[Gangsta]

This is both a Feature Suggestion and Proposal.

This feature is an extension of the proposed artwork naming overhaul in this thread - http://forum.xbmc.org/showthread.php?tid=49801

The idea is to create self-contained archives containing artwork for a specific piece of media.

A media pack will be platform independent.
A media pack will be portable.
A media pack will use the artwork naming rules proposed in the artwork naming schema if it is accepted.
A media pack can be sent to another user and installed with the minimum of fuss.
A media pack will contain images that have been hand chosen to compliment each other in ways such as style, colours, etc. (This is not just a quick way to download media files)
A media pack will contain at least 1 image of each of the main categories (to be discussed)
A media pack will contain a file describing the content, eg IMDB, allmovie.com, tmdb, thetvdb etc tags.

This was my post in the other thread, please feel free to comment, expand, criticize etc.

The idea of 'media packs' for a film sounds good, the ability to post up a single archive that has been carefully crafted for a particular movie.

By media pack (or artwork pack), however we describe it, I mean a set of posters, thumbs, fanart, etc, etc that have been carefully selected to contain similar style elements, colours and the likes for a single film, that will be appealing to look at (when displayed together in a skin). As opposed to having to 'fix' all the stuff from the scrapers when they just download the first available images from each site.

Just an idea, but perhaps the archive could contain an xml, defining what movie the pack is aimed at this could be the IMDB, TMDB, thetvdb, or all of the above. Somekind of simple loader script, possibly a python script running inside XBMC looks through the archives available - and build a list of these ID's. Next it looks at the XBMC database to see if you have any of the films, if you do, then it copies the contents of the archive out (into a folder you specify) and adds the filename *That you already have* to the start of it.

Sorry im really crap at describing things. But i'll try an example.

Media Pack:

Code:

Code:

I Robot.mediapack.zip
--mediainfo.xml
--.movie.poster.landscape
--.movie.poster.portrait
--.movie.fanart.HiRes
--.movie.fanart1.HiRes
--.movie.fanart.LoRes
--.movie.widebanner
--.movie.widebanner1
......
and so on

the XML would contain something like
Code:

Code:

<mediatype>movie</mediatype>
<mediaids>
  <mediaid>
    <source>IMDB</source>
    <sourceid>tt7846383</sourceid>
  </mediaid>
  <mediaid>
    <source>AllMovie</source>
    <sourceid>286093</sourceid>
  </mediaid>
...........
etc

The important thing is that the name of the archive is totally IRRELEVANT, it is merely a placeholder for a human readable name so that you can find and download packs easily - IT DOES NOT need to match the name of the media file on your hard disc. The script takes care of matching the archive to your media file.

In the example above, say your movie filename was

I,-robot-[2004]-ws-xvid-dvdrip-ac3.avi

then once you had run the script, it would create the files

Code:

Code:

I,-robot-[2004]-ws-xvid-dvdrip-ac3.avi.movie.poster.landscape
I,-robot-[2004]-ws-xvid-dvdrip-ac3.avi.movie.poster.portrait
I,-robot-[2004]-ws-xvid-dvdrip-ac3.avi.movie.fanart.HiRes
I,-robot-[2004]-ws-xvid-dvdrip-ac3.avi.movie.fanart1.HiRes
I,-robot-[2004]-ws-xvid-dvdrip-ac3.avi.movie.fanart.LoRes
I,-robot-[2004]-ws-xvid-dvdrip-ac3.avi.movie.widebanner
I,-robot-[2004]-ws-xvid-dvdrip-ac3.avi.movie.widebanner1
......
and so on

therefore packs could be created on one machine and easily deployed to another.

id love to hear what you think, what you would change, and how you would structure the xml (if you would use an xml at all)

also what would you make the minimum requirement, eg does a pack have to have at least 1 poster, 1 cover, a wide banner, a backdrop etc

PLEASE NOTE: this is not a thread for discussing the FILENAME of a media file, or discussing the naming of the various artwork files. There are other threads discussing these items.

Thanks for reading, and please post your input.

[medicineuk]

Sounds good. Would be nice to get some extrathumbs in there as well for all the Aeon users.

[AnalogKid]

I think extrathumbs would be in there, he just didn't list every type of art, but the principle is that the archive contain every type of artwork avail.

At least that is my interpretation.

[migueld]

I like the idea of "themes" ie matching fanart, thumbnails etc, but I think that media packs will cause far more trouble than it solves. Before going further I'd like to know, how would people distribute and share media packs? Mediafire collections? It seems too messy. What happens when artwork needs to be updated, or a new thumbnail format comes out?

It seems to me that a site like thetvdb.com already has the best possible infrastructure where users share, collaborate, rate artwork and metadata in REAL TIME. Why not introduce the idea of "themes" at thetvdb.com for example?

[digitalhigh]

I understand the reasoning behind wanting these packs...but like I expressed in the other thread, I don't think that these should be the standard...more of something that is optional.

It would be quite tedious if I wanted to update a zip/rar every single time I added new media to my collection, considering as how I do so several times a week.

Now, if it worked somewhat like milkdrop presets, where you could drop a .zip into the main media folder and it would be considered like an addon...okay, maybe I could see how it would be useful.

But, again, to repeat myself...I'd just extract the danged thing into the folder and stay with uniformity.

Tell me...why is this preferable to just keeping all the media files extracted?

[Gangsta]

Ok, answer a few questions time.

