INTERACT FORUM
More => Old Versions => JRiver Media Center 20 for Windows => Topic started by: ldoodle on June 04, 2015, 09:36:34 am
-
1. Plays everything.
2. Works well with networks and remotes
3. Has a nice ten foot interface (Theater View)
4. Delivers high quality audio and video
5. A great forum with a lot of engaged users
1. I think JRiver has a LOT of plusses when it comes to playback, in that you don't have to faff about with filters, codec packs blah blah blah. Quality is second to none
2. Nothing to say as it's true
3. I would disagree with this. It works, yes, but it's very far from 'nice', in my opinion. ALL of the competing, and free, front-end offerings have 10X better 'Theater Views'. They just look so much nicer, solely based on screenshots. In my opinion, this is where some time should be spent, even if it means commissioning someone to create half a dozen skins based on samples from the other front-ends - some vertical scrolling, some horizontal scrolling. Personally speaking, even Windows Media Center's 'skin' is better than JRiver's. Sometimes I think to myself that I hate Theater View's look - why the grass as a background... what does grass have to do with home entertainment? And the glass (?) surround/appearance of a selected item... YUK!
I think there should, as a minimum, be emphasis on AV playback, with each 'task' getting unique icons etc.
4. See 2
5. See 2
Points 1 and 4 alone are why I chose JRiver. I know Point 3 sounds like I'm moaning, but it's not more important than Points 1 and 4, which is why I suggested getting someone else to create some. You guys carry on doing what you're good at (1, 2 and 4).
-
Have you tried other Theater View skins or themes or customization?
Tools > Options > Theater View.
There are also some skins on the Third Party board here.
-
Yes, the MetroX Theatre one - since last checking (years ago) it was the only other TV skin?
Sorry to the designer, but equally YUKKY!
I'd like a bit of colour! Do away with all the back/white/grey!
-
Some examples...
-
Those look horrible. Noisy, crowded screens.
-
Sorry to the designer, but equally YUKKY!
Maybe you could find a better description?
-
Those look horrible. Noisy, crowded screens.
I appreciate it's a subjective discussion. I just find the current ones far too bland.
-
Maybe you could find a better description?
Boring
Bland
Too dark
No colour
-
Those look horrible. Noisy, crowded screens.
And if you think the screenshots look bad, wait until you see them in motion!
I was fiddling with Kodi/XBMC and a few other alternatives on some devices before MC for ARM showed up, and I was blown away at how ugly a lot of the skinning was. For example, I could find exactly one Kodi skin that I didn't think looked totally garish/embarassing while navigating it. I always liked the way JRiver's theater view looked, but seeing the alternatives made me appreciate how fluid, tasteful, and understated MC's theater view really is.
-
After all these years, I still use xplain's Rapier Fusion skin, modded to fit my own Theater view customisations (http://www.mpw.scot/galleries/rapier/bigpage.html?image=862486581_orig0.jpg).
This subject crops up on a pretty regular basis, and I for one, am pleased that JRiver have not been swayed in the direction of those other examples offered. I completely agree with Hendrik. Way too much noise and colour in those screen shots. MC's 10ft interface leaves nothing wanting for me, and the tools available for manipulating how things are presented are powerful in the extreme.
The only thing I would agree with the OP over are the default backdrops. I couldn't get rid of those quick enough. Perhaps they should be reviewed as they will affect that all important "first impression" opinion.
-marko.
-
And if you think the screenshots look bad, wait until you see them in motion!
I was fiddling with Kodi/XBMC and a few other alternatives on some devices before MC for ARM showed up, and I was blown away at how ugly a lot of the skinning was. For example, I could find exactly one Kodi skin that I didn't think looked totally garish/embarassing while navigating it. I always liked the way JRiver's theater view looked, but seeing the alternatives made me appreciate how fluid, tasteful, and understated MC's theater view really is.
+1
-
I have come to think in recent years that there's nothing to be done here. You guys - JRiver team, long time members here, generally people whose opinion I respect - you really, really like TheaterView and are honestly convinced it's better.
While us, the other guys, we really, really, honest-to-God, think Kodi looks better. This is not a "slightly better", "marginally better", "5-to-10% better" difference between us. There is a chasm in our perceptions, so wide that we only 'see' each other when firing missiles from one side to the other. Sometimes not in the most sensible manner, sometimes in Shakespearean sized posts.
So I hope we agree to disagree on this one and let's have another beer.
...
Subliminal thought: It will never be possible to replace MC with Kodi. It would be possible though to replace Kodi with MC. Pile that on top of whatever sales strategy the JRiver genie devises :)
-
It's not so simple.
We like what we have, yes. We're open to improvements though.
Is a more complex, more colorful interface an improvement? Or is it just different?
I understand that any two people can have a widely different sense of esthetics.
-
The only thing really needed to "fix" MC's Theatre View is the correct background.
Below is Farian Tilley, one of the puppies we bred.
Though in the second example Idoodle showed, I do like the use of icons to show audio standard, aspect ratio, resolution, subtitle language, and the boxes for IMDb rating, classification, runtime, year, etc. But that is a movie summary information page, which is really a different thing to the menu system, although there are action buttons on it. Maybe Theatre View could be configured to show information in a similar way, without changes to the menu system.
EDIT: Added a smaller version of the image, in the hope it would display inline.
-
Very funny. Thanks. What the world needs is a better Ten Foot Dog.
-
Though in the second example Idoodle showed, I do like the use of icons to show audio standard, aspect ratio, resolution, subtitle language, and the boxes for IMDb rating, classification, runtime, year, etc. But that is a movie summary information page, which is really a different thing to the menu system, although there are action buttons on it. Maybe Theatre View could be configured to show information in a similar way, without changes to the menu system.
+1 I like that the icons are instantly recognisable logos. It works for me.
-
A long time since I've been posting in here, Im still using the program every day.
I thought maybe I would place links to the three skinns I have made.
Rapier Fusion: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=69662.0 (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=69662.0)
Blue Puzzle: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=70190.0 (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=70190.0)
JR Metro: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=73592.0 (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=73592.0)
-
I like theater view.
