Print

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

[rick.ca]

In the recent Eye Candy discussion, I used this idea as an example of several different things—for example...

A simple example I've mentioned before: A mechanism for associating icons or logos with the values of any field, and display those instead of the words (for things like file types, codecs, etc.). I suspect the developers would be happy to provide that basic functionality...

Although I believe such a mechanism would be relatively straightforward to implement, I don't know if any such features are likely to be added in the short term. Nevertheless, if users can express some sort of consensus as to how such a thing should work and look, it will stand a better chance of being implemented when development attention returns to Theatre View.

This, BTW, is not a new idea. I found this...

The ability to attach a small icon into a field! Let's say for example, that i create a "Hi-def, SD" field for my movie collection depending on what i choose for a movie, it could show the HD / SD icon instead of text...

...and it had apparently had been suggested before that. I couldn't find the idea fleshed-out, however, so I'll attempt to do that here.

• Overview
  
  What I imagine is an Info Panel item like any other, but a new item/field Type in the form of an image container instead of a text box. Any number of logo or icon images could be referenced as a list, and these would be placed in the container, wrapping to fit the horizontal space available. So it could be a list of logos representing media attributes (e.g., resolution, codecs, file type, etc.), icons representing Genre or other content classifications, or anything the user prefers to represent graphically. Logos and icons representing different things could be put in the same container, or separate containers by their nature.
  
  
• Image Handling
  
  
  • Images would be resized to a reference height (e.g., 1-2x the normal text row height) and their aspect retained (i.e., they would vary in width). If the average aspect of the referenced images is portrait (e.g., as is likely to be the case with photos of people), the reference height will be appropriately greater (2-3x normal row height?). The images would also be resized according to the Size setting in Options (i.e., so the images would vary in size along with the text).
    
    
  • Images would stay in the same order as they are referenced, and would simply wrap to a new row when the horizontal space is filled. So images that fill a row in the 'large' File Info panel would use several rows in the 'small'.
    
    
  • Like other File Info items, these containers would be with or without labels, set to appear in the small, large or both panels, and be hidden when empty or not.
    
    
  • Transparency in original images would be retained (e.g., PNG would not be converted to JPG).
    
    
• Image Referencing
  
  
  • Each image could be referenced with a full pathname, but this would rather tedious to use. It would be better to impose some organization. So...
    
    
  • The default location for the images would be, like Cover Art, in the same folder as the Library. The root folder would be 'Logos', and images would be put in sub-folders according to the field used to reference them.
    
    
  • The images would be referenced using a new function: Logo(Folder, Value). 'Folder' is a sub-folder of 'Logos', and is likely specified, but could be the result of an expression. If omitted, the function would look for matches in the root folder only. 'Value' would likely be a field, but which field might be determined by an expression. The function would then then return the image with the filename matching 'Value'. For example, Logo(Quality, [Quality]) returns a 1080p logo, or Logo(Genre, [Genre]) returns a Drama icon.
    
    
  • If 'Value' is a list field (e.g., video [Genre]), the expression would return all images found matching the list items, in the same order. So Logo(Genre, [Genre]) also returns an icon for each of the genres associated with a movie, or Logo(Country, [Country]) a flag for each country associated with its production.
    
    
  • Logo() could be used multiple times to return logos selected from multiple categories—such as when using one container for a set of logos representing various attributes of a movie.
    
    
• Compatible 'Text Images'
  
  
  • A practical difficulty in using such a feature will be the availability of suitable images matching all the possible values. In many cases, text will do just as well—if similar in size and quality to the other 'real' logos that may be presented in the same container. For example, '1080p' in large bold font may look very similar and serve just as well as a '1080p' logo/image. This suggests a simple solution to the problem...
    
    
  • If Logo() does not find a matching image, it will render 'Value' as text in a bold font of a size resulting in a text height similar to that of the resized images. This will allow use of the feature even when suitable images are not available for all possible values. If there are situations where this would not be the desired result, an option could be provided to suppress it.

Although I'm sure I haven't got all the details right, the main qualities I'm reaching for are flexibility and simplicity inherent in many other aspects of Theatre View. By itself, this doesn't work 'out-of-the-box', but it can easily be used in stock views if the matching images are provided. At the same time, it allows users to use images in place of text for just about anything. I'm sure the application most have in mind is the use of images to depict things like media attributes. But it could also be used to display photos of actors and directors associated with a movie. It would be very easy to set up containers to do that, and then proceed with collecting images of one's favourite actors and directors.

