!! ALL DEVS !! Local actor thumbs - Printable Version
+- XBMC Community Forum (http://forum.xbmc.org)
+-- Forum: Help and Support (/forumdisplay.php?fid=33)
+--- Forum: Supplementary Tools for XBMC (/forumdisplay.php?fid=116)
+--- Thread: !! ALL DEVS !! Local actor thumbs (/showthread.php?tid=56287)
Pages: 1 2
!! ALL DEVS !! Local actor thumbs - spiff - 2009-08-13 13:43
Make sure you don't miss http://trac.xbmc.org/changeset/22123
- flipped cracker - 2009-08-13 16:30
- Waffa - 2009-08-13 17:41
Yeah very cool !!!
- fekker - 2009-08-13 17:54
cool, thanks spiff
- spiff - 2009-08-13 17:57
before this gets settled; is my way of storing it acceptable or do you have a better convention to suggest? i chose to keep them out of the main folder for tidyness and the folder name to have them hidden in *nix.
- ezechiel1917 - 2009-08-13 18:19
What about having them in a seperate folder which would store all actors at same folder level as your media folders? With that you wouldn't have to have multiple copies of actors thumbs in different folders and it would be more tidier and managable for enduser? Is this possible?
- spiff - 2009-08-13 18:26
possible, but not what i had in mind. the extra code complexity is not worth it imo. the thumbs take next to none space compared to the real media.
complexity means identifying that folder (we have multipaths and whatnot). current storage scheme means it's dead simple to find the folder
- fekker - 2009-08-13 18:38
i like the way you have it, no change needed, will work for shows and movies with just a few checks and allows more granular actor info
I'm thinking along the lines that movie from 20 years ago, shouldn't really have the actor image from today with it. (which a central image store would have)
- CrashX - 2009-08-13 18:39
Do we really need multiple actor thumbs of the same actor ? Unless we want to have actor gallery.
I wonder if it is stored in the database as a single or multiple entry forr the same actor ?
- ezechiel1917 - 2009-08-13 18:39
ok, then i think your solution is fine, as there's not many ways where to store them, if it's supposed to be inside folder with media.
It's just I would prefer not having one visible subfolder for every movie/episode. Anyway your setup is better in fact that if you delete a movie, you delete all associated thumbs, with my idea it would leave you with few "dead" thumbs.
- spiff - 2009-08-13 18:47
currently we only support on thumb per actor, and as such, storing along with the media has no gains in those regards. but we have the flexibility to add if we see fit
- ezechiel1917 - 2009-08-13 19:03
fekker Wrote:I'm thinking along the lines that movie from 20 years ago, shouldn't really have the actor image from today with it. (which a central image store would have)
from what I understand spiff import works once, after you have actor thumb cached, it won't cache another thumb of same actor.
Or does import overwrites cached thumb if one exists, spiff?
- spiff - 2009-08-13 19:11
you are correct
- flipped cracker - 2009-08-13 20:57
is it based on name alone? i'm just wondering because thetvdb.com has images for actors based on each show, with the actors dressed in character. so if it's based on name alone, you could have an image from a totally different show for an actor. if possible, it'd be better if it was based on movie/tvshow and name.
- billyad2000 - 2009-08-13 21:57
Hi spiff, I was wondering if it is possible yet to allow the <thumb> tag for an actor to contain a network path for the thumb? The only reason I would prefer this is that it would allow single or multiple images for the same actor (MC for example uses actorid from imdb, or Numeric ID for images from TVDB. This not only allows multiple thumbs for each actor if needed aka tvdb, but also to select a higher quality image, some of the default imdb actor images are awful.
The biggest advantage is that for most instances each thumb would only need to be stored once (Twice if you include xbmc)