+- Kodi Community Forum (https://forum.kodi.tv)
+-- Forum: Discussions (https://forum.kodi.tv/forumdisplay.php?fid=222)
+--- Forum: Feature Requests (https://forum.kodi.tv/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+--- Thread: High-Definition Video Flagging (library filtering/sorting & skin thumbnails overlay)? (/showthread.php?tid=30419)
- Nazgulled - 2009-06-09
ccMatrix Wrote:To display a XVID or DIVX logo depending on which one was used instead of just using a generic MPEG4 logo for everything. This is about skinning and skinning options not about picture quality.I think (just making an assumption here) that that was exactly his point... Why would one want to know if a movie was encoded with XviD or DivX? They both are MPEG4, they both produce comparable results, they are practically the same thing, why bother distinguish them? What exactly is the benefit to have a logo for XviD another for DivX as oppsed to have a single logo for MPEG-4?
I don't know how things are done exactly, but for instance, I don't even care if the movie is MPEG-4... All I care is if a movie is SD or HD and if it's HD, if it's 720p or 1080p. This may be just me, but this is the most important info for video files in a library. The coded used is pointless, as long as XBMC plays it, who cares to display the exact codec used for a praticular file in the library? You obviously do, but why exactly? I don't get it...
@freezy
I see what you mean but I don't think there's a way to distinguish DivX movies from 10 years ago compared to the ones we have one. They are still DivX. And nowadays, DivX and XviD is practically the same thing, quality wise... Why bother distinguish them, doesn't an SD label (or something in those lines) suffice?
- watzen - 2009-06-09
freezy Wrote:I have quite some DVD rips from like 10 years ago made with DivX SBC, which are okay but not quite as good as what XviD nowadays produces. So it would be interesting to see whether it's DivX or XviD for me anyway.
ccMatrix Wrote:To display a XVID or DIVX logo depending on which one was used instead of just using a generic MPEG4 logo for everything. This is about skinning and skinning options not about picture quality.
Just plain silly
- freezy - 2009-06-09
watzen Wrote:Just plain silly
Killer argument. You should become a politician.
- Nazgulled - 2009-06-09
Check my edited post then, I made a (valid or not) point lol
- watzen - 2009-06-09
freezy Wrote:Killer argument. You should become a politician.
no but seriously, haven't you lost your way in showing every bit of information? The reason for the UI is to present important information for the user, and I don't see how this information can be so important. Isn't the type of codec and resolution more than enough to know the quality? only thing else that could be important is average bitrate or something.
- CapnBry - 2009-06-09
Meglivorn Wrote:I encountered a little prob, I don't know if I did something wrong. The detection lists the subtitle streams double, like:1) This is a bug, I'll fix that.
Also, when I want to write it out with ListItem.SubtitleLanguage it's only give the first sub...
I'm not english native so the info about subs or multiple audio really can be useful.
2) ListItem.SubtitleLanguage only gives you the "best" stream. This will be the language matching the language you have chosen in XBMC but that isn't implemented yet. You will be able to get information about all of them individually in the future, but the skinning system needs a little updating first so all you get is the first one now.
@XViD vs DiVX vs mpeg4 discussion:
I'm not so keen on differentiating the different encoders.
- Meglivorn - 2009-06-09
Thank you then I will just wait. It's already a great improvement, so thanks
- freezy - 2009-06-09
CapnBry Wrote:@XViD vs DiVX vs mpeg4 discussion:How about just adding another field to the streaminfo table containing the fourcc value and let the skinners take care of it? Would that be much of a hassle?
I'm not so keen on differentiating the different encoders.
watzen: I agree that it's not as important as the other info. It just would be nice, that's all.
- C-Quel - 2009-06-09
Easy hit play if its shit its xvid... its it still shit then its xvid
if not welcome to h264!!
- ccMatrix - 2009-06-09
freezy Wrote:How about just adding another field to the streaminfo table containing the fourcc value and let the skinners take care of it? Would that be much of a hassle?
watzen: I agree that it's not as important as the other info. It just would be nice, that's all.
