2009-07-02, 10:00
What about putting cast and crew under "mediainfo"
AnalogKid Wrote:...
So here's my take:
The art in the current spec is all art that can be associated with a media file PURELY based on it's name.
So The movie covers etc and music are all figurable without needing the internet or additional file (no NFO is needed).
However, actor art, year etc etc all need additional movie info to the pulled from the net (scrapped) and then linked to art.
Tier 1:
All the artwork that an reasonably be associated as representing / promoting a specific media file and requires no specific movie meta data. e.g. Posters, Banners, Covers, Disc images etc... stuff that is usually specific to one media file (or entity)
Tier 2:
All 'associated' artwork that does not represent / promote the specific media, but instead represents attributes of a movie. e.g. Actors, Crew, Location, Year etc... stuff that could be shared across multiple media files (or entities)
MaxNL Wrote:I think the 2-tier approach is the right one too. I also hate to draw lines but at the moment I think is the best we can do.
Looking at your previous post we should take out from the actual proposal the following elements:
Genre = A general classification for the category/style of media. e.g. Comedy, Rock, Horror, Jazz, Documentary.
MediaInfo = 'Flags' as they are termed today. I felt the term MediaInfo was easier to understand
HasBeenPlayed = 'Watched', but a more generic term to cover Audio and even Images
As I think they are of Tier-2 type. Am I right?
Regards
Max
AnalogKid Wrote:I don't know a great deal about skinning at the moment, but I know DigitalHigh does...
I'm curious if my understanding is correct here:
To BEST utilise this proposed scheme... changes in the skinning engine would be required to get the extra art. BUT, it should be possible to use the new scheme without needing to change any skin code... but then skins could only display the thumb and fanart as normal.
The skinning engine would simply transpose 'thumb' to mean frontcover (portrait) and fanart would remain as fanart (landscape). In the case of multiple instances of frontcover or fanart, the engine would only ever user the first instance.
Would this assumption be correct?
I am hoping that this would ease the worry that 'EVERYTHING' will be broken by moving to this new artwork scheme.
digitalhigh Wrote:Howabout you give me wiki access, and I'll throw up my proposal for the related infolabels...after I sober up a little.
Gangsta Wrote:The wiki is looking gooooood. Very easy to read and navigate.
just one tiny (and probably unimportant thing)
the . (dot) is missing in some of the options (or in the wrong place), assuming () means available choices, and green is optional.
<moviename>.movie.fanart(.landscape/portrait).<n>
<moviename>.movie.cover(.front/back/inner/sleeve/disc)(.landscape/portrait).<n>
<moviename>.movie.poster[color="SeaGreen](.landscape/portrait).<n>[/color]
<moviename>.movie.banner(.landscape/portrait).<n>
<moviename>.movie.framegrab.<n>
<moviename>.movie.logo.<n>
I think it should be <moviename>.movie.fanart.(landscape/portrait).<n>
Note the dot has moved outside the brackets to the left, but is still optional OR add dots to all choices eg. (.portrait/.landscape) but i think the first way is clearer.