Comments?

[MrHaugen]

This sounds fantastic. I support the proposal.
It would give a nice boost to looks and functionality of TV.

[CountryBumkin]

I like the idea.

[NickF]

I also like the idea.

I think you are proposing that this image based item is unrelated to other items in the info panel.  I imagine there will be cases where we would need images or logos associated with other text based items.

Also, should the user have some control over positioning?

Do we also want to associate text or a label against some logos?

Nick.

[glynor]

This is a cool idea.  But I think it might make more sense to configure the logos themselves in the Manage Library Fields dialog.  Then each item in the Info Panel configuration dialog could just have a "Use Image?" checkbox.  That would probably be simpler to use, anyway.

Of course... Maybe that's the way you were trying to "scale it down".  I'm not sure as I didn't follow the Eye Candy thread extremely closely.

Either way, good idea, Rick.

[Matt]

We show a couple logos while browsing movies using the flow-style list.  At the bottom right, there'll be a Bluray or DVD logo when appropriate.

I think it'd be neat to expand that to show a few other logos, like one for 1080p, etc.

This is a bit different than the file info panel showing logos, which might also be neat.

[MrHaugen]

This is a bit different than the file info panel showing logos, which might also be neat.

Thinking a bit long term, I think it would be good if such things is not tied strictly to a specific part of the system at all. So it can be used several places in time. It's no problem starting one place, but just keeping in mind a more open solution for later might pay off?

[rick.ca]

This sounds fantastic. I support the proposal.

Thanks to you and all for your comments. My thoughts...

I think you are proposing that this image based item is unrelated to other items in the info panel.  I imagine there will be cases where we would need images or logos associated with other text based items.

I'm not sure what you mean. Currently any text—any field(s) or anything extracted from field(s)—can be displayed as a File Info item, and that item can be placed anywhere in the list of items. I didn't consider combining text and images (images with captions?). Maybe I'm missing some obvious application, but that seems like an unnecessary complication. The main purpose, after all, it to convey information more effectively with graphics while adding some visual appeal.

On the other hand, I suppose if anyone did use it to display actors, they're likely to want captions. But even in that case, I was imagining only a row of thumbnails showing the principal actors in a movie (and maybe the director in the same container). At the same time, the text equivalents would generally still be in the panel somewhere, unless completely redundant. For example, one container of logos summarizing the technical attributes of a video might be the first item in the panel (I think it might look cool appearing directly under the poster in the small panel). The full details in their text form might still be included at the end of the large panel—generally out-of-sight, but available for reference.

This is a cool idea.  But I think it might make more sense to configure the logos themselves in the Manage Library Fields dialog.  Then each item in the Info Panel configuration dialog could just have a "Use Image?" checkbox.  That would probably be simpler to use, anyway.

Simpler to use in it's simplest application, but otherwise not. It's not always a matter of displaying just one field as text or an image. That alone would a major problem with this approach. I'm having difficulty even imagining how that might work. And even without the complications, it means the configuration has to be done in two different places—which doesn't make things easier.

This is a bit different than the file info panel showing logos, which might also be neat.

I'd much prefer something that can be configured to the user's needs. You, of course, have the ability to place logos anywhere—the most effective and visually appealing location in the circumstances (i.e., the particular view style and current mode). This proposal is attempting to define something within the confines of the existing File Info panel system. It did occur to me, however, an obvious embellishment would be to provide different Types of 'info items' that would appear in locations outside the current panels. One could be the location you're now using in the flow style. Another might be an overlay on the bottom of the cover, regardless of where/how it appears in a particular view style. Or in a column between the file list and small panel—for depicting a set of attributes for each file in the list. I thought it better to keep it simple. It goes without saying we'll pester you for improvements after it's implemented.

Thinking a bit long term, I think it would be good if such things is not tied strictly to a specific part of the system at all. So it can be used several places in time. It's no problem starting one place, but just keeping in mind a more open solution for later might pay off?

Wow. It seems we agree on that point too!


My own after-thoughts...

The file panels are transparent, so the background appears behind the text. It seems to me the images used should support transparency. In other words, if the user decides a transparent logo works best and accordingly provides a PNG image, that format would be retained even if the image needs to be resized or otherwise converted for use in this system. I've also glossed over the details of how the images might be handled. I don't know if the originals would simply be converted on the fly, new images created and saved beside them, or a cache created. Do we assume the feature will be used 'lightly', or that the first thing some will do is put 10,000 photos in the Actors folder (I know I will, just for fun). I assume the 'pseudo logos' created from text wouldn't be an issue. I would expect them to be rendered on a transparent background (if they don't simply remain as text).

