Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[TMA-1]

Is there a way to customize Theater View so that the Movies view only shows movie covers in colums across the whole screen (except the top menu), in stead of having file info to the right as I have now (Obsidian)? I would like the file info view only when I select a movie.

[MrHaugen]

I have not tested it, but it's possible that the info pane will not appear if it have 0 information to show. In that case you could go to Option - Theater View - Customize File Info Panel, select video and set everything to "Show only in large info view". It's worth a shot.

[TMA-1]

Thanks for the tip but I tried it and it seems it removes data from the item view (when you have selected a movie) and not the info view to the right of the movie cover colums (Movies).

I have also looked in the skins xml-files but I can't find out what to change (if possible).

[MrHaugen]

Right. That was what I was afraid of. I'm afraid I don't have an answer as to how you can get rid of it.
Ideally there should be a system where you tell where you want Small info panes, Large info panes, both or none. At every level in a category. For instance Small info pane in Series View, and Season view. Only small info pane for episodes. Only large info view for Movies. Throw in a little cover art row at the bottom of the large info screen as well, and I would have been happy as a kid for Xmas!

[raym]

Yeah, I'll +1 this too. For most of my views, I'd like to be able to show details for a selection at the final level of the hierarchy only, i.e., show the large info panel only and hide the small one.

[Daydream]

Quick and dirty (I only understand half of what I'm doing with these things, there may be other ways)

Options - Theater View -> Items to Show -> Video\Movies\Name

The details for Name (on the right) are empty, it just says Name: Name. Choose Add... Expression and write [Name] (brackets and all) as the expression.

Keep in mind: with metadata (and cover) on the right, you click once on the movie and on the next screen you are positioned on the Watch button. You take away the metadata and cover from the first screen, then MC adds an extra step -> Main view (all movies) - click to Metadata screen - click to the next screen where you have the Watch button. I don't get this, but then I don't get many things. Plus like I said, it's quick and dirty.

[rick.ca]

Is there a way to customize Theater View so that the Movies view only shows movie covers in colums across the whole screen (except the top menu), in stead of having file info to the right as I have now (Obsidian)? I would like the file info view only when I select a movie.

Sure. This can be done with any view. Just include [Name] as the last Category in the configuration (i.e., in the "Details" box). In Theatre View, assign the Thumbnail List Style to that view (it will apply to all categories, but that's probably what you want anyway). To view your movies as covers, just stay at that "level" in the view. To see the details for a movie, select it. And you can still get the full file list by selecting "All Names."

It took me a while to "discover" this. Funny how complicated our minds make these things. The program doesn't know or have any judgment about what a "category" is, and really doesn't care there's only one movie for each value of [Name]. With only one item, there's only one cover to display—exactly what you want.

The same technique can be used to present any kind of customized list. Just add as the last Category an expression that determines the values and formats it as desired. For example, [Rank.IMDb]. [Name] /([Year]/) Mid(★★★★★,0,[Rating]) displays my IMDb Top 250 list.

[glynor]

The details for Name (on the right) are empty, it just says Name: Name. Choose Add... Expression and write [Name] (brackets and all) as the expression.

You don't have to do it with an Expression, you can just do Add -> Library Field, and then pick Name from the list on the right (ProTip: click in the list and type N).

And, yes, this will work.
You'll have to "open" each movie twice to play them because you are adding another "tier" to the Theater View, but it will work fine.

[Daydream]

You'll have to "open" each movie twice to play them because you are adding another "tier" to the Theater View, but it will work fine.

That'll probably the next request: how do we make a singular, simple wall view (just covers) that when you press on one item it plays the movie? The school of thought being that if I press on something it plays (keyboards here, people; don't tell me what can be done with remotes). Why the assumption that I want to see the metadata first?

There can't be a view to be the end of all views. It's either wall, list, metadata so on. Distinctive types. Forcing one to go through steps... mmm, why?