Yes, maybe representing it as mpeg4/FOURCC or mpeg4-FOURCC - basically just appending the FOURCC value. Skinners can then use either generic mpeg4 images or decide to use encoder based images. And this is what the discussion is all about: What information to make available to skinners!
There is no need to start any discussion about picture/codec quality.
- ronie - 2009-06-09
ccMatrix Wrote:Ah, good to know about those. Do you have good logo images for the codecs?
Sure, vc1 & wmapro
ccMatrix Wrote:What are the criteria for the SD, 540 and 576 resolutions? Which movies would fall in these categories? How does SD differ from 480 or 576? I can't really figure out what 540 is for.
fekker did explain a thing or two about resolution matching in this post.
ccMatrix Wrote:I think the problem with DVD is that there are lots of VOBs and it is not obvious from the filenames which one has the correct streams for the actual movie. I guess that for movies the first 1GB sized stream would have the correct information but for multi-movie or multi-episode disks this can be different. I also don't know how the DVDs are represented in the library which could make it difficult to find the correct file and stream.
I really wouldn't be able to tell how Media Info Plus is handling DVD's. As far as i know, CapnBry and fekker did work on this together or shared some code a while back. Maybe they both went separate ways.
- ronie - 2009-06-09
watzen Wrote:Amuse me... why would you need to know whether it was encoded with xvid or divx, they both produce comparable results, that are inferior to h.264?
different people, different tastes. it would be pointless to start an argument about it.
and to be honest, i don't hear the difference between dd5.1 & dts5.1 either. ;-)
from a skinners point of view, it just might be something silly like eye-candy.
showing some different logo's if possible, instead of just displaying the mpeg4 logo for 90% of the video library.
- ccMatrix - 2009-06-09
ronie Wrote:Sure, vc1 & wmapro
Thanks. And they already have the correct Aeon resolution
I've added them to my includes_mediaflags file but can't really test it since I don't have any movie with those codecs.
At the moment I am changing the way the file loads the images for the studios to load them based on their filename instead of those hundreds of substring checks. I'll upload an archive when I'm done so you and other can check against their library.
- CapnBry - 2009-06-09
This thread makes my head hurt. There's no icon for the container format either. I'd better go ahead and spec out the different outputs for mkv, mp4, mov, ram, and avi. You guys go ahead and get started discussing the merits of if outputting just avi is sufficient or if I should have avi and avi-i (for interleaved) and avi-b (for hacked b-frame support) and avi-bi (for interleaved AND hacked b-frame support) and dmlavi (for opendml-spec avi containers).
- ccMatrix - 2009-06-09
CapnBry Wrote:This thread makes my head hurt. There's no icon for the container format either. I'd better go ahead and spec out the different outputs for mkv, mp4, mov, ram, and avi. You guys go ahead and get started discussing the merits of if outputting just avi is sufficient or if I should have avi and avi-i (for interleaved) and avi-b (for hacked b-frame support) and avi-bi (for interleaved AND hacked b-frame support) and dmlavi (for opendml-spec avi containers).
LOL, sorry for that. Well those that want to check the container can at just use substring(listitem.filename,.mkv,Right) I guess
My primary reason for having the icons based on the FOURCC would be diversity. Having ~95% of all movies showing the same ffmpeg image is kinda boring:
Code:
Video: mpeg4 1027
msmpeg4 348
h264 75
msmpeg4v2 1
mpeg1video 9
flv 1You are of course right, that there needs to be a limit to what is available and what is just plain stupid additional information. Since many users might be used to the information which MIP makes available it could make adoption faster if the new code can provide the same information as a start.
Since information like mpeg4-xvid, mpeg4-dx50 wouldn't hurt the only real question is: How difficult is it to implement that? I wouldn't want you to do some crazy hacking just to dig out that information. But if it is easily available...