I'm really not sure about how the default height of the container should be determined. Hopefully, it can be fixed at something that just works, and doesn't need to be fiddled with. But I imagine things like actor photos, even if presented as just a row of thumbnails, need more height than typical logos. Maybe that can be determined from the average aspect of the images referenced. If landscape, they're probably logos and the 1-2 line equivalent would work. If portrait, they're probably photos requiring twice the height. Even then, some will want to display larger photos, so maybe the height needs to be configurable.

Finding appropriate images is easy for some things, but not for most. This would be enough to cause many to not want to bother with such a feature. But if it existed, I don't think it would be long before we were sharing good sources for images, and even sharing our own collections just by zipping-up and uploading our own Logos directory.

[fitbrit]

I'm all for this too. As for how it will work, I can only try it and give feedback then.

[darichman]

I think this would be great.

Thinking a bit long term, I think it would be good if such things is not tied strictly to a specific part of the system at all. So it can be used several places in time. It's no problem starting one place, but just keeping in mind a more open solution for later might pay off?

...and this too.

Theatre view info panels are an obvious choice (and a logical start) but use in video thumbnails might be nice too!

[glynor]

Simpler to use in it's simplest application, but otherwise not. It's not always a matter of displaying just one field as text or an image. That alone would a major problem with this approach. I'm having difficulty even imagining how that might work. And even without the complications, it means the configuration has to be done in two different places—which doesn't make things easier.

I was just thinking out loud, but... I think you misunderstood what I was saying.  And maybe I misunderstand your idea, but my thought would allow you to have an image used instead of text for multiple fields in the Info panel.

I don't think I explained myself very well.  Basically, I was saying if the Style combo-box in the File Info Panel configuration dialog had a new choice called "Image", you could enable it on a field-by-field basis.

But the setup of the actual images would happen in the regular Manage Library Fields dialog.  You're right, that makes you go two separate places to set it up, but I was thinking this might be good for a couple reasons:

1. The images could be handy to be able to use as a column  or tiles in Standard View too.
2. It doesn't make sense for all field types to be able to have an image.  Basically, you'd only want to apply it to ones with a pre-set value list, or boolean/integer type fields, right?  Because it would only be useful if you could have different images shown for different field values, and you'd have to have a way to configure that (without needing fancy layered TIFFs or something).  You wouldn't want it for [Description] or other things like that, and probably not [Artist] (unless you made sure to pre-configure a different image for every artist, beforehand, which seems tedious.

So, with #2 especially, these images would be field-specific.  Things like different categories or statuses.  So it makes sense (to me) to set it up where you set up other options about the field.  To change how a field works, you go there.  To show this in the Info Panel, you change how it is shown in the Info Panel.  But, perhaps it is something that would change that in your suggested implementation that I am missing?

[rick.ca]

Theatre view info panels are an obvious choice (and a logical start) but use in video thumbnails might be nice too!

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Overlaying logos on thumbnails? I didn't think of that explicitly, but I suppose it follows from...

Another might be an overlay on the bottom of the cover, regardless of where/how it appears in a particular view style.

...because if an overlay is applied to a cover, it should be applied to the thumbnail as well. And vice versa. Or should it?

[rick.ca]

Warning: This post is 'glynor-length'.

I was just thinking out loud, but... I think you misunderstood what I was saying.  And maybe I misunderstand your idea, but my thought would allow you to have an image used instead of text for multiple fields in the Info panel.

I believe I understood you, but it seems you're not understanding an essential aspect of the proposal. It's very definitely not about using an image instead of text on a field-by-field basis, and not restricted to boolean or fields with a small number of preset values. It could be used for any field for which a logo for each possible value can be provided. And if some values don't have matching images, a pseudo-logo would be rendered from the text. More importantly, the logos to be displayed would be determined by an expression that would only refer to field values to reference the images to be displayed. That makes it 'open' and far more versatile. You're probably not assuming otherwise, but it would get an image for each value in a list field. It would also get an image for every value referenced from any number of fields. Or no fields at all—it could look up an image directly without any direct reference to field values. The expression could perform some logical test, then select a logo to display based on the result.