The part where the short-circuit happens for me (I mean I know how it works, I'm just making the point) is when I'm looking at the config in Options for Theater View and then when I actually use it. I see items nested in the config, say Video \ Movie \ Name | Recent | Genre, etc. Then I start using it and discover there's some layers under it that you have to navigate. But I just config it to say Name with nothing under! The way of having metadata as a forced navigation path under the item doesn't make sense to me. It's either with the item (same page / level), or not at all. Are certain dependencies in place so that metadata screen has to be there?

[rick.ca]

Why the assumption that I want to see the metadata first?

There is no such assumption. If you want to play the selected item, press the play button on your keyboard. If you don't have such a keyboard, use Ctrl-P. Or use the context menu.

But I just config it to say Name with nothing under!

What you're configuring are Categories. The final destination, whether any categories are specified or not, is always a file list. File info panels can be configured to display meta data about one file selected in that list. If you don't want to see the meta data, show [Name] as the last category—as I explained.

[TMA-1]

Thanks for the respons.
I understand you can do pretty much with configuring views but to me "It's like a jungel somtimes, it keeps me wonder how I keep from going under".

I havn't given it much of a chance though so I think I will look in to it some more.

[TMA-1]

I manage to get a view with movie covers only, but now when I click a movie I get to a new view with the category movie name (showing all movies with that name) with the moviecover colums to the left´and the file info to the right. I would like to get to the full file info view directly when I click a movie. I hope I make sens here =)

I think I havnt understand the core concept of views and everything around it. Is there a tutorial of some sort somewhere?

[rick.ca]

I would like to get to the full file info view directly when I click a movie.

When you click on a movie, you're going to get the file listing for that one movie. If you want the full file listing of all movies, click the "All" category at the top of the list.

Is there a tutorial of some sort somewhere?

Search the forum for 'Theater View'.

[TMA-1]

I see. Couldnt I use something like if there is only one item in the list then it will skip that level? It feels like Ive seen that feature someware. Anything you recognize?

[gappie]

I see. Couldnt I use something like if there is only one item in the list then it will skip that level? It feels like Ive seen that feature someware. Anything you recognize?

thv skip levels with one item, but not the filelist at the end, and you have to click the file to get all the fileinfo.. that is how it works, and it makes sense to me, because the info is different. but i see what you are after. 

 
gab

[rick.ca]

Couldnt I use something like if there is only one item in the list then it will skip that level?

It does do that. When you've defined [Name] as the last category, it lists those categories—which is, of course, a list of movies. When you select one of those categories, it skips what would otherwise be a list of files in that category—and goes directly to the file list of the one item included in the category. If you had two movies with the same name (e.g., an original and a remake), it would show you a list of those two items when their category is chosen.

But why are you asking? Doesn't my suggestion give you exactly what you're looking for? It provides you with a scrolling list of movies to select from. Having selected one, you can press <Enter> to view information about it or <Play> to watch it. And you still have the option of displaying the usual file list on the left and the poster and information about the selected movie on the right—by selecting 'All'.

[TMA-1]

Just to clearify so do not missunderstand each other, here is a beautiful drawing:




After reading your posts a second time I think I understand now what you say.
The setup to the left in the image is how it works and there is not much more to do about it.
It is ok for me so there is no problem. I just thought that the second step to the left in the image what I call "Category View" should also be skipped because it only shows one item with that name.

[raym]

Just to clearify so do not missunderstand each other, here is a beautiful drawing:

I understand what you mean 

Like I said, I want this too for most of my Movie views but the only way it'll happen is if we get an option to hide the small info panel.

[MrHaugen]

Like I said, I want this too for most of my Movie views but the only way it'll happen is if we get an option to hide the small info panel.

Yes. And while we're at that, we also need a way to show this info panel wherever we like. As for TV Shows.

[rick.ca]

Like I said, I want this too for most of my Movie views but the only way it'll happen is if we get an option to hide the small info panel.

Oh, so that's what all this about. When I want to skip a screen, I just press <Enter> twice.

[marko]

At risk of sounding like a broken record, while at the same time taking advantage of TMA-1's beautiful drawing, I'd love to be able to be in "Step 2" on the left, and advance to the next file without having to go back first.

