6.0.33 full size jpeg issue

duke_srg · Post by **duke_srg** » Sat Jul 16, 2011 2:52 pm

Just investigated that TwonkyMedia server are not able to present a full-size images under several conditions:
1. NOEMBEDDEDALBUMART is NOT set for selected media receiver type (otherwise thumbnails are transcoded from image itself, regardless of the image resolution)
2. only JPEGORG and JPG160x160 are enabled for transcoding (any additional transcoder value, for example most common 1920x1080 will force this resolution for excessive size images, see 4.)
3. image have an integrated thumbnail with resolution suitable for TwonkyMedia (i.e. JPEG from Canon have embedded thumbnails of 160x120 resolution which is extracted as JPG160x160 mentioned in 2.)
4. image have a resolution over 3165x4747 (don't ask me why, I've spent several hours investigating that. One pixel more in either direction and it happens. Most likely this is not limited by a linear dimension but by the resolution itself)

In that case one will have only a thumbnail image instead of original one i.e. have a "?scale=120x160" in the URL! Avoiding any one of the conditions will lead to proper functioning but in my case this is not acceptable because:
- I'm using QNAP as a home photo storage
- most photos have a resolution over 15Mp (which 3165x4747 is)
- most photos have a thumbnails
- server-side thumbnail extraction from jpeg is much faster than resizing it from an original image
- server-side transcoding images for lower resolution is consuming disk space and/or slower than transferring an original image to a media receiver (Well, at least my Samsung U32D5520 TV receives and processes 18Mp jpeg image much faster than Qnap 209 Pro II resizes it to FullHD resolution)

Twonky_Rick · Post by **Twonky_Rick** » Thu Jul 28, 2011 12:24 am

I've shared this post with our engineers and asked them to comment. When they respond, I'll post it here.

- Rick

Rick · Post by **Rick** » Tue Aug 09, 2011 9:14 am

Goodmorning,
I have the same problem. I try to display my high resolution photo's from my QNAP Pro 219+ using a HDI Dune Lite 53D on my television. I only get low resolution picture with a resolution of 160x120.

Adriano · Post by **Adriano** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 10:50 am

Hi,
Is there already a solution for this problem?
I've made a test with 2 jpeg files (1.JPG and 11.JPG):

1.JPG:
File name : 1.JPG
File size : 2928965 Bytes
MIME type : image/jpeg
Image size : 3240 x 4320
Camera make : Canon
Camera model : Canon PowerShot SX30 IS
Image timestamp : 2011:09:03 08:26:11
Image number :
Exposure time : 1/160 s
Aperture : F2.7
Exposure bias : 0 EV
Flash : No, compulsory
Flash bias :
Focal length : 4.3 mm
Subject distance:
ISO speed : 400
Exposure mode :
Metering mode : Multi-segment
Macro mode :
Image quality :
Exif Resolution : 3240 x 4320
White balance : Auto
Thumbnail : image/jpeg, 4047 Bytes
Copyright :
Exif comment :

-------------------------------------------------------------

11.JPG:
File name : 11.JPG
File size : 2661087 Bytes
MIME type : image/jpeg
Image size : 3648 x 2736
Camera make : Canon
Camera model : Canon PowerShot SX10 IS
Image timestamp : 2010:12:11 21:37:09
Image number : 100-2399
Exposure time : 1/8 s
Aperture : F3.5
Exposure bias : 0 EV
Flash : No, compulsory
Flash bias : 0 EV
Focal length : 8.7 mm
Subject distance: 544
ISO speed : 400
Exposure mode : Easy shooting (Auto)
Metering mode : Multi-segment
Macro mode : Off
Image quality : Fine
Exif Resolution : 3648 x 2736
White balance : Auto
Thumbnail : image/jpeg, 4899 Bytes
Copyright :
Exif comment :

-------------------------------------------------------
11.JPG works perfectly on my Samsung UE55D8000 and 1.JPG is displaying as 160x120.
But when I delete the Thumbnail from 1.JPG, then it works well, too.

Do you have an other workaround, which does not need to edit de images?
Perhaps something in the clients.db?