However I'm torn between difficulty setting up my views. And limitation on options.
For example let's say I wanted to make a view that looked like Netflix
I can't make progress bars for watched.
You can't make a view with multpl search types.
Can't customize TV guide
Can't have artist images linked for things like actors
-
After all these years, I still use xplain's Rapier Fusion skin, modded to fit my own Theater view customisations (http://www.mpw.scot/galleries/rapier/bigpage.html?image=862486581_orig0.jpg).
Awww yeah I modified the Rapier Fusion skin as well!
Link to screen shots:
http://www.avsforum.com/forum/26-home-theater-computers/1505076-htpc-front-end-shootout-show-us-your-eye-candy-8.html#post24770755
It took a little bit to dissect the files to figure out how to add new rollers and what not but worth it in the end.
I used to prefer XBMC/Kodi skins but now I'm used to the less flashy and simplistic JRiver themes. I do not like the default included ones though. It would be nice if it was easier to customize skins but as with everything involving with JRiver is you get out of it what you put into it.
-
A long time since I've been posting in here, Im still using the program every day.
I thought maybe I would place links to the three skinns I have made.
Rapier Fusion: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=69662.0 (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=69662.0)
Blue Puzzle: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=70190.0 (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=70190.0)
JR Metro: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=73592.0 (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=73592.0)
I have to say these are excellent. The Metro ones, in my opinion, are the best. By far. Personally, I love the Windows Start Screen.
However, am I correct in saying that the 'DB' version, simply stands for Dark Blue? Please correct if I am wrong?
If so, this just seems a fundamental design flaw in skins that you need an entirely different skin for one simple colour change? I think colours, like fonts already are, should be customizable from within Theater View options, not having to hack about with code in the skin files.
-
However, am I correct in saying that the 'DB' version, simply stands for Dark Blue? Please correct if I am wrong?
That is correct, glad You like it :)
-
And if you think the screenshots look bad, wait until you see them in motion!
I was fiddling with Kodi/XBMC and a few other alternatives on some devices before MC for ARM showed up, and I was blown away at how ugly a lot of the skinning was. For example, I could find exactly one Kodi skin that I didn't think looked totally garish/embarassing while navigating it. I always liked the way JRiver's theater view looked, but seeing the alternatives made me appreciate how fluid, tasteful, and understated MC's theater view really is.
The only kodi one that I really like is Eminence. http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=187071 (http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=187071)
-
I would love to see a different view for when looking at movie details. I really like the view done this way from MyMovies. You can read the full desc of the movie easily. The icons for aspect, blu ray etc are really well done.
http://www.mymovies.dk/products/windows-media-center.aspx (http://www.mymovies.dk/products/windows-media-center.aspx)
-
That's kinda like buying Windows Office and then asking MS to rework the layout/look because someone else's program looks better.
How do you think that conversation would go with Microsoft? :)
-
That's the silliest thing I've heard today.
The point was about 10ft interface. To me that indicates items to make the display more user friendly and usable. I was suggesting to make a direct copy of it, just that the movie details screen is much easier to read.
Right now for my movie details, the movie desc is on the left and is chopped off. You have to click on it to read more. There isn't a whole lot of room for a desc and it my thought was it could be better organized. As an ex, I provided the sample above.
Overall, I think there's a lot of room for improvement for out of the box thinking for a nice TT view. For ex, if I'm in the movie details screen and I change my mind and decide to say watch a tv show, I have to go back one screen then into TV shows. Why not be able to move your mouse to the top menu in the movie details screen, and with one press up again, a drop down bar comes down which contains the first row of items on the main page (or is configurable as to what you can include there) ie Movies, TV Shows, Music, Pictures etc. I can then scroll up and select the one I want and from the movie screen I jump into tv shows...or music. Yes, we can config the buttons on our remotes, but that option would be cool.
I'm sure Kodak thought things were good enough at some point and we can see how that ended. Like it or not people like options. If someone wants a loud garish skin, then they should be able to select one. If someone wants something more nuanced (as I do), then they should have a choice as well. We all love the product, hence why we are using it, we just want to help improve it and make it even better.
JMHO
-
That's kinda like buying Windows Office and then asking MS to rework the layout/look because someone else's program looks better.
How do you think that conversation would go with Microsoft? :)
Is microsoft the benchmark of customer service JRiver wants to get measured against? :)
There is a lot of different opinions on theatre view looks, personally i don't think JRMCs theatre skin is a very good look, however i do prefer them a bit less noisy than the OP too. I think the problem is skinning, a lot of the other interfaces has a lot of nice skins to choose from. Despite a good community in MC, skins are not very common, and those that exist are usually just some modifications of the default look, instead of a "complete workover" which leads me to think the skinning engine is not very custom-friendly.
-
UX > UI for me. To that end it would be more interesting to have a way of sharing theatre rview configurations rather than skins, I have only dabbled in trying to configure it and it is quite confusing. Published examples would be v useful especially if I could just import them from somewhere.
-
The themes for Theater View are totally customizable.
You might try your hand.
Edit:
C:\Program Files (x86)\J River\Media Center 20\Skins\Theater View\Themes\[Insert Theme Name]
Make a copy of "Default" as a starting point.
-
I totally agree that there is much to be desired in Theater View. The main problem with theater view are the lack of things customizable with skins. If there was a high degree of customizability here, we would have seen skins similar to the Kodi ones. We can do some things today, but it's FAR from enough from professional skinners point of view. That's been echoed time and time again.
We can agree on one thing already. Users have different taste. Some of you love the user interface as it is. For many others, it's simply much less functional and good looking than other skins. Why would JRiver risk of turning off a large percentage of it's potential user base by doing nothing?
We've tried to fix this with concrete examples of what's needed to correct the situation. Both in skins, configuration and in smaller UI fixes in theater view. As far as I know, the actual improvements from those suggestions have been very minimal. If any. Even the feedback have been close to non existent. Since Theater View got the facelift with the x/y navigation several years ago, it's gotten very little focus at all, in my opinion. If you trace the percentage of changes related to Theater View the last years, I think many would be surprised as to how little things have changed here. And this is i rather HUGE part of a media center. When i think of Media Center, I think primarily of the 10 foot interface. And I believe that most casual users do too. Most of them are familiar with Apple TV, Roku, Fire TV, Windows Media Center, Kodi and other products. The Theater View interface are the WHOLE experience.