AnalogKid is bang on with his interpretaion, the media pack could contain any artwork type, including future types as specified by the outcome of the artwork naming thread (link in first post)

Why not impliment it just now?? Because the system does not yet have the flexability required for a media pack (unless you count a single background, cover, and thumb as a mediapack - i dont)

My intention has never been to maintain the library of zips on the users machine, but rather a one-time deal - you go on a site and download a pack for a film you have, and a simple script unzips the artwork into the required location on your machine. You could then delete the zip if you felt like it.

I would suggest that a script could be made that zips up all the media you have for a specified movie, and posts it to a website for others to use ---- BUT this proposal is about quality, eg someone has spent some time ensuring ALL the elements in the pack have similar styling cues, etc.

This is something that doesnt need to be built INTO xbmc, it could just be a website/webspace and a script. It does not require any changes to the xmbc codebase as long as the artwork naming scheme is implimented.

Extrathumbs

If these are supported by the proposed schema in the artwork naming thread, they will also be supported by the mediapack.

The mediapack is just a container format for distributing the artwork to others, or download from the web.

If the schema doesnt currently cater for extrathumbs (im sure it does) then post up in the naming thread and analogKid will add it to the suggested schema.

[Gangsta]

I understand the reasoning behind wanting these packs...but like I expressed in the other thread, I don't think that these should be the standard...more of something that is optional.

It would be quite tedious if I wanted to update a zip/rar every single time I added new media to my collection, considering as how I do so several times a week.

Now, if it worked somewhat like milkdrop presets, where you could drop a .zip into the main media folder and it would be considered like an addon...okay, maybe I could see how it would be useful.

But, again, to repeat myself...I'd just extract the danged thing into the folder and stay with uniformity.

Tell me...why is this preferable to just keeping all the media files extracted?

Sorry missed this post when I was typing my last reply.

The zips will just be unziped into your specified folder when it reaches your machine, as I said in the post above - its just a container for distributing the artwork to users as a set.


Im also in absolutely no way saying that there could only be one pack for one film (but only one installed at a time), you could download a pack off the net, photoshop it, add a few more elements etc. then post that up to a website.

Its up to the end user to download whichever pack they want, and I can envisage a time when certain (probably graphically capable) people develop a name for themselfs as suppliers of good quality mediapacks.

Think aXXo in the dvdrip world. a lot of people download his stuff because they KNOW its good, due to past experience etc.

Take yourself for example, as a skinner i assume your pretty handy with photoshop or whatever. You could be posting up a mediapack like this.

King Kong (1939) - DIGITALHIGH - MP.zip

or something like that. I am not concered about the naming of the zip, as people can name them the same way as their movies, and thats a whole big can of worms I dont wanna open in this thread.

[Soju]

I very much like the idea of a MPAF (especially embedding poster jpegs w/ the associated video file).In the short term though, isn't there a way to embed most of the items listed (if not all) in a containers meta-data, i.e., MKV?

I remember that that MKVtool/mkvmerge was able to do this for the MKV container via filelinking or attachments? Never tried it though. Also, what needs to be done on the XBMC end to parse the embedded metadata/linkage?

MKV is a great container, but there maybe others that are better still .

[digitalhigh]

Sorry missed this post when I was typing my last reply.

The zips will just be unziped into your specified folder when it reaches your machine, as I said in the post above - its just a container for distributing the artwork to users as a set.


Im also in absolutely no way saying that there could only be one pack for one film (but only one installed at a time), you could download a pack off the net, photoshop it, add a few more elements etc. then post that up to a website.

Its up to the end user to download whichever pack they want, and I can envisage a time when certain (probably graphically capable) people develop a name for themselfs as suppliers of good quality mediapacks.

Think aXXo in the dvdrip world. a lot of people download his stuff because they KNOW its good, due to past experience etc.

Take yourself for example, as a skinner i assume your pretty handy with photoshop or whatever. You could be posting up a mediapack like this.

King Kong (1939) - DIGITALHIGH - MP.zip

or something like that. I am not concered about the naming of the zip, as people can name them the same way as their movies, and thats a whole big can of worms I dont wanna open in this thread.

Okay, I see what you're saying.

However, I still feel that having to distribute stuff over mediafire or something is a tad archaic...

Please don't take this as a criticism...but maybe you should consider a more global approach...like asking TMDB to implement some kind of feature where it would allow for these "packs" to be available through their API. This way...idk...media manager programs or even a scraper would be able to reach out and grab these specific sets.

This is just a far-flung thought...the specifics would obviously be a bit complex...but I think it would be a much more eloquent way of doing what I think you want to accomplish.

In the end, I would see it as me firing up MIP (or UMM, which is taking suggestions), clicking on the movie title, and having a box pop up saying "new media pack available". You then click on a tab or something, and you can review the files, and auto-add them to your media if you like what you see.

[migueld]

I see lots of issues, one of them, how would media packs work with profiles? Different users may want different artwork, so media packs are inadequate because they constrain choice. Having multiple media packs for the same movie is redundant, because most of that artwork will be probably the same (for example the thumbnails are the same but the fanart varies).

Another issue is that realistically people won't make media packs with ALL artwork formats. So users won't have a consistent experience. A user will download a media pack expecting Aeon's new thumbnail format, and he may find that it doesn't have it. So all the "magic" about media packs having everything won't be true.

Another issue is that if a new thumbnail format comes out, then all media packs in your PC become outdated, and you will need to delete them and re-download them again. This is redundant, because currently with thetvdb for example, if a new thumbnail format comes out, then only that artwork gets scraped, and everything else remains the same.

Also Media packs can't be rated well because some artwork may be good, some artwork may not be good. In thetvdb one can rate each item individually.

Mainly I'd like to know, how would media packs be any better to having sites like thetvdb.com? It seems to me media packs would have too many issues even to being a viable option.