn't occure. I was playing a bit, but I'm not able to provide some steps how to reproduce it.
Bartek, This file still valid using 2.9.0 ? Gilles Caulier
I think that not valid