This thread is kind of off track already. Posts aimed at theater view bling in general have a history of around 100% failure rate.
The only way I see that anything change here, is if the developers actually tell us that they WANT to improve this. That they welcome suggestions of improvements. Because I have the impression that most of the users that want these changes do not step up today because we've been turned down so many times before, and had so little feedback from the developers when there were attempts of good and small incremental update suggestions.
-
The main problem with theater view are the lack of things customizable with skins. If there was a high degree of customizability here, we would have seen skins similar to the Kodi ones. We can do some things today, but it's FAR from enough from professional skinners point of view. That's been echoed time and time again.
I always read this, and never anything else. I haven't seen anyone trying to be productive about this ever since I've been working with JRiver on MC (the last 1.5 years)
How about actually outlining what you want to be able to skin on a technical and objective level (and keeping in mind what skinning is, not adding new features to MC, but only changing the looks of what we have today).
All I see is comments like this ("it just isn't skinnable enough"), but I don't see anyone wanting to work on a Skin actually doing concrete requests about things missing from Theater View skinning, ideally with a knowledge of how MCs dynamic views work, and which inherent limitations that may impose onto the system.
-
I always read this, and never anything else. I haven't seen anyone trying to be productive about this ever since I've been working with JRiver on MC.
How about actually outlining what you want to be able to skin on a technical and objective level (and keeping in mind what skinning is, not adding new features to MC, but only changing the looks of what we have today).
All I see is comments like this ("it just isn't skinnable enough"), but I don't see anyone wanting to work on a Skin actually doing concrete requests about things missing from Theater View skinning, ideally with a knowledge of how MCs dynamic views work, and which inherent limitations that may impose onto the system.
That is simply not the case, I "always" read that people are not giving concrete feedback, but people give concrete feedback all the time. Also when it comes to skinning. If you have never seen it, you simply haven't looked.
Besides not every user can know the technical inner workings of the program, what do you think is the reason for the meager amount of skins, and that most are very similar to the default skin? What do you think would help with this?
-
Besides not every user can know the technical inner workings of the program, what do you think is the reason for the meager amount of skins, and that most are very similar to the default skin? What do you think would help with this?
while i agree with this, i think it's more user apathy than "knowing the inner workings". it takes a lot of time.
i think you and Hendrik have different definitions of "concrete feedback"...posting that the "skinning isn't good enough" isn't concrete. posting that "skinning should have X and Y" is, and i don't read stuff like that very often, especially lately
-
while i agree with this, i think it's more user apathy than "knowing the inner workings". it takes a lot of time.
i think you and Hendrik have different definitions of "concrete feedback"...posting that the "skinning isn't good enough" isn't concrete. posting that "skinning should have X and Y" is, and i don't read stuff like that very often, especially lately
I have never said that "skinning isn't good enough" is concrete, and I can't see what I have said that would indicate I mean that either.
When you see the results of the concrete feedback earlier, combined with what seems like little improvement in skinning over time, despite this regularly appearing in forums, the willingness to give that kind of probably sinks, because it seems to be of little use.
-
I do agree with Hendrik - I've been reading posts criticizing both skins and theater view for awhile now, and most don't offer anything productive - just vague complaints. How about you start a new topic specific to either skins or theater view and be as clear and specific as possible on what you'd like to see changed, added, etc.
Seriously, take some time and think out the proposal and begin to type it out and post it here. Screenshots and mockups would certainly help, I'm thinking, but being as clear and specific as possible may work best in this situation.
-
I do agree with Hendrik - I've been reading posts criticizing both skins and theater view for awhile now, and most don't offer anything productive - just vague complaints. How about you start a new topic specific to either skins or theater view and be as clear and specific as possible on what you'd like to see changed, added, etc.
Seriously, take some time and think out the proposal and begin to type it out and post it here. Screenshots and mockups would certainly help, I'm thinking, but being as clear and specific as possible may work best in this situation.
This thread is full of pretty productive and concrete feedback, and its not even very old
https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=97553.0
And I do not want to start a thread about what i want changed in the regular theatre view, there is a lot of different opions on this, I want a program with a good flexoble amount of skins, so people can use their on favourites.
-
Yes, the skin thread link has some pretty productive posts.
Define flexibility? What is it you're looking for, specifically? Just saying you want good flexibility on skins is too general and vague.
-
Yes, the skin thread link has some pretty productive posts.
Define flexibility? What is it you're looking for, specifically? Just saying you want good flexibility on skins is too general and vague.
I am not a skin maker, but I have seen how concrete feedback from skinmakers are handled (that is, not much is happening), the skin-makers are better suited to make very specific suggestions.
MC has few skins, and the skins change the look very little, what do you think is the reason for that? Is the problem not the skinning? Something else?
-
I am not a skin maker, but I have seen how concrete feedback from skinmakers are handled (that is, not much is happening), the skin-makers are better suited to make very specific suggestions.
Maybe you could post a few links to those.
-
This thread is full of pretty productive and concrete feedback, and its not even very old
https://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=97553.0
That particular thread had a few concrete suggestions about skinning, but its about Standard View, which uses different skinning entirely (it seems a bit silly to have two entirely different skinning formats, but the UIs are just totally different, and also share practically nothing in MC itself).
-
Not sure if this is what is considered concrete, but I'd like it to be possible to create a 10 ft interface for when I'm in anamorphic projection mode, so the content is only displayed on the visible part of the screen (i.e. 1920 x 800?) when scrolling through lists of movie etc..
Also, I'd like to be able to control the location of the settings when in playback mode that activated through the use of the cursor keys. By this I mean that I would like to be able to move them further up the screen so that they are visible when in anamorphic mode.
As far as I know these things are not possible to control at the moment through skinning using Media Center but are in Lodi as there have been a couple of CIH \ anamorphic skins created for it.
