Topic: New Cover Art System (Read 24896 times)

Matt · « **on:** March 27, 2008, 05:37:00 pm »

New system:

Matt · « **Reply #1 on:** March 27, 2008, 05:38:29 pm »

Manual selections in this dialog will feedback into the voting system, making the automatic results better.

johnnyboy · « **Reply #2 on:** March 27, 2008, 05:48:18 pm »

All I can say is WOW!! lol.
Report a big problem and overnight a solution is come up with - I'm super impressed

Alex B · « **Reply #3 on:** March 27, 2008, 06:02:04 pm »

Great!

I have some ideas that I would like to suggest, but I have not had time to prepare a presentation. I'll try to draw or otherwise create a mockup of a couple of dialog windows and post them ASAP.

darichman · « **Reply #4 on:** March 27, 2008, 06:08:25 pm »

Can't wait to try it out!

Alex B · « **Reply #5 on:** March 27, 2008, 07:37:43 pm »

Here are my quick and dirty drawings. (I really didn't have time to create fancy mockups)

1. This window would show up first. It would be useful to provide a possibility to run an unattempted lookup. I.e.: you could select 500 files, start the process and let it run through exactly like it works now. The database would provide the best guess in case multiple images are available.

2. This would show up when "show alternatives" is selected and more than one image is available.

3. Also when nothing is found the database would allow to use a different search criteria.

4. The user would be able to type alternative names and start a new query.

EDIT

The attached images I posted in the beta board are not available here, but they would be obsolete anyway since the lookup tool is more or less finished.

Alex B · « **Reply #6 on:** March 27, 2008, 07:41:28 pm »

An alternative query would provide a new set of images. Naturally, if an image is selected it would be voted using the original artist and album tags, which are still visible in the window header. The server DB would then create a copy of the image file with new tags or just give the existing file alternative tags if that is possible.

EDIT: as above, the attachment is not available.

Alex B · « **Reply #7 on:** March 27, 2008, 08:06:56 pm »

I think it would be better to handle each album separately when user interaction is required. It would make possible to add the user defined query option quite easily.

If more than one album is selected for the lookup MC would show the same window again for each subsequent album that has more than one matching image in the DB.

The custom query option would provide a solution to this problem:

Quote from: Alex B on March 17, 2008, 05:53:52 am

Perhaps my Elvis example wasn't very good. Classical music would provide better examples of possible tag variances.

For the same album the artist can be e.g.
- Beethoven
- Ludvig Van Beethoven
- Karajan
- Herbert Von Karajan
- Karajan & BPO
- Beethoven (Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra & Karajan)
- etc

and the album name can be
- Symphony No. 3
- Beethoven's 3rd symphony
- Eroica (3rd symphony)
- etc

It is nice that you have been able to add some fuzzy logic, but an automatic system can work only up to a certain extend. It can easily happen that the user misses a valid cover art image. A possibility to try different search strings is needed.

EDIT: fixed a couple of typos in the attached pictures.

ThoBar · « **Reply #8 on:** March 27, 2008, 08:14:25 pm »

I like the look of what's there... looking forward to trying it.

Alex B · « **Reply #9 on:** March 27, 2008, 09:27:38 pm »

I looked at the screenshot again. Am I correct that the user would be able to simply press OK without making any selections? Then the server would select the best images?

If that's how it is intended to work could you consider adding a separate very simple tool for quering individual image files with a user defined search string?

Matt · « **Reply #10 on:** March 27, 2008, 09:29:26 pm »

Quote from: Alex B on March 27, 2008, 09:27:38 pm

I looked at the sreenshot again. Am I correct that the user would be able to simply press OK without making any selections? Then the server would sekect the best images?

The recommended image will be selected by default. "OK" may be renamed something like "Accept Images and Save Tags".

That means no intervention is required.

However, you can fine-tune any album by picking it and clicking any of the choices on the right.

There will likely be a "no changes" selection as well.

Adding a way to "Try A Different Search For This Album" might make sense.

johnnyboy · « **Reply #11 on:** March 27, 2008, 09:54:15 pm »

Love the simplicity of the original screen shot.
Some option to search for a different string for the album makes sense too although I hope the original simplicity stays as well.
Maybe just something as simple as two text boxes above the image options to the right:
[Artist]
[Album]

By default they show whatever the album selected has for its values, but they can be manually edited and the search repeated with new values?