Page Down works at that screen... would be neat if MC could 'know' we were there, and make the page down key just go down by one file.

The movie thing, I know, I generally just hit the Play key without drilling down... you must be aware though, that this action places all files into the playing now list, and if you fall asleep for a week half way into the movie, depending on the size of the view, MC could still be playing movies when you wake up!!

-marko

[rick.ca]

At risk of sounding like a broken record, while at the same time taking advantage of TMA-1's beautiful drawing, I'd love to be able to be in "Step 2" on the left, and advance to the next file without having to go back first.

#1 is the extra [Name] category added to display only thumbnails. #2 is the file list in thumbnail style. #3 is the file view, displaying the large file info panel on the left and a large thumbnail on the right. Surely it's #3 where you would want to be able to advance to to the next record. But <PgUp>/<PgDn> already does Previous/Next from that screen. I'm confused.

But none of this is relevant to the view we've created here. Because of the final [Name] category, there's generally only one file in each category, so there's no next file to go to.

[TMA-1]

So the file list nr 2 to the left can not be skipped over even though it only shows one file?

[rick.ca]

So the file list nr 2 to the left can not be skipped over even though it only shows one file?

Yes. Press <Enter> twice quickly. You'll see no trace of it. Otherwise, no. It's the File List—the final destination—skipping over it makes no sense. The screen you want to go to is actually a supplementary screen for showing additional information about the file currently selected in the File List.

[Mr ChriZ]

I like what the Op is trying to do here.  I'd prefer to use the whole screen to start with too...

[MrHaugen]

I would for some media as well, but not for all. This thread just show how many preferences there is to views. I do not think we'll satisfy everybody, or even come close to it, unless you can customize things like this.

I think that the quickest and easiest way for getting the users what they want is the way to control this behavior. Preferably in Theater View. Pretty much as they can today with List Style. Call it "Info Style", and allow users to toggle "Small Info Pane" on/off, "Big Info Pane" on/off as well as allowing people to browse next and previous item within thin big info view. A option for A thumbnail row at the bottom in the Big Info view would help as well, but is not essential at first.

It would also be important to eventually allow to view Small info pane at all levels, and to save the preferences in each of them. This way you could get relational info about TV Shows/series as overviews, ratings, correct cover/art etc. There would need to be added a way of choosing and differentiating between TV Shows, Series, Artists and Albums though. This higher level views would be great for all of them.

[TMA-1]

Yes. I would like this for movie files only. When it comes to music I want the file-list view to see the tracks of the album. But when it comes to movies it has no purpose in my wolrld.

MC i not just a music library tool (as I believe it was in the beginning) but a complete mediacenter handling music, tv, images and video. So it would be a shame if all media would be forced to follow the same library structure as music.

It's not a biggie. I can press enter twice, it's no problem. But if MC want to become the ulitmate MEDIA center then I believe it must embrase that different media is used differently. Everything can not be forced in to the same template. 
Don't get me wrong here. I think MC the most flixible media library tool Ive ever used, but it is allways room for improvements.
 
Well, it's just my two cents.

[rick.ca]

So it would be a shame if all media would be forced to follow the same library structure as music.

This view is based on a false premise—that there's a "library structure" that's based on or geared towards audio. It's not. It's a simple, elegant, robust system that can be applied to a wide variety of different media and circumstances.

Everything can not be forced in to the same template.

Why not? If all its fundamental elements are applicable to all media types, how could it be forcing anything? What media type does not have information associated with it? Cannot be categorized and displayed based on that information? Cannot benefit from being represented by images? The "template" is so open it can be applied to anything, not just media. The problem, if there is one, must be a need for a template (of the type you're imagining)—not that such a system is imposing one that doesn't fit.

Although there are elements of the basic design or architecture of the system that are arbitrary and fixed—like navigation based on a hierarchy of categories—it's inherent flexibility and simplicity of use would not be possible without some such foundation. So I think you've got it wrong. MC already has the basis of the ultimate media centre—precisely because it does not embrace the idea different media must be handled differently.