These sorts of things could be done using your approach by creating an expression field to produce the desired result, selecting the 'display image' option for that field (and I suppose you're assuming the images will be found in the same manner I suggest—by looking in a folder with the same name as the field). But such expressions would only be used for this purpose, so creating them as fields would be unnecessarily tedious. I appreciate the possibility...

The images could be handy to be able to use as a column or tiles in Standard View too.

...but intentionally excluded any possible use of the mechanism in Standard View from the proposal. The views are so different in nature there would be too many complications, and the result would just invite confusion even if it did work. What if you want to display a logo in Theatre View, but text in Standard View? A logo may be too small to be recognizable if shown in a normal row height, while allowing a greater row height whenever a logo is present would make a mess of the usual grid display.

But even if your 'display image' option applies only to Theatre View, it's unnecessarily restrictive there as well. It needs to support the possibility a field displayed as a logo will also be displayed as text elsewhere in the Info panel. I expect a very common usage would be to use one logo container to show a summary of key attributes in a prominent location (e.g., the first row of the small or both panels) and text elsewhere (e.g., with 'technical details' at the end of the large panel).

Because it would only be useful if you could have different images shown for different field values, and you'd have to have a way to configure that (without needing fancy layered TIFFs or something).

Hmm. Maybe you did misunderstand 3. Image Referencing. The only 'configuring' required is to put image files named according to the values they represent into a folder named according to the field (although, as I pointed out, it wouldn't necessarily have to be a field—it could be an independent category created only for the purpose at hand).

You wouldn't want it for [Description] or other things like that...

Not true. Consider this: You've collected epic-2,000 word reviews for a select 100 of your 1,000 movies. You might have a review because the movie is one of your favourites, or because it's obscure or arty and you think the review might help you appreciate it. In any case, these reviews are going to appear only in the large panel and possibly out-of-site even then. At the same time, you don't remember which movies have these reviews and which don't. So you include a 'Review' logo that appears in a prominent location—just to tell you one of these reviews exists. But this is just an off-the-wall example. The point is, an expression can determine whether a logo should be displayed and, if so, reference the correct logo. So you might have a [Review] for every movie, but want a logo to appear if the review is a 'special' one written by your favourite reviewer. All that requires is a slightly different expression.

...and probably not [Artist] unless you made sure to pre-configure a different image for every artist, beforehand, which seems tedious.

Nor this. I think doing so would surely slow things down, but I was otherwise serious when I said...

Do we assume the feature will be used 'lightly', or that the first thing some will do is put 10,000 photos in the Actors folder (I know I will, just for fun).

There's nothing tedious about copying such a collection of images to and 'Actors' folder. Doesn't everyone have 10,000 actor photo of the same size and quality, all named the same as the corresponding people in their video database?

[raym]

We show a couple logos while browsing movies using the flow-style list.  At the bottom right, there'll be a Bluray or DVD logo when appropriate.

I have never seen these logos. What's the trick?

(edit) ah... Never mind. You said flow style. That's a shame. I was hoping these could be seen in normal thumb views.

[rick.ca]

Never mind. You said flow style. That's a shame. I was hoping these could be seen in normal thumb views.

Thanks for reinforcing the point I already made to Matt. Even if the program could display some meaningful logos and determine which ones are applicable from your data, it's not necessarily going to put them where you would like to see them. Like anything similar in Theatre View, this needs to be configurable.

[darichman]

I'm not sure what you mean by this. Overlaying logos on thumbnails? I didn't think of that explicitly, but I suppose it follows from...

I guess an example I was thinking of was a small/unobtrusive overlay of: 720p, 1080p or SD over the video thumbs in standard view... In a similar way that the "Stack" icon is overlayed at the moment. There could be other examples but I'd get a lot of use out of that

[rick.ca]

I guess an example I was thinking of was a small/unobtrusive overlay of: 720p, 1080p or SD over the video thumbs in standard view... In a similar way that the "Stack" icon is overlayed at the moment.

As I said to glynor, I think trying to specify something that works equally well in Standard View as Theatre View is problematic. I would support a separate proposal for something similar in Standard View, but I haven't thought about how that would work—beyond the realization it would be somewhat different than what I've proposed here. I do believe getting graphical representations of information into Theatre View is much more important than Standard View (where I have a mouse, keyboard and things like a Panes View in my face—where I can get whatever information I want in a few clicks).