I consider these things important as they add to usability of the 10ft interface in a home theater environment.
I hope this feedback helps.
-
Yes, the skin thread link has some pretty productive posts.
Define flexibility? What is it you're looking for, specifically? Just saying you want good flexibility on skins is too general and vague.
Oh man, this is like 2011 calling to have some posts repeated...
Ability to define elements of the interface - text and graphic labels (what graphic labels? the ones we don't have yet), fields, scrollable areas, and their placements, with fixed (x,y) and relative precision (i.e. % of something - say screen, or as delta from another element, etc).
Then I want to pretty them up, so transparent layers with z-order support.
Then I want to animate the whole thing, so support for conditional variables in the skin engine, so something can happen (i.e. show up) only when certain conditions are satisfied. Add some animation effects for skin elements while at it - slide, fade, rotate, etc.
If I can't make a skin that looks completely different from the current Theater view, including completely new menu style, directions and logic of navigation, etc - we're not there.
Borrowing heavy from the immortal words of Daenerys, I don't want to stop the wheel, I want to brake the wheel! :) Where are my (design) dragons... anybody seen my dragons?
-
Well there is the big difference, you don't want to skin the UI we have, you want an entirely new UI, including new logic and a lot of new functionality, which is not something that I can just make happen by improving the skinning system.
-
Well there is the big difference, you don't want to skin the UI we have, you want an entirely new UI, including new logic and a lot of new functionality, which is not something that I can just make happen by improving the skinning system.
What needs to be improved to allow this then? I think Mrhaugens post sums up the problem quite nicely. And yes, for me, just modifying som part of the existing UI is not what i am looking for, I am looking for a flexible interface where a lot of different hings are possible, as is the case with many of the larger competitors. Wheter one calles this "skinning" og something else isn't to important for me.
-
I would call it a "customizable interface", not just "flexible". The current Theater View is flexible. It just doesn't do what you want.
-
I would call it a "customizable interface", not just "flexible". The current Theater View is flexible. It just doesn't do what you want.
Ok, that might be a better word, but as far as I can read from the posts in the thread, what most(?) people in the thread want then is a more customizable theatre interface.
-
Not to pour cold water on the idea, but just to tell you what the obstacles for doing that are...
I would guess that such a project would take 3 man months to do, and would then take 3 more months to debug.
This would cost around $50,000, and would divert us from other equally important work.
It would create new instability and frustration for some current users.
Would it pay back our investment? That is the question, and I think the answer is probably not anytime soon.
I doubt that Kodi users would suddenly flock to MC because it could be modified. It would take a Kodi skinner or two deciding that JRiver had potential and then doing the work and then circulating the news.
One other factor is that some percentage of users are reasonably happy with the current interface. That includes most of the JRiver team. I would not like to upset those people in order to satisfy others.
I'm not saying that we won't ever do it. I'm only trying to explain why we're not enthusiastic about doing it now.
-
Not to pour cold water on the idea, but just to tell you what the obstacles for doing that are...
I would guess that such a project would take 3 man months to do, and would then take 3 more months to debug.
This would cost around $50,000, and would divert us from other equally important work.
It would create new instability and frustration for some current users.
Would it pay back our investment? That is the question, and I think the answer is probably not anytime soon.
I doubt that Kodi users would suddenly flock to MC because it could be modified. It would take a Kodi skinner or two deciding that JRiver had potential and then doing the work and then circulating the news.
I'm not saying that we won't ever do it. I'm only trying to explain why we're not enthusiastic about doing it now.
Well, that is at the very least concrete feedback, to be honest I am not that surprised, and I think the feeling that this hasn't been a priority is also part of the reason why the complaints for the moment are pretty general in nature. Listing up a lot of concrete point takes work, work that is somewhat going to waste if it not a priority anyway.
I personally think this is a pretty important task, and one of the bigger drawbacks left in the program today, but others of course might see it differently and I fully understand that priorities must be made, you don't have the time to do everything. I appreciate the openness it much better to get a feedback regarding if it might happen or not than no concrete feedback, even if the feedback is not as hoped.
-
What I wanted to express with earlier posts is this:
I am willing to do a bit of work on improving the skinning options for Theater View. But we have to be clear on that: It has to be actually skinning current Theater View, and not implementing a load of new UI functionality.
If someone wants to actually make a skin for Theater View, and is aware of these limitations, and just finds a few aspects lacking, please do speak up, and I'll see what I can do.
-
Ok here are the things I would like to see off the top of my head.
1. Be able to customize the number of rows and columns when viewing my music or movies. Depending on what I select, the fonts and images auto resize.
2. The 3D grid view as already mentioned is too hard to read via 10ft interface.
3. Movie details tab – be able to select various types of view. Personally I would like to see a smaller image movie poster and more text in the movie desc box which should be wider. Maybe a separate tab for Actors, Similar Movies, Trailers. If I select …the Director, can I see other movies in my collection by that actor.
4. Images – why on earth when I’m viewing my albums and I click an image does it take me to another screen where the image is still fairly small and I get the image name, when it was taken etc etc. If a user is viewing an album, it’s to…view the images! If I select an image, it should open up full screen. Maybe you can give an option for this.
5. As mentioned already, a floating control bar at the very top of the screen that is hidden and only shows up when you scroll above the main menu (this is while in movie details, music details, images) that allows access to exit, music, movies, images etc. It could be configurable
-
You can put custom text on the screen today.
For example from the XML of a skin:
<Item Text="[Time]" Location="*\***" TextColor="FFFFFF" Rect="Titlebar\80,0,98,100" Capitalization="0" Alignment="1" Alpha="50" Size="[Medium Text Height]" />
That puts the time at the top right for any view under the home view.
-
You know that means absolutely nothing to me. I'm not a coder, I'm a user. Keep in mind, just putting text onscreen is not the problem, it's making it actually do something when you select it. Hopefully, that doesn't come out sounding the wrong way...
-
I'd like to be able to make a watch progress bar in certain places. Is that possible with the current skinning framework?
In general I find most skinning issues overlap the difficulty setting up theater views the way I want. So I don't have a ton of energy going into the skinning part.