If it's an inflexible system offering only a template designed for one media type, why do I have a multitude of different views spanning all media types and addressing every circumstance I'm able to conjure up? No other media application comes close to matching that capability. Furthermore, none of them, even with their pathetically inflexible views, comes close to matching the performance of MC. So it's clear MC is well on it's way to being the ultimate media centre, despite demands it comply with the misguided design premises of it's inferior competition.

But that's just my two cents.

[TMA-1]

Why not? If all its fundamental elements are applicable to all media types, how could it be forcing anything? What media type does not have information associated with it? Cannot be categorized and displayed based on that information? Cannot benefit from being represented by images? The "template" is so open it can be applied to anything, not just media.

Ok, its fundamental elements are flexible. Agreed.  But what I mean is that when I use movies in MC the views takes for granted that the structure is the same as music albums (mandatory file listings within an item), and what ive been told in this thread is that I can not do anything about it. To me that does not rime with flexibility.

[glynor]

Ok, its fundamental elements are flexible. Agreed.  But what I mean is that when I use movies in MC the views takes for granted that the structure is the same as music albums (mandatory file listings within an item), and what ive been told in this thread is that I can not do anything about it. To me that does not rime with flexibility.

I don't think it has anything to do with "Music Views" whatsoever.

I like the info panel for my movies, and I certainly wouldn't want it to go away.  In fact, if there was one place I wouldn't want it, it would be for music views.  Of course, I don't use Thumbnails View Style for any of my music views...

[MrHaugen]

That's exactly the point. We're all different, and have different views on how things should be presented. Sure, we have the ability as to what info is shown. But we have little to no control as on what level this info is shown, or what type of info pane is presented or not. This should be configurable if we want a Theater View that can be customized for everyones taste. And this will be increasingly important with the amounts of metadata MC is able to retrieve.

Todays info panes is badly configured as a default imo, but with some customizing it's quite good for both music, video and images. It's just not adapted to category views at all, or the users wishes to drop either small or big info pane because they never use it.

[glynor]

That's exactly the point. We're all different

I was just making the point that it didn't seem to have anything to do with Music.  If anything, it is for video.

I think there is always a tradeoff between simplicity and configurability.  Finding the balance is hard, but I think Jim and Matt et all walk that line with amazing precision in most cases.

[rick.ca]

But what I mean is that when I use movies in MC the views takes for granted that the structure is the same as music albums

And in this, as I have explained and glynor has now illustrated, you're mistaken. In any case, it's pointless to assert the fundamental design is flawed to suggest a change that might save you the pain of having to press a button twice. All you want is the option to skip the file list and go directly to the file info screen (i.e., the "large view" File Info Panel). Such an option would increase flexibility and might be useful in a number of different situations. There are some issues that would need to be resolved or clarified, however...

• The case where there is only one file to display is not necessarily the condition that should trigger the skip. That would require the compromise of including all fields displayed in the small info panel in the large one as well. This is not compatible with the more common use of displaying main/summary/whatever-will-fit fields in the small panel, and "additional information" in the large.
  
  
• Other uses are based simply on the file list not being necessary. For example, if photos are organized in relatively small albums, or selected that way in a view, there's little or no value to seeing them in a list. The large panel view can display all the file info beside a nice large thumbnail, and the images browsed in sequence (which is what most would want to do with photos).
  
  
• Related to the first two points is the fact the File Info Panels would have to be configured to suit the use of the option. If the option applied to views, it might be possible to define file info templates that correspond to those views. That would be straightforward if the views it applied to depended only on media type or sub-type. But that's not likely the case, and assuming it so would be too restrictive. So it may be necessary to include a matching option in the file info panel system whereby separate panels can be defined for views with this option selected.

[TMA-1]

I don't think it has anything to do with "Music Views" whatsoever.

I like the info panel for my movies, and I certainly wouldn't want it to go away.  In fact, if there was one place I wouldn't want it, it would be for music views.  Of course, I don't use Thumbnails View Style for any of my music views...

