PDA

View Full Version : Multiple artwork for one album - possible??



PLynas
2008-02-18, 08:29
I have asked this question in the (distant) past, but thought I would post again in the hope that anything has changed with the release of Squeezecenter.

In older versions of Slimserver it was possible to have two sets of artwork for an album when using the Fishbone skin - one would display in the pane on the left and one in the now playing window on the upper right. This was achieved by simply naming one as thumb and the other as album.

This facililty was lost many months ago with updates to Slimserver, and regardless of filenames used, only one set of artwork was displayed in all locations.

Does anyone know of any way where it is possible to have one artwork picture for the album itself, and another for each individual song? I have tried to achieve this by embedding artwork with the song files using Media Monkey but have had no success.

If anyone knows if this can be done (and how to do it) it would be greatly appreciated.

mherger
2008-02-18, 08:42
> right. This was achieved by simply naming one as thumb and the other as
> album.

The idea of thumb and cover was to have a small preview image. If you used it for other purposes, than yes, that "feature" is gone. We're now using the one file to display in full size or preview.

--

Michael

PLynas
2008-02-18, 08:57
Thanks for the quick reply. Don't know if anyone agrees but I think that's a bit of a shame. I liked that feature and hoped it would come back someday.

bephillips
2008-02-18, 16:44
I'll just mention again that I think when the user is browsing by music folder, the browser should show other files in that folder and handle them as the browser usually would by default. txt, pdf, jpg, bmp, whatever, a new window/tab should open and display the txt, or handle the pdf as you normally would or whatever. This seems like it should be easy to implement. Of course extra artwork or pdfs of liner notes could be viewed this way.

Here's an enhancement request:
http://bugs.slimdevices.com/show_bug.cgi?id=3457

JJZolx
2008-02-18, 17:21
Thanks for the quick reply. Don't know if anyone agrees but I think that's a bit of a shame. I liked that feature and hoped it would come back someday.

I have to admit that I can see little use for it. The thumbnails are simply smaller versions of the cover art and to have two different images would only be confusing for me.

But I would love to someday see all artwork files indexed by the server and made viewable from the web interface.

bulletmark
2008-02-18, 19:58
The idea of thumb and cover was to have a small preview image. If you used it for other purposes, than yes, that "feature" is gone. We're now using the one file to display in full size or preview.

Hi Michael. I'm new around here and started with SC7. Noting the "Artwork Setup" documentation within the inbuilt SC7 help pages, I wrote a script to automatically create appropriate size cover and thumb files for my entire collection. Are you telling me that the SC7 inbuilt documentation describing cover art is completely wrong and so my script was an absolute waste of time?

mherger
2008-02-19, 00:52
> Are you telling me that the SC7 inbuilt
> documentation describing cover art is completely wrong and so my script
> was an absolute waste of time?

No, I'm not saying it's completely wrong. But I'd agree that it's outdated
in that regard (which is two lines out of about a page full of
information). I'll remove this.

Michael

bulletmark
2008-02-19, 03:27
No, I'm not saying it's completely wrong. But I'd agree that it's outdated in that regard (which is two lines out of about a page full of information). I'll remove this.
But aren't you saying that all the stuff about thumbnails is outdated? I.e. only a single image is used for everything?

There's the detail of it being 100x100 etc and the later whole paragraph about the thumbnail search order. There's also more stuff about thumbnails towards the end. That's more than 2 lines Michael and I'm surprised such erroneous material has been left in the SC technical help.

mherger
2008-02-19, 04:09
> But aren't you saying that all the stuff about thumbnails is outdated?
> I.e. only a single image is used for everything?

Ok, I removed a few more lines, fixed some typos. Better now?

--

Michael

bulletmark
2008-02-20, 15:50
Ok, I removed a few more lines, fixed some typos. Better now?
Yes, but still poorly edited. A 20 second look of that single page shows there still 3 references to artwork thumb files which should be deleted.

And really, am I the one who should be reviewing this? Is this representative of QA there at Logitech corporation?

JJZolx
2008-02-20, 17:14
Yes, but still poorly edited. A 20 second look of that single page shows there still 3 references to artwork thumb files which should be deleted.

And really, am I the one who should be reviewing this? Is this representative of QA there at Logitech corporation?

Good question.

Robin Bowes
2008-02-20, 18:56
JJZolx wrote:
> bulletmark;271394 Wrote:
>> Yes, but still poorly edited. A 20 second look of that single page shows
>> there still 3 references to artwork thumb files which should be
>> deleted.
>>
>> And really, am I the one who should be reviewing this? Is this
>> representative of QA there at Logitech corporation?
>
> Good question.

Jim,

I find your ceaseless cynicism and snide comments rather offensive.

Please be nice.

R.

JJZolx
2008-02-20, 19:26
It was a good question.

How do you so painstakingly test software for months and months on end and not bother to look at the documentation? Or does everyone just naturally accept that good documentation is a distant, secondary concern and that corrections will come whenever it's convenient?

mherger
2008-02-21, 00:05
> Yes, but still poorly edited. A 20 second look of that single page
> shows there still 3 references to artwork thumb files which should be
> deleted.

Feel free to edit http://wiki.slimdevices.com/index.cgi?AlbumArtwork - the
integrated document will be gone soon.

> And really, am I the one who should be reviewing this? Is this

Might be. "RTF(ancy)M" is a well known acronym because nobody does...

> representative of QA there at Logitech corporation?

No.

