Hi,<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On 27 March 2012 09:32, Brian May <span dir="ltr">&lt;<a href="mailto:brian@microcomaustralia.com.au">brian@microcomaustralia.com.au</a>&gt;</span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">

<div class="im">...</div>brian@sys05b:~/Downloads$ identify -verbose frank_003.jpg<br>
Image: frank_003.jpg<br>
  Format: JPEG (Joint Photographic Experts Group JFIF format)<br>
  Class: DirectClass<br>
  Geometry: 9752x9676+0+0<br>...</blockquote><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"> Number pixels: 94.36MB<br></blockquote><div>...</div><div><br>

</div><div>94 megapixels is an unusually *large* image.</div><div>At 3 bytes per pixel (or 4 if any alpha-channel stuff is happening)</div><div>this would take 283 (or 377) MB of memory to render the image.</div><div><br>

</div><div>And then the web browser may make another copy to compose it into a huge page, before downscaling it to fit the viewable window.</div><div><br></div><div>I&#39;m not surprised that some programs can handle it, but other programs not.</div>

<div><br></div><div>    John</div><div><br></div></div>