I added a background video I like. And put picture of my kids for the kids section. Then I stopped. I understand why this conversation is hard. We had a great threads on just adding an option to control what the left arrow did. In the end there was a change that helps. But I still didn't get what I needed. So the desire to go back into theater view is still pretty low.
I don't think I need a ton of charges to make it better. But there seems to a lack of control. In both navigation and layout that prevent more freedom.
Let's say I like the Netflix layout. Can I make that a theater view with a somewhat similar navigation feel? I've tried a little and I don't feel I can. So I don't try harder.
To give more concrete detail on this. I really like to see the metadata be more interesting. Like images associated with people. The clicking on then shows me the other movies I have with them. I don't think that's possible. So I can't replicate a view I want to make.
I hope these random bits of data help. I know there not supper concrete for implementing changes. But they keep me from going much further into that world.
-
Well there is the big difference, you don't want to skin the UI we have, you want an entirely new UI, including new logic and a lot of new functionality, which is not something that I can just make happen by improving the skinning system.
That is correct. Also the UI you guys have is more than 10 years old, it hasn't improve much in the last 5 years, and I can't see what the interest will be for any user to work to just pretty it up a bit here and there.
Not to pour cold water on the idea, but just to tell you what the obstacles for doing that are...
Actually Jim, I agree with everything you said there. Those are the obstacles, those are the realities. Sometimes I try to place myself in your (collective) shoes (as hilarious as it may sound). "Why the heck they don't do it? They must hate it. If not that they must surely don't like us". That would be mighty crazy. Surely that is not what drives your decisions.
But that brings us to a very political topic. What does influence your decisions.
What follows is just my opinion, you can delete it after reading it, all I'm saying is that the events can be interpreted like this too. Some of us don't just want things blindly, some do think. They just don't think like you :).
Roughly approximating, you guys made a decision a decade ago, silently, to lay the foundation for going cross-platform. About 4-5 years ago was the first time when a public poll was made about what people prefer. Neither OSX nor Linux gained more than 33%, and if anything Linux came on top. What happened next? OSX became a development priority, between the new platforms. What can be read into this? Polls be damned we gonna do whatever we like to do.
Now for the record I care about OSX and Linux exactly zero. But I acknowledge there are many people using them and they should enjoy MC too, should that be their choice. Heck, if that gives JRiver more stability, more market share, more money, more whatever is good and cool, go for it.
How many guys are you there to do this? Mmm yeah, exactly. So then it takes 10 years. While other things get put on hold. Theater View? A war of attrition. Pictures? Psshhhh... IPTC implementation dated from... the late unpleasantness, 48bit support not really seeing it, reading a few hundred MB tiff locks everything (queue to the other thread (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=98081.0)where interface locks are discussed); all 'good' here. And those are just things that interest me, I don't speak for everybody.
It might've been a tour de force for you all, a point to be proven, a goal to accomplish when so many others failed. You make better software than big companies. And while I would never argue quantity over quality, it remains a fact that your bandwidth is not the bandwidth of a corporation with 1500 people. So those decisions affect our time. Our waiting time. There are many great things to be done, and there's only that many that this team, as genius as they are, can do.
It was your decision that set things in motion like that, and it was also your right. Your company. Just don't expect to take no heat from us. The ones that refuse to be sedated into waiting years for something to come down the pipe.
I am willing to do a bit of work on improving the skinning options for Theater View. But we have to be clear on that: It has to be actually skinning current Theater View, and not implementing a load of new UI functionality.
Unfortunately this can be read like: we can do a bit of work, so you guys have a few more toys to play with, to improve what we think is best, not what you think is best. So in effect the only option is to work on something we don't want to deal to begin with. Besides the too little too late argument, I don't see how this will help anybody with actual skills at designing anything. I for one appreciate the offer, but politely decline.
For example from the XML of a skin:
<Item Text="[Time]" Location="*\***" TextColor="FFFFFF" Rect="Titlebar\80,0,98,100" Capitalization="0" Alignment="1" Alpha="50" Size="[Medium Text Height]" />
Can we put any field in the database on screen like that? Can I place a "x of that many" object on screen? Where "that many" is calculated with count across function? In summery, can we have widgets? See how fast this gets derailed?
-
The suggestions for concrete skinning suggestions have been several. Perhaps it's not been gathered in one thread in one nice simple list of suggestions, but it's there. I agree however, that there could be more of it! The problem is that we don't have that many experienced skinners for Theater View. At least when you look at the skinning development community of other apps. Those few that are actually might not be heard very well.
Here's one example of a skinning discussion: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=88011.msg604014#msg604014
I gave some feedback my self, but you have to understand that I'm FAR form a knowledgeable person when it comes to skinning. So I don't know the underlying problems or possibilities here.
There's also been some very good insight from Xplain. He have created the JR Metro skins, which in my opinion are some of the best produced for Theater View. I think he pretty much gave up skinning because of the limitations. He's spoken about those limitations in several posts. He have also added a bunch of concrete examples of what he want to see in the skinning engine, in a dedicated threat for this exact purpose. I don't know if this thread was started by me, but I suspect it was. Unfortunately I can't find it again. It's possible it was on the beta forums. Just search for "Theater View skin" or skinning, and you'll get lots of posts with Skin and Theater view discussions. Some with very concrete suggestions for improvements.
When we look at both Theater view skinning and options or restructures of the interface, I spent weeks of my time a few years ago and posted an elaborate suggestion for an overhaul. It consisted of lots of small, and some big changes that would pretty much satisfy everyone. Very little came of it. So, I can't do that all over. I have it documented, so I could post it again. But this formatting also takes time, so it would be better to move the old post if it's of interest.
Here's a link to another post regarding XBMC\Kodi skins, which I think gives some more insight. It also shows a small part of the suggestion I previously added to the beta forum post:
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=82489.msg562553#msg562553
I would love to see changes here, but to be completely honest I have my doubts if this should even be a priority now. While I think that a good and flexible Theater View are very important to get those casual users and former KODI users over, I think that streaming is a much more pressing matter. A couple of years ago, the situation was the other way. I have moved completely away from JRiver my self. I only use JRiver so look up where I left of my series, so I can resume them on streaming service. I ONLY use Streaming services these days. The numbers of users increase day by day. Streaming services are getting better and there are more and more of them. Because of most of this services are so persistent of keeping their subscribers tied to their platform, I'm not sure if this is a problem that can really be solved. But if it is, you should most definitely do something about it. Because, this will drain most of the user base in time. Even the audiophiles will eventually find that there are services that gives them adequate quality in streaming one day.