ThoBar · « **Reply #12 on:** March 27, 2008, 10:42:04 pm »

.. perhaps also indicate the number of images found?
eg "Nirvana - Incesticide (5 images found)"

darichman · « **Reply #13 on:** March 27, 2008, 10:53:10 pm »

I think Alex's suggestions are ideal.

I'm not sure from the screenshot, but will there be any way to preview the image found even if there's only one image found?
I like to make sure what I'm getting is right... this could count as a vote and would improve future hits

Doof · « **Reply #14 on:** March 28, 2008, 10:11:42 am »

It would also be nice if we could specify a desired minimum quality, somewhere, too. So if 12 images are found for a particular album, don't bother showing me the files at are only 300x300. Although quality goes beyond size. I have cover art in my library that wasn't the biggest I found, but was the best looking. If you've got a 300x300 image and a 1200x1200 image, but both are 50k in size, you just know the 1200x1200 image looks like crap.

Doof · « **Reply #15 on:** March 28, 2008, 06:35:33 pm »

After playing with this for a bit... while I haven't found any offensive images yet, I have found some blatantly WRONG images. Would it be considered abuse to "Report Offensive Image" on images that are just wrong? For instance, "3 Doors Down - The Better Life" returns images "The Clash - Combat Rock" and "Whitney Houston & George Michael - If I Told You That".

Personally, I do consider a Whitney Houston & George Michael album to be quite offensive, so maybe I should...

JimH · « **Reply #16 on:** March 28, 2008, 06:41:50 pm »

Quote from: Doof on March 28, 2008, 06:35:33 pm

I have found some blatantly WRONG images. Would it be considered abuse to "Report Offensive Image" on images that are just wrong?

Not at this time. It's meant for terribly wrong stuff.

Doof · « **Reply #17 on:** March 28, 2008, 06:55:25 pm »

If I pick my existing image, and it doesn't match any of the ones that MC retrieved for me, does MC automatically upload my image and cast a vote for it?

darichman · « **Reply #18 on:** March 28, 2008, 08:44:36 pm »

I've uploaded a few hundred coverart files in the last hour...
In the summary dialogue box which comes up, what does the "Failures (rejected by database)" part mean? I've gotten that for a substantial number of albums, but there's no way to tell which ones...

Does it mean they are already on YADB or is it rejecting them for some other reason?

Matt · « **Reply #19 on:** March 28, 2008, 09:15:27 pm »

Quote from: Doof on March 28, 2008, 06:55:25 pm

If I pick my existing image, and it doesn't match any of the ones that MC retrieved for me, does MC automatically upload my image and cast a vote for it?

Yes.

MrC · « **Reply #20 on:** March 28, 2008, 11:23:34 pm »

This is looking like a nice addition.

Is it possible to have the images perhaps auto-expand upon mouse over, so that image comparisons can be made ? The thumbnails shown are not quite large enough to determine the differences between two, say 500x500 images, w/out using a trial-and-error approach.

lalittle · « **Reply #21 on:** March 28, 2008, 11:32:35 pm »

Quote from: MrC on March 28, 2008, 11:23:34 pm

The thumbnails shown are not quite large enough to determine the differences between two, say 500x500 images, w/out using a trial-and-error approach.

Could this result in votes being cast that were unintended -- i.e. when somebody makes a selection just to see what it looks like, does this count as a vote?

On this same subject, does the system count another vote every time a user selects an image, or does it track the source of the vote and only count one vote for this user, but allow them to "change" their vote? In other words, if a user were to select an inferior choice several times while trying to decide on a final decision, but only selects the "good" art once, does this mean that the inferior art will get more overall votes? I'm trying to get a grasp on how the system works overall.

Thanks,

Larry

ThoBar · « **Reply #22 on:** March 29, 2008, 12:43:03 am »

I think MrC's approach wuld avoid the problem you're describing Larry. IMO, the auto-expand tooltip style approach suggested would be very beneficial.