Michael

Robin Bowes
2008-02-21, 03:02
JJZolx wrote:
> It was a good question.
>
> How do you so painstakingly test software for months and months on end
> and not bother to look at the documentation? Or does everyone just
> naturally accept that good documentation is a distant, secondary
> concern and that corrections will come whenever it's convenient?

It's not your content that's the problem, it's your delivery.

R.

schatzy
2008-02-21, 06:24
And really, am I the one who should be reviewing this? Is this representative of QA there at Logitech corporation?

To answer your question - Yes. We all should.

Just remember one thing this is NOT the final release. The great hard working people at Slim Devices have put the software out as a Beta so that those of us who wish to use it can. But as a Beta user you must be willing to realize that there will be issues that need attention. The people at Slim Devices can not know EVERY possible configuration that might be out there in the real world. They also have been working very very hard on making the important changes to the software to make functionality better and more to what the users are asking for.

From these forums you can see that many the user population have not read the users guide or looked at the Help files.

Through all of this the people at Slim Devices take all kinds of criticism and may times say Thank You for letting them know our opinions.

So If the errors get out in the Final Release then maybe there is a reason to complain. But also remember that most software and equipment no longer come with any kind of useful instructions and in many cases if it does it is outdated by Years not just a month or so.

I personally think the people at Slim Devices are doing a fantastic job and should be applauded for their work.

Schatzy

bulletmark
2008-02-21, 18:09
To answer your question - Yes. We all should.

Schatzy, thanks for your comments. If you look at the history of my posts in this thread you will find that I was actually annoyed that I wrote a script to set up all my artwork files optimally for SC7 based on the inbuilt technical docs. I figured that the inbuilt docs would be the most accurate actually as they (should be) intimately tied to the same version. Then Michael pointed out here that the inbuilt docs were actually quite wrong, e.g. none of the thumbnail processing is even done anymore.

Now to my question of "should I be the one reviewing this?" - my point is that clearly I, as mere customer/user, have no idea of whatever changes SD has done to SC7 to invalidate those or other docs. So I *can't* review the changes. They must be reviewed by somebody else (probably internal to SD) who knows the exact specifics of the software changes and who can properly reflect on the necessary changes to the docs. I don't know what they've changed!

All I can point out (and did) was some parts of the doc after Michaels edit which had to be still wrong given the tidbit comments that Michael had given here.

mherger
2008-02-22, 00:40
> Schatzy, thanks for your comments.

I'm sorry for being completely off topic. But phrases like this always
make me smile. I don't know why "schatzy" is using this name here in the
forums. But in German it means "sweetie"... :-)

> All I can point out (and did) was some parts of the doc after Michaels
> edit which had to be still wrong given the tidbit comments that Michael
> had given here.

I know other companies do better regarding docs: they don't provide any.
Maintaining documentation is a pain. And if it wasn't too late for 7.0 I
would have removed that page alltogether, because it has been replaced by
some more accurate wiki page a long time ago. Thanks for fixing the open
issues on the wiki page. It will be the future reference.

Michael

bulletmark
2008-02-22, 22:39
All I can point out (and did) was some parts of the doc after Michaels edit which had to be still wrong given the tidbit comments that Michael
had given here.
I know other companies do better regarding docs: they don't provide any. Maintaining documentation is a pain. And if it wasn't too late for 7.0 I would have removed that page all together, because it has been replaced by some more accurate wiki page a long time ago.
But you have already demonstrated that you have complete freedom to make instant and un-reviewed changes to those inbuilt docs. The changed page came in the new build of SC7 overnight. Therefore, why didn't you just simply replace the entire contents on that page with a link to the wiki page? Sounds like everybody would be better off ?



Thanks for fixing the open issues on the wiki page. It will be the future reference.

Michael, I don't understand this comment. I didn't make any entry to the wiki page? Were you being sarcastic? If so, did you read the second paragraph in my previous post as to why I can't update this documentation?

schatzy
2008-02-25, 12:57
Now to my question of "should I be the one reviewing this?" - my point is that clearly I, as mere customer/user, have no idea of whatever changes SD has done to SC7 to invalidate those or other docs. So I *can't* review the changes. They must be reviewed by somebody else (probably internal to SD) who knows the exact specifics of the software changes and who can properly reflect on the necessary changes to the docs. I don't know what they've changed!

All I can point out (and did) was some parts of the doc after Michaels edit which had to be still wrong given the tidbit comments that Michael had given here.

Then go back and use the SS6.5.X where the documentation is probably more correct.

As I and many others have stated on the matter of SC7 it is in BETA so there will be issues of things being incorrect and that is why it is BETA.


> Schatzy, thanks for your comments.

I'm sorry for being completely off topic. But phrases like this always
make me smile. I don't know why "schatzy" is using this name here in the
forums. But in German it means "sweetie"... :-)

Michael - It is a nick name given to me by those in my grade school who could not pronounce my last name, Schatzlein (little Sweetheart in german). I have had this nick name for more than 35 years now.

As for being sweet i can be bu t for someone to complain about having a problem with SC7 which is in Beta and then continue on about it after ahving it explained why it is incorrect is not very nice. If they want to use a Beta version they must be willing to accept the fact that there will be mistakes in it and as for dcoumentation I find that SD has some of the best and most comprehensive around. So okay the documentation in this case was incorrect but you all are wokring very hard on getting the program to work as it should and the documentation will get corrected later. Simple.

Oh and take a look at the iTunes documentation it is about 3-4 revisions behind and they have a lot more resources for getting it correct than SD

Schatzy