I don't know if there are any solutions to this right now. Only thing I can think of is to improve the plugin capabilities. Especially in Theater View. So your user base can help you out with 3'rd party access to streaming services. That's the only way around I can see now. For some of the services.
-
To add my 50p (inflation...)
I guess Theater View configuration can be split into:
1. Cosmetic improvements
2. Usability improvements
3. Customisation and components
I think, possibly, the skinning and config options already provide 1. Font size, colours, background etc.
2 is the biggest area for me. For example, inability to easily access the current playing now list and edit it, awkward and hard-to-find transport controls, zone-changing awkward (e.g. to change zone while in TV I have to back out of TV and go into Audio and change the zone from there - not sure as yet if there's a way to add the zone changer to a roller), and also other issues pointed out in the Touch Screen thread.
3 relates to the ability to define and place objects on the screen, and types of object, e.g. cover flow, layout of cover art panes and info panes, popup text windows for comments, lyrics etc. This is sometimes to create new screens that are not provided out of the box, but also sometimes people want this sort of ability in order to get round usability issues described above.
I have tried in the past to create a better Now Playing Screen, for info only not even for playback control, using Visualisation Studio, but found it impossible to even place cover art and text objects where I wanted them, the tool just didn't seem to behave as I expected.
I'm not using the specific touch screen skin for Theater View even though I've got a touch screen because it didn't look as nice as the others, and also the menus on the home screen didn't work properly because if the second levelr expands and it's more than a few items it goes off the bottom of the screen and you can no longer access the rest of the menu.
Whether a product should be open to flexible/infinite customisation by the user is open to debate but at least sort out the usability issues so that people are less likely to want to customise. True, a prettier now playing screen is hardly likely to drive users of Kodi over to JRiver, but on the other hand once people are here and they discover the limitations and usability issues there are more likely to be dissatisfied users which genreates bad publicity. Listening to current users should have just as much weight as trying to attract new customers.
-
I'm not saying that we won't ever do it. I'm only trying to explain why we're not enthusiastic about doing it now.
Although I am the OP, I agree with this entirely.
This subject is more of a wish list item for me. Video and Audio quality must always come first for a media playback application.
-
Is there a comprehensive guide available (the Wiki one's not great) on what can and can't be done in a Skin? And how to create one?
How did xplain eventually get to JR Metro? How long did it take him?
I don't mind having a go myself!
-
Although I am the OP, I agree with this entirely.
This subject is more of a wish list item for me. Video and Audio quality must always come first for a media playback application.
I don't disagree with video and audio quality coming first, but this is already very good, and few changes are made to audio and video quality, I don't think prioritzing the theatre view will come at the cost of that quality. Although I would tend to agree with haugen that somehow "solving" the streaming problem might be of equal or higher importance.
-
How did xplain eventually get to JR Metro? How long did it take him?
It took some time to do, but i didn't mind, as I thought is was a fun projekt,
The Metro skin was my third skin, so at that time I knew how to gat around it, my first skin took a long time, but again I didn't mind.
I learned my self how to skin, by looking in the Base.xml file and main.xml for the skins that comes with the program,
from there I just edited them in Windows note, it was a lot of hit and mis, but some worked, and the developers also helped with fixing some of the bumps on the way.
I will gladly help.......
I will throw in an idea I had along time ago:
(http://www.pix01.com/gallery/F70A5EA5-F5F0-4AD2-9954-560EAC859D81/Rapier_fusion/150873342_orig0.jpg)
In this example it's recent movies, when on movies in the menu, and should be recent albums in Audio..................
And
Make it possible to show a little window with the Playing Now (If something is playing) on the "Home screen"
-
Thanks xplain. To be honest, I doubt I'll start my own skin as Metro has the base of it, so I'll just tweak that a little bit to my liking.
Your screenshot highlights a big bugbear of mine though. All the different cases of fonts. Is that a 'design' change or a 'skin' change. I'd like everything all lower case all of the time or all title case all of the time.
Not lower case if it's not selected and title case if it is selected.
Another idea I've literally just had: you know if you've got a film series and you have theater view set to group by series, the cover art shows as stacked on top of each other, with ones behind angling outwards at the top. It would look a million times better if the images rotated, like 'active' tiles on the Windows Start Screen, with animation direction selectable (from left to right, from right to left, from top to bottom, from bottom to top, random etc.). I think a sliding animation would be best, rather than fades, zooms etc. (though these could be options too).
Same with audio (artists view etc).
I don't like the stacked cover art approach currently used.
-
All the different cases of fonts. Is that a 'design' change or a 'skin' change. I'd like everything all lower case all of the time or all title case all of the time.
Not lower case if it's not selected and title case if it is selected.
That is coded in the program, and cannot be changed in the skin
-
That is coded in the program, and cannot be changed in the skin
See, it's all these things that I think should be customizable as an option.
-
Does anyone know whether MC can be used as the preferred playback software from within KODI?
If so, that might the solution some of you are looking for:
The UI of KODI and all the skins/customisation that entails.
The sound and video quality of MC.
Costs nothing if you already have MC.
Personally, I used to badly want a different Theater View, which is what many of you are asking for. Having worked with a many people who are really into music - JRiver's bread and butter, I think - all of them have been very happy with Theater View. None of them have complained about its dated looks. They can find their music and they can play it.
The look of theater view is important to me, but not THAT important. When the time is right, Jim's obstacles may be overcome, just like they have for other issues like cross-platform support.
-
Does anyone know whether MC can be used as the preferred playback software from within KODI?
If so, that might the solution some of you are looking for:
The UI of KODI and all the skins/customisation that entails.
The sound and video quality of MC.
