Print

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

[ldoodle]

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).

[JimH]

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.

[ldoodle]

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!

[ldoodle]

Some examples...

[Hendrik]

Those look horrible. Noisy, crowded screens.

[JimH]

Sorry to the designer, but equally YUKKY!

Maybe you could find a better description?

[ldoodle]

Those look horrible. Noisy, crowded screens.

I appreciate it's a subjective discussion.  I just find the current ones far too bland.

[ldoodle]

Maybe you could find a better description?

Boring
Bland
Too dark
No colour

[mwillems]

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.  

[marko]

After all these years, I still use xplain's Rapier Fusion skin, modded to fit my own Theater view customisations.

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.

[glynor]

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

[Daydream]

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

[JimH]

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.

[RoderickGI]

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.

[JimH]

Very funny.  Thanks.  What the world needs is a better Ten Foot Dog.

[fitbrit]

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.

[xplain]

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

Blue Puzzle: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=70190.0

JR Metro: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=73592.0

[Castius]

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

[|Tch0rT|]

After all these years, I still use xplain's Rapier Fusion skin, modded to fit my own Theater view customisations.

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.

[ldoodle]

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

Blue Puzzle: http://yabb.jriver.com/interact/index.php?topic=70190.0

JR Metro: 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.

[xplain]

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

[)p(]

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

[DanielBMe]

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

[CountryBumkin]

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? 

[DanielBMe]

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

[flac.rules]

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.

[mattkhan]

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.

[Matt]

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.

[MrHaugen]

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.

[Hendrik]

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.

[flac.rules]

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?

[ferday]

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

[flac.rules]

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.

[Awesome Donkey]

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.

[flac.rules]

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.

[Awesome Donkey]

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.

[flac.rules]

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?

[JimH]

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. 

[Hendrik]

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).

[apgood]

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.

[Daydream]

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?

[Hendrik]

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.

[flac.rules]

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.

[JimH]

I would call it a "customizable interface", not just "flexible".  The current Theater View is flexible.  It just doesn't do what you want.

[flac.rules]

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.

[JimH]

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.

[flac.rules]

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.

[Hendrik]

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.

[DanielBMe]

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

[Matt]

You can put custom text on the screen today.

For example from the XML of a skin:

Code: [Select]

    <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.