Twonky_Rick · Post by **Twonky_Rick** » Wed Sep 07, 2011 7:33 pm

I would suggest that you first try selected a device profile for another device and see if that helps. You'll probably have to restart the server after doing this.

Once you find one that works you can edit your device database to fix this problem.

Here is some background on a similar problem with another device that might shed some ligtht on this situation.

It appears there is no scaling engine available. Since the TV can only support up to a max resolution of 1920x1080. If the size of a photo is greater than this resolution, it will select a picture size of less than this value. As you can see from the options being given to the TV there are only two resolutions given as options to choose from, one that is larger than the max resolution and the smaller thumbnail. The TV is choosing the thumbnail.

Solution: Edit the client device from: TR:JPEG160x160,JPEG1920x1080
to TR:JPEG1920x1080

Again, this is just an example, you might have to try other settings.

I'm also resending your original e-mail to our engineers again, since I did not get a response the first time.

- Rick

Twonky_Rick · Post by **Twonky_Rick** » Thu Sep 08, 2011 10:37 pm

Here is some new input on this topic from one of our engineers:

We recently introduced a new config property named scalermaxpixels. It takes the maximum number of pixels that a picture may have in order to be sent to the photo scaler. If the property is set to 0, the behavior should be as it was before. We did a quick test and everything worked as expected. We tested this with pictures up to 5000x5000.

Please mess around with this and let us know if it helps you. Thanks.

Thanks to Burkhard for researching this issue!

- Rick

duke_srg · Post by **duke_srg** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:19 am

I've tried with "scalermaxpixels=5000x5000" and "scalermaxpixels=5000" via Twonky web browse with IE 9/Windows 7 (TR:JPEGORG,JPEG160x160) with no change.
Please advise what type of a value is expected in that parameter. I suppose that with JPEGORG there must not be any scale limitations on a server, but in fact it is.

Adriano · Post by **Adriano** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:34 am

Hi I've found a little workaround for me:
I've made a new section in the clients.db file located in /share/MD0_DATA/.qpkg/TwonkyMedia/resources/

>>
NA:Samsung TV UE55D8000
DD:Samsung DTV
XM:DLNA15
XM:FORCE_DURATION
XM:FORCE_4TH_FIELD
XM:AARES
DX:SAMSUNGFEATLIST
DB:FIX
MT:mkv video/x-mkv
MT:mpeg,mpeg2,vdr,spts,tp,ts video/mpeg
HP:chunked
MT:m4a audio/mp4
TR:JPEG160x160,JPEG640x480,JPEG1024x768,JPEG1920x1080,JPEGORG
XM:NOEMBEDDEDALBUMART
XM:EXACTPROTOCOLINFO
XM:RESTRICTEDUPLOAD
XM:VALIDATEDSEARCHCRITERIA
XM:VALIDATEDSORT
HH:CTT:
HP:chunked

And now it works!

duke_srg · Post by **duke_srg** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 10:39 am

[quote="Adriano"]
Hi I've found a little workaround for me:
And now it works!

[/quote]
Please notice what resolution is shown now on Samsung for the images which has a problem before? Is it native picture resolution or just 1920x1080?

UPD:
XM:NOEMBEDDEDALBUMART means that embedded jpeg thumbnails are ignored, so you have a full size jpeg and Twonky Server is always generating a thumbnail from a full image instead of using an integrated one. This is not as fast as it can be, but yes this is working

BTW can you see an mp3 ID3-embedded jpegs while plaing a track? I can only see while in track select mode on my U32D5520

duke_srg · Post by **duke_srg** » Fri Sep 09, 2011 4:12 pm

Tested once more with different scalermaxpixels on Samsung:
5000x5000 or 50x50 - even 10Mp images shown as 160x120 preview only
5000 or 50000000 - the same as no value set (10MP - OK, 15MP - wrong)
Seems like we localized this issue

Twonky_Rick · Post by **Twonky_Rick** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:22 pm

Status update:

We are upgrading one of the QNAP NAS devices we have in our Berlin offices with the same version of TwonkyServer so we can test picture support with the Samsung TVs and other devices.