Costs nothing if you already have MC.
Personally, I used to badly want a different Theater View, which is what many of you are asking for. Having worked with a many people who are really into music - JRiver's bread and butter, I think - all of them have been very happy with Theater View. None of them have complained about its dated looks. They can find their music and they can play it.
The look of theater view is important to me, but not THAT important. When the time is right, Jim's obstacles may be overcome, just like they have for other issues like cross-platform support.
I have tried using another front-end to run MC, I would call it a less than ideal solution in many ways.
-
I have tried using another front-end to run MC, I would call it a less than ideal solution in many ways.
Yup, I would never do it myself. :)
-
There is a lot that could be done to improve Theater View without really changing the UI or the skinning engine. My biggest complaint is that it is essentially an undynamic wall-of-text.
For a simple start, how about creating more folders in the Cover Art folder that are associated with standard fields? Genre, actor, director, etc. Let users manually populate them to test it out, then eventually add code to auto-populate them from existing databases. Finally working up to something like Kodi’s Extended Info Script that pulls all sorts of metadata and images: http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=160558 You can then add in icons/images for ratings, codecs, studios, etc. Even pull YouTube trailers.
The next part is improving the dynamic navigation of Theater View. This was started not too long ago with some simple linking of fields to shut some people up. But it could be flushed out more. There are some known bugs: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?action=printpage;topic=97432.0 List fields do not work perfectly. And there should be some guidelines on what media sub types it pulls.
Having dynamically linking fields with images would go a long way without really changing the layout or the navigation. Something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvOuwMz0KyM The layout and theme isn’t as important as being able to see actor’s pictures, linked to cover art of all their movies in my library. Icons for the IMDB and MPAA ratings, etc.
This would be improved functionality without a complete overhaul of the UI. It doesn’t have to be all done at once, but small steps at a time towards things like this would be appreciated.
-
Not to pour cold water on the idea, but just to tell you what the obstacles for doing that are...
I would guess that such a project would take 3 man months to do, and would then take 3 more months to debug.
This would cost around $50,000, and would divert us from other equally important work.
It would create new instability and frustration for some current users.
Would it pay back our investment? That is the question, and I think the answer is probably not anytime soon.
I doubt that Kodi users would suddenly flock to MC because it could be modified. It would take a Kodi skinner or two deciding that JRiver had potential and then doing the work and then circulating the news.
One other factor is that some percentage of users are reasonably happy with the current interface. That includes most of the JRiver team. I would not like to upset those people in order to satisfy others.
I'm not saying that we won't ever do it. I'm only trying to explain why we're not enthusiastic about doing it now.
Your Software-- AKA MC is a part of my daily life. I can not do without it. We love this software.. let us find a way to improve it.
Look at the Linux and Mac platforms, we are all patiently waiting to get it beefed up to have theater view, televisions, and full video playback capabilities.
If it will cost $50,000, jack up the price of admission, bring in the Kodi skinners. For me I am willing to pay more for using MC. Somehow, skinning, eye candy comes up every time, it needs to be addressed. We will be patient. Users of MC will understand the head ache and pains involved.
I bet, three years from now, we are going to be discussing this feature.
Jim.. Let us do it. "Enough is Enough"
Thanks.
George
-
Yup, I would never do it myself. :)
In our living room htpc setup we now use plex for video with audio through the wdm driver to take advantage of jrmc's DSP/convolver. In our case this setup has been rock solid.
-
There is a lot that could be done to improve Theater View without really changing the UI or the skinning engine. My biggest complaint is that it is essentially an undynamic wall-of-text.
For a simple start, how about creating more folders in the Cover Art folder that are associated with standard fields? Genre, actor, director, etc. Let users manually populate them to test it out, then eventually add code to auto-populate them from existing databases. Finally working up to something like Kodi’s Extended Info Script that pulls all sorts of metadata and images: http://forum.kodi.tv/showthread.php?tid=160558 You can then add in icons/images for ratings, codecs, studios, etc. Even pull YouTube trailers.
The next part is improving the dynamic navigation of Theater View. This was started not too long ago with some simple linking of fields to shut some people up. But it could be flushed out more. There are some known bugs: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?action=printpage;topic=97432.0 List fields do not work perfectly. And there should be some guidelines on what media sub types it pulls.
Having dynamically linking fields with images would go a long way without really changing the layout or the navigation. Something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvOuwMz0KyM The layout and theme isn’t as important as being able to see actor’s pictures, linked to cover art of all their movies in my library. Icons for the IMDB and MPAA ratings, etc.
This would be improved functionality without a complete overhaul of the UI. It doesn’t have to be all done at once, but small steps at a time towards things like this would be appreciated.
jmhsb, that's a very good summary. There seems to be a lot of agreement regarding those things. Those that like to have changes at least. I agree that we don't necessarily need to change the whole skinning engine or the Theater View UI. But if the skins were more flexible, some of those things could be added as the users want, via skin customization. And I don't see that as a bad thing.
Most users don't do skinning them self, of course. But if the production of different skins were more popular and different skins were available, it would be easier to change those to fit your need than tweaking lot's of options. That's here my thoughts go. Differentiate looks to suite different user groups with different skins. I agree however, that most of these things you mention can and should be added as default.
One great thing I want to point out with skinning, is that it would probably take the load off of the developers once it have been properly addressed. If the skinning is flexible, it will give a lot of room for the users to create what ever they want, by them self. That way there would probably be lot less requests for JRiver to handle.
-
For a simple start, how about creating more folders in the Cover Art folder that are associated with standard fields? Genre, actor, director, etc. .... You can then add in icons/images for ratings, codecs, studios, etc.
