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?