Here are some additional comments from one of our engineers:

- The scalermaxitems property takes a single number. For example to allow a 5000x5000 picture the customer needs to set scalermaxitems=25000000

- The adaptation changes the were made above look strange to me; It's using a couple of adaptations we normally only use for the DLNA test toolâ€¦ But if something like this is needed we will find out and add it.

- Rick

duke_srg · Post by **duke_srg** » Tue Sep 13, 2011 10:42 pm

Checked with 25000000 - same result.
Just FYI, here is my config:
- QNAP TS-209 PRO II (ARM-based) Version 3.3.0 build 0924T
- TwonkyServer 6.0.34 (QNAP QPKG)
- JPEGs is from Canon EOS 50D 4752x3168 (with integrated 160x120 thumbnails)
- clients.db entries:
>>
NA:Samsung TV
DD:Samsung DTV
XM:DLNA15
XM:FORCE_DURATION
XM:FORCE_4TH_FIELD
XM:AARES
DX:SAMSUNGFEATLIST
DB:FIX
MT:mkv video/x-mkv
MT:mpeg,mpeg2,vdr,spts,tp,ts video/mpeg
HP:chunked
MT:m4a audio/mp4
TR:JPEGORG,JPEG160x160

>>
NA:Windows 7
DD:<modelName>Windows Media Player Sharing</modelName>
D2:<modelNumber>5.0</modelNumber>
HH:Windows-Media-Player
XM:AASCALE#JPEGORG
XM:DLNA15
DB:FIXPC
XM:UNLIMITED
TR:JPEGORG,JPEG160x160
DF:devicedescription-win7.xml

otomac · Post by **otomac** » Mon Sep 19, 2011 9:48 pm

With 6.0.34 I have the same issue. I can't see full images that are greater than 10MB only thumbnails. I have twonky on qnap ts-110 (1Gb LAN) and Samsung BD-C5500 and 32 LCD Samsung Tv.
Is there any solution or you are just working on it

Twonky_Rick · Post by **Twonky_Rick** » Fri Sep 23, 2011 8:39 pm

I'm going to ask one of our engineers to look at your device description and see if he has any suggestions for you.

- Rick

h.zoethout1 · Post by **h.zoethout1** » Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:50 pm

Hello,

Where can i find this file ??

clients.db file located in /share/MD0_DATA/.qpkg/TwonkyMedia/resources/

Twonky_Rick · Post by **Twonky_Rick** » Sun Oct 02, 2011 6:05 pm

Status Update:

We updated our QNAP TS-259 to TwonkyServer 6.0.34

We shared 3 very large pics
- 6048*4032
- 7304*5478
- 5616*3744

All of these were displayed were displayed fine on our Samsung C650 and B650 TVs. The original image was shown at the correct resolution.

We're going to try to get our hands on the D6200 to test with that. Maybe there is something else about these photos that is causing problems. Can someone send me a problem photo at tmm-beta@pv.com?

Also, if you have any other suggestions how we can reproduce this issue, please let us know.

- Rick

[P.S. Thanks to Florian for testing this issue]

duke_srg · Post by **duke_srg** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 6:40 am

Just emailed an example image. Please respond about the result.

otomac · Post by **otomac** » Mon Oct 03, 2011 8:45 pm

I also mailed the test image.

Twonky_Rick · Post by **Twonky_Rick** » Wed Oct 05, 2011 1:01 am

I only receieved one image, but that should be enough to test with. I've forwarded that to our engineers and will let you know if I hear back from them.

- Rick

duke_srg · Post by **duke_srg** » Mon Oct 24, 2011 12:26 pm

So is there any results on this issue?

Twonky_Rick · Post by **Twonky_Rick** » Wed Oct 26, 2011 6:31 pm

I just sent an e-mail to the person who was looking into this. I'll let you know when I hear back from them.

- Rick

Twonky_Rick · Post by **Twonky_Rick** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:08 pm

Here is the status update:

Good news. We were able to reproduce this issue with our Samsung D6200 TV, but we're not sure what is causing this. On our Samsung C650 TV everything is fine. This is not only an issue with the QNAP build but also with occurs with TwonkyServer 6.0.37 on Windows 7. We are doing more investigation of this and other problems with the D6200. We will probably have more info on this in a day or two.

In the future, ask me about DLNA-5258 to check status on this issue.