John Gateley · « **Reply #23 on:** March 29, 2008, 08:23:38 am »

Quote from: Doof on March 28, 2008, 06:35:33 pm

After playing with this for a bit... while I haven't found any offensive images yet, I have found some blatantly WRONG images. Would it be considered abuse to "Report Offensive Image" on images that are just wrong?

As Jim said, please don't do that. I'm working on a system where these images will be removed automatically over time, similar to what I am using for CD lookups.

j

John Gateley · « **Reply #24 on:** March 29, 2008, 08:28:29 am »

Which version of MC are you using?

It should not be failing, ever. If you could narrow it down to a single artist album and post here, that would be great.

Thanks

j

dcwebman · « **Reply #25 on:** March 29, 2008, 09:04:16 am »

Overall I like the new cover art system. Some comments reflect what others said. I had to maximize the window just so I could get a bigger look at the cover to decide which one to choose.

The cover I was looking for had 4 selections and the 2nd and 4th were the best looking ones. However, I needed to maximize the window to get a really good look. Problem was that once I did that I couldn't really see the two images next to each other to make an easy compare. I had to keep going back and forth. It would be nice if there was someway to easily compare. Maybe drag an image to another location in the selection?

I already had a cover and selected that to see what else I could get. It chose the most popular image but I couldn't tell if that was the one I already had or not. I did not expect the image dimensions/size to change on the left column UNTIL I selected and it applied the image. That way I can tell what I already have and compare it against what is now out there. I would expect the list of albums to show what you currently have as cover art, if any.

Doof · « **Reply #26 on:** March 29, 2008, 09:52:17 am »

Quote from: dcwebman on March 29, 2008, 09:04:16 am

I already had a cover and selected that to see what else I could get. It chose the most popular image but I couldn't tell if that was the one I already had or not. I did not expect the image dimensions/size to change on the left column UNTIL I selected and it applied the image. That way I can tell what I already have and compare it against what is now out there. I would expect the list of albums to show what you currently have as cover art, if any.

What I've been doing is, once it's done doing its lookup, I choose "Choose Existing" from the list, so it resets everything to what I've already got. Then I just go through one by one and pick what I want. I think it would be nice if it defaulted to the last option you chose, though.

Quote from: dcwebman on March 29, 2008, 09:04:16 am

Overall I like the new cover art system. Some comments reflect what others said. I had to maximize the window just so I could get a bigger look at the cover to decide which one to choose.

The cover I was looking for had 4 selections and the 2nd and 4th were the best looking ones. However, I needed to maximize the window to get a really good look. Problem was that once I did that I couldn't really see the two images next to each other to make an easy compare. I had to keep going back and forth. It would be nice if there was someway to easily compare. Maybe drag an image to another location in the selection?

I was thinking the same thing. If you maximize the window, you get a better look, but then the right hand column is smaller than the left, which doesn't make much sense, really. The left hand column primarily only has a little bit of textual information. The right hand column should be the one that grows more than it does. I think if they just put a resizable splitter between the columns it would help a lot.

As for having the images next to each other... That's honestly not as important to me, personally. I usually just look at the largest image (dimensions and filesize), and then want to get a better look at that image to see what it looks like. But I can understand the desire to be able to do this. One thing I thought would be nice is if the list was sorted by size, that way the two images you want to compare have a better chance of being next to each other. Chances are good you aren't trying to decide between a 300x300 and a 1200x1200 image, with other sizes in between, for example.

Quote from: John Gateley on March 29, 2008, 08:23:38 am

As Jim said, please don't do that. I'm working on a system where these images will be removed automatically over time, similar to what I am using for CD lookups.

Ok, no problem. As it turns out, I did have a chance to report and offensive image, if you can call a nude Pamela Anderson offensive.

I actually wish I had remembered which album it was for, because it would have been neat to see if it showed up again. Are offensive images put into purgatory immediately until they can be reviewed, or will they continue to show up until you've removed them?

darichman · « **Reply #27 on:** March 29, 2008, 10:09:44 am »

Quote from: John Gateley on March 29, 2008, 08:28:29 am

Which version of MC are you using?

It should not be failing, ever. If you could narrow it down to a single artist album and post here, that would be great.

Thanks

j

Hi John, this was for 10.0.466

I'll have a closer look tomorrow to nut it down to a few specific examples, off to bed now.
Off the top of my head, the biggest failure rate occurred when I uploaded soundtrack covers...