I wouldnt want it to go away either. Id like the option to deactivate/change it though.

[TMA-1]

I was just making the point that it didn't seem to have anything to do with Music.  If anything, it is for video.

I never ment that the info panel to the right has to do with music. It is the view it self that lists the items within a subcategory like tracks of an album I ment was typicly a music view. I understand that it is also used when categorizing anything but I just asumed that it initially was created for listing tracks of an album, as I guessed MC started as a musicplayer.

When using catogorys its nice to be able to list the items, but when the category is the title of a specific movie the view is useless, to me at least, unless there are multiple files to play within a movie title  like extra material or versions.

[rick.ca]

That's exactly the point. We're all different, and have different views on how things should be presented.

Todays info panes is badly configured as a default imo...

If the first statement is true (and I don't disagree), then I suppose any default configuration is "bad." So what? Are you suggesting there be no default? Or that some other "good" default be provided?

...It's just not adapted to category views at all...

I understand we still need some mechanism for displaying series information, but I have difficulty imagining how that might be generalized to categories in general. Is that what you mean? If so, could you explain how that might work?

It seems to me whatever is done along these lines is dependent on relational fields. So a mechanism for displaying series information would be displaying Series-related fields. Presumably, any such solution for Series would apply equally to Artists and Albums. And it follows the same would apply to any relational field support added in the future. In any case, I suppose a new category-type template would be used to define at least one info panel template for each of Series, Artists and Albums.

To incorporate non-relational fields in some sort of info panel displayed in connection with a Category, they could be made to display whatever summary information is most likely appropriate for the field—total, summary, range, etc. (as a Category view currently does in Standard View). But then it becomes less clear how these will be used. Does this now mean that a category panel can be displayed for any category? If so, how does that work? Do I specify in each view each category for which I want a panel, and then attempt to provide a template that will work for whatever content might be included in that category? Seems too complicated for something of dubious value. Just displaying a category normally effectively displays more information than a summary value. Nevertheless, this would be a way of handling the display of non-relational fields included in a panel configured for a relational category. A Series panel could, for example, include [Director] which would display a name or 'Various', and [Year] which would display a range.

[glynor]

When using catogorys its nice to be able to list the items, but when the category is the title of a specific movie the view is useless, to me at least, unless there are multiple files to play within a movie title  like extra material or versions.

But this is really an "unsupported use" of the system.  This is a trick that can enable you to hide the side info panel, nothing more.  A clever hack, but it does have the downside of requiring you to press enter twice to play any file in a view where you use it.

None of my views are configured that way.  But, like I said, the only places where I use Thumbnails Style View are places where I want to see the side info panel.  And, as Rick pointed out, my Side Info panel only shows a very few of the total number of available fields to look at when I "open" a file in Theater View.  And, longer fields (like the [Description] for example) are often cut off.  "Opening" the video file in Theater View allows you to see all of the details.

The categories are immensely useful for Video Files as well.  I have far more views defined for my videos than I do for my music.

PS.  I should add, I'm certainly not opposed to having a switch in the Theater View configuration dialog that allows you to turn the Side Info panel on and off on a View-by-View basis.  Not at all.  Though I would put it pretty far down on the heap of things that I would like to see configurable about Theater View.  View-by-View captions would be a much better investment of time and complexity, IMHO.

[rick.ca]

When using catogorys its nice to be able to list the items, but when the category is the title of a specific movie the view is useless, to me at least, unless there are multiple files to play within a movie title  like extra material or versions.

Unless the use-case can be expanded (as I attempted to do for you), your suggestion is likely a non-starter. It doesn't make much sense to deliberately add a category intended to include one file per value, and then complain you have to press a button twice to skip the view you rendered useless. It's just not something many other users are going to do, so there's little justification for adding the option.

[TMA-1]

None of my views are configured that way.  But, like I said, the only places where I use Thumbnails Style View are places where I want to see the side info panel.  

There we are very different as I like allmost all my views to be thumbnail views. One of the very few exceptions are the list of album tracks.