Been requested since at least 2012! :)
http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=96102.msg662919;topicseen#msg662919 (http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=96102.msg662919;topicseen#msg662919)
Having dynamically linking fields with images would go a long way without really changing the layout or the navigation. Something like this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DvOuwMz0KyM
Yes, that vid shows the difference quite neatly. Theater View is "alright" but it does look dated. The above video does exactly the same sort of thing as Theater View but with neater presentation, nice fonts, nice little boxes, nice popup window with file info, etc. And here are some images of Elgato Eye TV:
http://regmedia.co.uk/2006/09/21/elgato_frontrow_2.png (http://regmedia.co.uk/2006/09/21/elgato_frontrow_2.png)
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zylQqQT-1YE/maxresdefault.jpg (http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zylQqQT-1YE/maxresdefault.jpg)
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2177/2195508589_e4dab6e0de.jpg?v=0 (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2177/2195508589_e4dab6e0de.jpg?v=0)
-
We all understand that money and human resources makes the JRiver system work, like a lot of companies.
Big improvements in the Theater View is not top priority in the roadmap.
I deal with this kind of constraints everyday as a software architect, and when coming to this kind of statu quo we have to be inventive.
Maybe this could be addressed differently? JRiver user's community is pretty wide now, why not building something on top of this?
This could help to shift the load on it, and let the dev team to focus on core features.
Some (stupid?) ideas that I just drop here to see if it could make this going in a direction that could make everybody happy. (and potentially broaden the JRiver audience. Yes, I know a lot of people that prefers Kodi, even after they have visited my own installation which is 100% JRiver and they liked it. Just because Kodi is just """nicer""". And until they have this kind of feature they will no go deeper to understand the power of the JRiver DB and audio/video rendering engines)
- Why not to open JRiver MC for this specific need? I don't know how the product is architectured but the core features seems to be well seperated.
Could the Theater View part be externalyzed and improved by the community? Yes I mean open-sourcing this specific part!
- Changing the existing rendering/skin engine is a challenge, why reinventing the wheel? JRiver already provide a lot of external API, which means that an external engine could be used to control the player. That's already what JRiver provides remotely via JRemote or WebGizmo.
Some months ago I've done some kind of prototype based on Node-Webkit (https://github.com/nwjs/nw.js/wiki/List-of-apps-and-companies-using-nw.js), it's so powerful: HTML5, SVG, JavaScript for skinning and scripting, the only show stopper I've found is that I was not able to control the display view of JRiver, so. But that's something that could be easily improved by the dev team (the Nirvana would be to be able to embed it as a web component)
My 2 cents
(sorry if all my sentences are not totally in good english, but think about it if you should write it in french ;))
-
My concern is that MC will start looking old. If you look around these days at things like, IOS, MS Windows 10, Plex, Kodi, XBOX, FB, Playstation etc etc, all the interfaces are very slick. It's just the way things are and moving more and more towards. Simple, intuitive, and nice graphics etc. The surest way to put a nail in your coffin is to stand still. You end up looking old. You can have the best and most solid foundation but once you start to look old, people by nature will gravitate towards the things that a) look better and b) allow them to interact in a smoother and faster way. It's just the way things are.
I used the analogy of Kodak earlier. They had a great product. But times where changing, technology was changing. They reacted way to slow and by the time they did, it was much too late. In today's fickle world, things can change practically overnight.
-
I have a very specific request that, on the surface anyway, seems like a simple change. In playing now view for music, make it possible to remove the rating field. I just don't have any use for ratings. Currently, it is possible to modify the bitmaps used for filled and unfilled stars, allowing you can change the appearance of the stars, but you can't make them go away. I do my best to hide the stars by using transparent bitmaps, but the field is still there.
-
I prefer functionality over style! In my opinion the JRiver team are focusing on the important things stability, features, video quality, TV etc. Not eye candy! that can come later 😁
-
I prefer functionality over style! In my opinion the JRiver team are focusing on the important things stability, features, video quality, TV etc. Not eye candy! that can come later 😁
When is "later"? How good mus the other features be? And a good UI is part of the functionality IMHO, and much more important than for instance TV, TV is inflexible and old-school :)
-
I'd like to be clear. most requested skinning and other requests. Are geared around improved layout control and functionality. With some eye candy on the side
-
Ya know Jim, if resources are the issue, you could do a Kickstarter. I for one would donate...
-
I'd like to be clear. most requested skinning and other requests. Are geared around improved layout control and functionality. With some eye candy on the side
Exactly. Layout improvements, control and functionality and so on does NOT equal "eye candy". Even if it makes things prettier.
Having rating fields where you need them will improve functionality for some as they don't need to look for it elsewhere.
Having the correct backdrops might improve your familiarity with certain items.
Having the ability to customize the navigation system will improve the functionality, and can at the same time make the UI look better.
Having latest imported movie covers shown on the main menu might look nice, but it also informs the users what new items they have.
Having the ability to use graphics instead of some of the text items today might help people easier understand it's function. And at the same time it might make the UI look more up to date.
Having the ability to map tags to icons to represent resolution, audio type, channels and so on will make people understand the tags much more quickly than a sea of text.
I can go on and on. Most of what we're talking about here are functionality for SOME people. Calling it eye candy is simply wrong in most cases. We have to move on past this. Please.
-
I wouldn't go a far as rlebrette by saying to open-source Theater View. But it might be a wise move to get someone on a temp. basis to overhaul it and its skinning capabilities. Would I be unrealistic in saying 6-12 months to accomplish that?
I'd happily pay an extra 10% say to upgrade to MC21 with an all-new Theater View to subsidise this investment.
-
Can I make a feature request, that doesn't seem to hard to implement:
'Return to Standard View' exit option. If chosen, Standard View remains open after exiting Theater View.
If 'normal' Exit Theater View is chosen, Standard View should also close
-
Can I make a feature request, that doesn't seem to hard to implement:
'Return to Standard View' exit option. If chosen, Standard View remains open after exiting Theater View.
If 'normal' Exit Theater View is chosen, Standard View should also close
That would be a "Quit Media Center" option, not "Exit Theater View"
"Exit Theater View" returning to Standard View, as it currently does, would be the expected behavior.
"Close Media Center" is one of the options available via the "System Sleep, Shutdown, & More…" option.
-
Can I make a feature request, that doesn't seem to hard to implement:
'Return to Standard View' exit option. If chosen, Standard View remains open after exiting Theater View.
If 'normal' Exit Theater View is chosen, Standard View should also close
Closing Media Center is there.
Exit > System Sleep, Shutdown, & More... > Close Media Center