If I had to hazard a guess, the problem might be:
1. Many of these have a colon ";" in the album name (eg Spawn: The Album)
2. Many of these are (Multiple Artist) albums
3. Many of the album names are quite long (eg Back to The Future: Music from the Motion Picture Soundtrack)

In my popular music section, I only got 3 failures out of a couple of hundred, compared to about 30 in soundtracks
Haven't touched classical yet

John Gateley · « **Reply #28 on:** March 29, 2008, 11:16:27 am »

MC10 - I don't know. The failures are probably happening on the client side... -- j

GHammer · « **Reply #29 on:** March 29, 2008, 12:54:46 pm »

I like this version.
Though the albums I'd like better art for return the images I have uploaded, other more mainstream items have a good selection.
For my use (5-10 CD here and there), it works well and provides the info I need to make a choice.
Maybe a full size preview button would be nice.

darichman · « **Reply #30 on:** March 30, 2008, 07:36:59 am »

Quote from: darichman on March 28, 2008, 08:44:36 pm

I've uploaded a few hundred coverart files in the last hour...
In the summary dialogue box which comes up, what does the "Failures (rejected by database)" part mean? I've gotten that for a number of albums, but there's no way to tell which ones...

Does it mean they are already on YADB or is it rejecting them for some other reason?

Oh woops that last post of mine was a big fat typo on my part! I meant 12.0.466, not MC10, sorry for the confusion

In 12.0.467 I am getting much better results!

Using coverart - submit to internet:
In my popular music albums, of about 500 albums, 3 got "Failures (rejected by database)"... this is pretty good
In my soundtracks, of about 200, I got 9 failures... these all had unassigned artists, so I guess that's what might be causing the failures

About to test the new coverart lookup on albums I'm missing art for, wish me luck

(And thanks for the great new feature)

John Gateley · « **Reply #31 on:** March 30, 2008, 09:28:15 am »

Quote from: darichman on March 30, 2008, 07:36:59 am

In my popular music albums, of about 500 albums, 3 got "Failures (rejected by database)"... this is pretty good
In my soundtracks, of about 200, I got 9 failures... these all had unassigned artists, so I guess that's what might be causing the failures

If the artist field is blank, that would cause a failure -- j

marko · « **Reply #32 on:** March 30, 2008, 01:56:37 pm »

Just for kicks, I asked MC to "get from internet" for every album in my library, and my PC slowly ground to a halt...

Quote

Media Center 12.0.467 Registered -- C:\Program Files\Media Center 12\

Microsoft Windows Vista 6.0 Service Pack 1 (Build 6001)
Intel Core 2 2665 MHz MMX / Memory: Total - 2094 MB, Free - 125 MB

MC was commanding 1.5 megs of RAM with art preview window open. Closing it returned MC's RAM usage back to 43 Mb.
During the lookup process, MC was also taking some serious amount of CPU time, regularly peaking at 100%

that said, the tool worked very well indeed.
Any chance it could remember its window size so that we don't need to resize it each time it's opened?

bytestar · « **Reply #33 on:** March 30, 2008, 02:20:03 pm »

I can confirm that Media Center needs the entire Rams, at the tagging of several hundred files or at download Cover from the Internet.
No other media player behaves like that.

Quote from: marko on March 30, 2008, 01:56:37 pm

Just for kicks, I asked MC to "get from internet" for every album in my library, and my PC slowly ground to a halt...

MC was commanding 1.5 megs of RAM with art preview window open. Closing it returned MC's RAM usage back to 43 Mb.
During the lookup process, MC was also taking some serious amount of CPU time, regularly peaking at 100%

that said, the tool worked very well indeed.
Any chance it could remember its window size so that we don't need to resize it each time it's opened?

JimH · « **Reply #34 on:** March 30, 2008, 02:57:09 pm »

Quote from: marko on March 30, 2008, 01:56:37 pm

Just for kicks, I asked MC to "get from internet" for every album in my library, and my PC slowly ground to a halt...