- Rick

duke_srg · Post by **duke_srg** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 4:40 pm

Once again, one can reproduce this issue on any Windows 7 client with IE8/9/Chrome/whatever and Twonky web browse or Windows Media Player as a client.

Please re-check this issue with C650 the renderer type was set as I mentioned above and the right jpeg file was used.
If TwonkyServer behaviour depends ONLY on a rendered type from clients.db that this issue is NOT depend on a client device type AT ALL. TwonkyServer returns in a list "?scale=120x160" in full-size URL, that's a fact. In that case ANY device will got only a thumbnail.

Please escalate this issue to R&D ASAP, my explanations should be clear enough for developers to find a cause in the source code. It seems to be some kind of memory consume limitation in a jpeg conversion routines.

Twonky_Rick · Post by **Twonky_Rick** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 5:06 pm

Will do. Thanks.

- Rick

phibertron · Post by **phibertron** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 7:53 pm

Rick

The issue with the appending "?scale=120x160" is something I posted about previously in regards to the rss photos
I recently looked at it running 6.0.34 and I didnt see it via rss, appears to be ok AFAIK
will check it from some other devices I have to double check what I see

phibertron · Post by **phibertron** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:05 pm

I just checked with 6.0.34, and I dont see the issue via ios 5 safari or pc browser, or via dlna to ps3
But...
I may have done things in the past in regards to the resizer app to disable it
so I may be induceing it not happen
just though I would pass this along

duke_srg · Post by **duke_srg** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:23 pm

I'm not sure what you're exactly trying to tell, but take a look at this screenshot. It's Twonky media browser in Chrome displaying the folder with mixed photos from Canon 40D (ok) and 50D (wrong) and the source of the page generated by TwonkyServer 6.0.34
http://img718.imageshack.us/img718/1708/tmissue.jpg

phibertron · Post by **phibertron** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:28 pm

thanks for the photo shot
I am just adding more info to the problem you have noted
what you have stumbled on used to be even worse that what you see now

In a previous post I made

http://www.twonkyforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=6510

literally all photos were being scaled via urls with the ?scale=160x120
not just some of them

the more feedback to twonky, the better we can help irradicate these issues

duke_srg · Post by **duke_srg** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:36 pm

phibertron
Please read carefully the very first post in this thread. I gave the exact conditions for that issue. In your case all photos were scaled as it was exactly from the same source, i.e. camera, meeting these conditions.

phibertron · Post by **phibertron** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:45 pm

understood
In any case rick is aware of the problem
and I am sure he has passed this along to the devs
Just to clarify I am not saying the problem doesnt exist
But I have seen this problem come and go in different versions
you noted 6.0.33
They are currently on 6.0.37
Im running 6.0.34
so maybe 6.0.37 has the issue, maybe it doesnt
but yeah I too would like it fixed

duke_srg · Post by **duke_srg** » Thu Oct 27, 2011 8:56 pm

Rick stated above that this is also occurs in TwonkyServer 6.0.37 on Windows 7 version. So the fix is still to be done. One may encounter a different behavior of various TwonkyServer version on the same renderer device because after TwonkyServer upgrade the renderer type may reset to or the selected renderer device profile was fixed in client.db somehow. But this issue assumes that we have a definite renderer configuration in a client.db.

Twonky_Rick · Post by **Twonky_Rick** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:06 pm

Here are some notes from our developer. The problem still isn't fixed, but I wanted everyone to see that we are working on it.

We just addressed the issue descovering this new Samsung TV with a new client entry â€œSamsung Smart TVâ€. We have been trying with the 5 images attached to the ticket. For no obvious reason 2 of them are always displayed in thumbnail size. We have tested some modifications to our Samsung client adaptation but so far they do not change the behavior we are seeing.We are going to work on this some more next week.

- Rick

duke_srg · Post by **duke_srg** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:14 pm

Rick, can you send me all five images? I'll check it by myself and tell you which two are wrong and why.
Hint: try all that image with the same renderer profile in WMP12 and Twonky Web Browse.

Twonky_Rick · Post by **Twonky_Rick** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:20 pm

I'm transferring them now from Berlin and it's taking a while. I'll see if I can upload them here, if they are too large, I'll try to send them to your e-mail.