Having said that, you have picked the one example where the end result is the same. I've suggested how that could be done in the context of this proposal—a special type of File Info Panel item that would overlay the same image container on the cover/thumbnail for the file. While it's not actually an Info Panel item, that would be the appropriate place to specify it for view-level control, and the logos included in the container would be specified in exactly the same way—using the Logo() function. That function could be used in Standard View, but it only references the location of image files. What would determine the container they're to go into, and that that will be overlaid on the cover?

I'll leave the Standard View proposal for someone else to make, but my suggested solution to that question would be a special [Cover Overlay] expression field that would work exactly the same way as my proposed image containers. It might also limit the number of logos to be used (you probably don't want to cover your cover with logos) and offer options for where it's to be used (Standard and/or Theatre/View, on multiple thumbnails and/or single covers, etc.).

But I wonder if the overlay idea is feasible for either Standard or Theatre View. Thumbnails are obviously cached for a reason. It follows they would have to be updated whenever the overlay changed, and there would be no way to display a thumbnail without an overlay in one place and with one in another. If that's the case, you may as well just add whatever logos you want directly to the cover.

[struct]

The other recent eyecandy thread reminded me that I should add my +1 to this idea.  I was trying to see if I could add something to the conversation, but have come up dry.

Only thing I could think of that would make it a bit more flexible was a function that returned a graphic.  The graphic could reside in a specific directory structure or potentially any graphic within the MC database.  The idea would be that you would use an expression to evaluate to the filename of the graphic, eg Graphic(if([bitrate]>xxx,HQ,LQ), "hello") --> returns HQ.jpg or LQ.jpg or if graphic can't be used it provides the nominated text (which could alternatively be nothing or [bitrate]).  This function would then only work in a certain space of Theatre view, or could be extended to standard view locations as appropriate.  Don't know how this would then work with caching thumbnails etc, and your forcing of a directory structure, similar to Seasons, Artists, etc  probably allows for a defined caching regime.

Great idea.  Hopefully gets some traction with powers that be as it should appeal.  This is not an necessarily an eye candy issue, it is about as much about effective conveyance of information, espically with the restricted screen realestate of a theatreview.

Craig

[rick.ca]

Only thing I could think of that would make it a bit more flexible was a function that returned a graphic...

I'm not sure how this is different than what I've suggested in the form of 'Logo()'. It addresses images in a particular folder structure (rather than "any graphic within the MC database"), and doesn't attempt to replace functions already available in the expression language. Your example would be accomplished with something like: Logo(Bitrate, If(Compare([Bitrate], >, 240), HQ, LQ)). That seems more awkward, but I couldn't think of any way to map values to images available without being very arbitrary and limiting. Also, Logo(Bitrate, hello)—assuming there is no image named 'hello' in the Bitrate folder—would return a pseudo-logo (i.e., 'hello' in a bold font making it similar in size to real logos).

Logo() just provides a mechanism for referring to a folder structure which can be organized any way the user finds useful. In other words, it just a way to refer to images by subfolder and name rather than a full pathname. It's still up to the user to provide an expression to pick the applicable image, but there would be complete flexibility in doing so. This is important considering things like 'Quality' or 'Kid-friendly' might be determined by reference to more than one field. Also, it's not necessary to tie image folders to fields. You might have a generic set of images saved in a 'Quality' folder and use them for several different things (i.e., different expressions would determine the 'Quality' of audio, image and video media).

If the same expression is being used to display logos in many different views, saving it in an expression field would be helpful. The Info Panel configuration would then just refer to something like [Bitrate.logo] or [Quality.logo].

This is not an necessarily an eye candy issue, it is about as much about effective conveyance of information, espically with the restricted screen realestate of a theatreview.

That's how I see it. It's more a matter that some information can be conveyed more effectively in a visual manner. This is particularly important where information is being displayed very briefly as one is browsing through records. Whether it's an attribute you're looking for, or one you're not thinking of but want to be alerted to, a logo does a much better job. And, yes, it will save space—since a number of similar logos saved in the save container will be almost as effective. A row of logos can convey at a glance a movie's genre, quality, rating, intended audience, status (watched, bookmarked, etc.) and thumbnails of favourite directors and actors. I think it would be a great way to leverage MC's unique capabilities, add some visual appeal, and leave it's pretty 'competitors' even further behind in the dust.

[Bricktop]

I don't have anything of substance to add other than I am all for this idea. Having an icon replace text is a great way to spruce up the look of the UI and adds a great way for a person to personalize the Theater View to their liking. I liken it to changing icons on my Android phone and getting rid of the text telling me what the icon is for...doesn't effect operation, but can help to covey information in a simpler way.

Bricktop