[rick.ca]

PS.  I should add, I'm certainly not opposed to having a switch in the Theater View configuration dialog that allows you to turn the Side Info panel on and off on a View-by-View basis.

I forgot to mention this in my reply to MrHaugen above. If the relevant file info template is configured to show nothing in the small info panel, then the "side info panel" is effectively "off." Similarly, the large info panel. That doesn't remove that screen/level from the navigation, but it remains as a way to view backdrops without the clutter of a file list.

View-by-View captions would be a much better investment of time and complexity, IMHO.

YES! The caption could be changed to, "Press <Enter> again!"

[TMA-1]

Unless the use-case can be expanded (as I attempted to do for you), your suggestion is likely a non-starter. It doesn't make much sense to deliberately add a category intended to include one file per value, and then complain you have to press a button twice to skip the view you rendered useless. It's just not something many other users are going to do, so there's little justification for adding the option.

I added the category just to get thumbs on the whole screen wich was my objective. As this resulted in extra an extra view I expressed my wish for the option to get thumbs on the whole screen without having to use the "hack". If this option is a non starter so be it. I think there are at least few more in this thread that expressed they would like the same.

[rick.ca]

I think there are at least few more in this thread that expressed they would like the same.

There have been a number of expressions of interest in the general idea there should be more control over what screens are displayed. It's not clear any of them intended to mean something as restrictive as what you've suggested. And none of them have yet attempted to explain exactly what it is they have in mind or how it should be implemented.

You don't seem to understand my intention. The change you're suggesting almost certainly will not be implemented. I'm trying to suggest something more useful, that will encompass what you want, that others might agree upon, and then might stand some chance of being implemented.

[MrHaugen]

If the first statement is true (and I don't disagree), then I suppose any default configuration is "bad." So what? Are you suggesting there be no default? Or that some other "good" default be provided?

I was just quickly pointing out that the default fields for some of the Info Panes is bad. I can't see my self or plenty of users that want to see file size for example. It is of little importance as we can change it though.

I understand we still need some mechanism for displaying series information, but I have difficulty imagining how that might be generalized to categories in general. Is that what you mean? If so, could you explain how that might work?

Not generalizing, but merely pointing out that there is more than one thing that needs info of relational fields on other levels than the bottom level. Like TV Shows, Seasons, Artists and Albums like you mentioned. This styles together woith what we have today would probably be enough. Like you say, templates could be used to fill info for this media sub types. Todays Video would stay video, others would be Series and Season. In addition to Music template we would have Artist and Album templates. Each of the panels would be tied up to Media sub type as well as detection of the levels (TV Show/series or Season). That would probably prevent mixups.

In addition to this, you'll need a way to enable OR disable this panels for each category. Some might like it for both Show, Season and Episode lists. Others just want it for episodes. Some only want big info pane. As I said, I think this would be best to enable or disable from the Theater View category it self. Much more intuitive in my opinion, than setting options for it in View manager or similar.

I'm not sure if what I wrote now makes any sense. To tiered. I'll read through it later

[Daydream]

And none of them have yet attempted to explain exactly what it is they have in mind or how it should be implemented.

I wonder in what way, and how eloquent and vast, and with what degree of in-depth details such an opinion needs to be to actually make a difference as far as Theater View is concerned. To actually be considered helpful. To trigger an implementation in THIS version of MC ('cause we waited for the last 4 for big stuff to happen). Any idea Rick? Or JRiver?

Because if there is no way in hell for certain things to get implemented, why are we wasting time then?

[rick.ca]

Because if there is no way in hell for certain things to get implemented, why are we wasting time then?

In less than four days and with only 44 posts we already have a vague sketch of a trivial change that there's an even chance two users might begrudgingly agree on. What more could you possibly expect?

Users demonstrating some agreement on and enthusiasm for some sensible change or new feature is no guarantee it will be implemented immediately, if ever. The opposite probably serves well as an indication of changes that should not be attempted. So I never say anything at all about the things I really want—so they might remain in the tiny realm of things safe to implement.