- Rick

Twonky_Rick · Post by **Twonky_Rick** » Fri Oct 28, 2011 9:44 pm

25MB zip file send to your e-mail. Let me know if you did not get it. Thanks.

- Rick

duke_srg · Post by **duke_srg** » Sun Oct 30, 2011 12:23 pm

Test result sheet:https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc ... UwzT1ZFVlE
The complete descriptions was sent to Rick by email. Hope this will help.

Twonky_Rick · Post by **Twonky_Rick** » Tue Nov 01, 2011 8:18 pm

Thanks for doing this.

- Rick

Twonky_Rick · Post by **Twonky_Rick** » Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:00 pm

Status update:

One of our engineers did a series of tests with the D-Series Samsung TVs and believes that he has found the cause of this problem.

TwonkyServer does not currently set the CI flag for embedded thumbnails. For pictures that are larger that 4096x4096 such a thumbnail is the only res element without CI flag. Setting the CI flag for such pictures solves the problem for all test samples.

We are going to adapt the client adaptation in TwonkyServer accordingly and put that into one of our upcoming releases.

Thanks to your help, this problem should be fixed soon.

- Rick

Special thanks to Burkhard for finding a solution to this issue.

duke_srg · Post by **duke_srg** » Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:34 am

Checked with 6.0.38 - still have the bugs

Twonky_Rick · Post by **Twonky_Rick** » Wed Mar 21, 2012 12:34 am

Thanks for letting us know. Can anyone check to see if 6.0.39 and 7.0 still have this problem?

- Rick

Mattthemiller · Post by **Mattthemiller** » Wed Apr 25, 2012 11:49 pm

Hi I have recently purchased a QNAP TS210 NAS. Have recently updated to Twonky 6.0.39 & I am still experiencing the large jpeg issue. All of my pictures taken on a Canon EOS500D appear as 120x160 dimensions, original dimensions are 4752x3168. I can display the same pictures fine from a USB stick direct on the TV. if I reduce the size of these pictures they display fine, pictures taken on older camera's (lower megapixel) also display fine. I have a Samsung UE406500D SMART TV. I can't find a QPKG to update to version 7...

Twonky is working great for everything else, will there be a fix for this released soon?

Thanks
Matt

Twonky_Rick · Post by **Twonky_Rick** » Wed May 02, 2012 11:56 pm

I've passed this info on to the engineers as well. We'll be posting TS 7.0.8 in a few days on Twonky.com. I don't think it contains a fix for this, but you might want to check anyway.

Keep in mind it normally takes about a week longer for new NAS builds (like TS 7.0.

to appear.

If you haven't tried the NAS builds of 7.0.5, that might be worthwhile as well. You can find it here: http://www.twonkyforum.com/downloads/7.0.5-Special/

If it's not there, I hope they'll address this in a future update.

- Rick

Twonky_Rick · Post by **Twonky_Rick** » Thu May 03, 2012 10:17 pm

Mattthemiller wrote:Hi I have recently purchased a QNAP TS210 NAS. Have recently updated to Twonky 6.0.39 & I am still experiencing the large jpeg issue. All of my pictures taken on a Canon EOS500D appear as 120x160 dimensions, original dimensions are 4752x3168. I can display the same pictures fine from a USB stick direct on the TV. if I reduce the size of these pictures they display fine, pictures taken on older camera's (lower megapixel) also display fine...

The engineer I spoke to about this issue thinks that the QNAP NAS may not include a JPEG scaler. In such a case, for large pictures with embedded thumbnails, TS adds two resources: The original picture as "NON-DLNA" and the embedded thumbnail as "DLNA_SM". It seems that some DLNA clients then prefer the DLNA resource over the NON-DLNA one.

We are looking into whether we should suppress the DLNA profile for the thumbnail if a picture scaler is not present. If this turns out to work, watch for a fix in a future release of TwonkyServer 7.0 or 7.1.

Thanks again for reporting this Matt.

- Rick

duke_srg · Post by **duke_srg** » Sat Jun 16, 2012 7:57 am

6.0.39 - still the same issue

I hope this is solved in 7.0