MC was commanding 1.5 megs of RAM with art preview window open. Closing it returned MC's RAM usage back to 43 Mb.
During the lookup process, MC was also taking some serious amount of CPU time, regularly peaking at 100%

We're trying to get Intel interested in investing.

marko · « **Reply #35 on:** March 30, 2008, 03:03:37 pm »

Quote from: JimH on March 30, 2008, 02:57:09 pm

We're trying to get Intel interested in investing.

?
Are you suggesting the problem lies with the CPU?
It's running on an eVGA nforce mainboard, using Geil RAM, perhaps they should all take on joint responsibility?

Alex B · « **Reply #36 on:** March 30, 2008, 03:13:53 pm »

Quote from: bytestar on March 30, 2008, 02:20:03 pm

I can confirm that Media Center needs the entire Rams, at the tagging of several hundred files or at download Cover from the Internet.
No other media player behaves like that.

No other Media Player can display an online cover art selection window for 2845 albums and several alternative images for many of the albums. (I tested that and it indeed was a heavy task.)

I'd recommend querying only 100 or so at a time.

Though, could it be possible to add an unattended mode which would just download the "recommended" images one by one without downloading thumbnails and creating a preview window?

The user could run it overnight and check the results in the morning. After that the possible low quality images could be replaced with the preview tool.

bytestar · « **Reply #37 on:** March 30, 2008, 03:51:47 pm »

Ok, I understand, but why requires MC12 1.5 GB Ram just because I have change a tag in the entire library like comment etc.
Older Build from MC12 has this Issue not on my PC.

Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 with 2GB Ram Windows Vista Ultimate.
My Library is big yes it has >50.000 Files, but older Build has no Problems with this.

Quote from: Alex B on March 30, 2008, 03:13:53 pm

No other Media Player can display an online cover art selection window for 2845 albums and several alternative images for many of the albums. (I tested that and it indeed was a heavy task.)

I'd recommend querying only 100 or so at a time.

Though, could it be possible to add an unattended mode which would just download the "recommended" images one by one without downloading thumbnails and creating a preview window?

The user could run it overnight and check the results in the morning. After that the possible low quality images could be replaced with the preview tool.

Alex B · « **Reply #38 on:** March 30, 2008, 05:17:09 pm »

Quote from: bytestar on March 30, 2008, 03:51:47 pm

Ok, I understand, but why requires MC12 1.5 GB Ram just because I have change a tag in the entire library like comment etc.
Older Build from MC12 has this Issue not on my PC.

Intel Core 2 Duo E6750 with 2GB Ram Windows Vista Ultimate.
My Library is big yes it has >50.000 Files, but older Build has no Problems with this.

So you are speaking about tagging. This thread is about the new cover art lookup tool.

As a test, I just tagged 49000 audio files with a new tag value (Though only in the library. I didn't want to change the files' last modified dates). I didn't notice anything unusual. The memory usage was a bit over 100 MB and CPU was maxed out for a few seconds. Also "Undo" worked fine.

I think you should start a new thread and provide more details.

dcwebman · « **Reply #39 on:** March 31, 2008, 07:28:47 am »

Quote from: Doof on March 29, 2008, 09:52:17 am

What I've been doing is, once it's done doing its lookup, I choose "Choose Existing" from the list, so it resets everything to what I've already got. Then I just go through one by one and pick what I want. I think it would be nice if it defaulted to the last option you chose, though.

As for having the images next to each other... That's honestly not as important to me, personally. I usually just look at the largest image (dimensions and filesize), and then want to get a better look at that image to see what it looks like. But I can understand the desire to be able to do this. One thing I thought would be nice is if the list was sorted by size, that way the two images you want to compare have a better chance of being next to each other. Chances are good you aren't trying to decide between a 300x300 and a 1200x1200 image, with other sizes in between, for example.

The "Choose Existing" does work okay.

Sorting the images by dimensions would be ideal. That was my problem. I was trying to compare two 500x500 images and since they weren't next to each other, it was tough. But then again, there could be a terrible 500x500 image in between and I would still have the same problem. Maybe sorting plus have the image hover tooltip like in the regular Images area so you don't have to maximize the window and can see the image large.

dcwebman · « **Reply #40 on:** March 31, 2008, 05:03:05 pm »

Tried cover art in 468. I like the new image tooltip. Good idea!

I'm not sure why small images though are resized to the maximum width of the right column. One album I looked at had a 115x115 size but maximum width made it look horrible of course.

Matt · « **Reply #41 on:** March 31, 2008, 05:48:34 pm »

Quote from: dcwebman on March 31, 2008, 07:28:47 am

Sorting the images by dimensions would be ideal.

They are sorted by quality, according to the server.

This should get better with use as more users vote.

<°)))))>< · « **Reply #42 on:** April 01, 2008, 05:37:43 am »

WOW! GREAT!
You Made My Day!
This is the best new feature since panes, split view
and grouping... Works absolutely perfect :-)

Did I already mentioned that I really like it?

llafriel · « **Reply #43 on:** April 01, 2008, 05:44:40 am »

This is great!
Is there a way to sort albums after the smallest coverart? I store my coverart as folder.jpg in folder.

llafriel · « **Reply #44 on:** April 01, 2008, 06:34:18 am »

Maybe it should submit your coverart, when none is found on internet, automatically?

<°)))))>< · « **Reply #45 on:** April 01, 2008, 07:23:21 am »

OK, there's something that could be improved...

Right now, a lookup for e.g. "Rolling Stones - Aftermath" brings
up different results than "The Rolling Stones - Aftermath".
Also "Beck, Jeff - Wired" vs. "Jeff Beck - Wired". Some logic for excluding
articles, spaces, underscores, commas etc from search would be nice...

I would also like to keep the simplicity of the current solution. Please
do not turn this into some "smart list driven feature monster" :-)

For more complex lookups, like the previously mentioned for classic music,
of course some solution is needed. Even compilations and multiple artist
albums bring up very different results depending on the way the album name
is tagged, e.g. including the name of the compiler, DJ or series.

How about a small slider / pull down menue / right click menue where you can
select the "sharpness" of the lookup in e.g. 3 steps and the possibility to "Rescan"?
If it's set more to "unsharp", after a rescan not only exact matches
are shown, but also more or less "similar" matches, maybe only for the
currently selected album. Hard to implement with all consequences,
but easy to understand :-)

Quote from: llafriel on April 01, 2008, 06:34:18 am

Maybe it should submit your coverart, when none is found on internet, automatically?

Maybe not automatically, but if there was the possibility to submit from within
the dialog, that would be handy... Right click on image or list entry?

dcwebman · « **Reply #46 on:** April 01, 2008, 07:59:31 am »

Quote from: llafriel on April 01, 2008, 06:34:18 am

Maybe it should submit your coverart, when none is found on internet, automatically?

Please see Options - General - Online Metadata - Submit cover art changes to online database. Just make sure it's checked.

llafriel · « **Reply #47 on:** April 01, 2008, 08:38:31 am »

Quote from: dcwebman on April 01, 2008, 07:59:31 am

Please see Options - General - Online Metadata - Submit cover art changes to online database. Just make sure it's checked.

I have that option checked. Maybe that one only works when actually changing your cover art?
If I do a "get from internet" and save changes it doesn't upload. When I do it maunally, "submit to internet", and then "get from internet". Then I can see my coverart as an option from internet.

Link · « **Reply #48 on:** April 01, 2008, 09:06:05 am »

Quote from: llafriel on April 01, 2008, 08:38:31 am

I have that option checked. Maybe that one only works when actually changing your cover art?
If I do a "get from internet" and save changes it doesn't upload. When I do it maunally, "submit to internet", and then "get from internet". Then I can see my coverart as an option from internet.

I agree that this part of the system could be a little smoother - I want to ensure my art gets uploaded for all of the ones I have that I have already got a great image for.

John Gateley · « **Reply #49 on:** April 01, 2008, 09:28:13 am »

Quote from: <°)))))>< on April 01, 2008, 07:23:21 am

OK, there's something that could be improved...

Right now, a lookup for e.g. "Rolling Stones - Aftermath" brings
up different results than "The Rolling Stones - Aftermath".
Also "Beck, Jeff - Wired" vs. "Jeff Beck - Wired". Some logic for excluding
articles, spaces, underscores, commas etc from search would be nice...

Actually, there is already logic in place for handling these cases, and the system is improving (gradually) constantly.
They'll work one day...

j

INTERACT FORUM

Author Topic: New Cover Art System (Read 24896 times)