Jump to content

CoverArt 4 media info icons and MBS details


Ernst
Go to solution Solved by ebr,

Recommended Posts

Hi, I have some obeservations on MBS and CoverArt 4 relating to medi info icons and media details

 

MB Server Version 3.0.5050.37565

CoverArt version 4.0.3.2

 

MBS provided media info used by CA:

Due to the fact I was experimenting with the mediainfo overlays in CA, I noticed that MBS is showing some odd aspect ratios in the webclient which I believe to be picked up by CA to identify the appropriate mediainfo icons.

Where the media info on the detail page of MBC (and MB2 for that matter) shows 1080p or 720p as resoution, MBC reports the "true" resolution of the movie i.e.1280x536 and an aspect of 160:67 (239 in MBC and MB2). CoverArt apparently looks at the 536 to determine the resolution and decides it can't find the appropriate icon. It also seems to look for the aspect 160 which does not exist either.

 

Would it be possible to have CoverArt use the details that the themes seem to be using instead of what the Server webclient is reporting?

If not, could the aspect ratios reported by the server be adjusted so they show 239:1 instead of 160:67?

I do see that 16:9 makes sense, but this is translated to 1.85 on the icons, no idea why.

Lastly, I noticed that ac3 is translated to dolby digital (which is correct), DTS is tranlated to DTS (also correct) I made a copy of the DTS icon and called it codec_dca so these are treated correctly as well, however there is no indication of the number of channels, whereas this does show in the details page.

Is there anyway to incorporate that in the CA icons i.e. DTS 5.1?

 

5273a3bfb72f6_MBSdetails.jpg

 

Hopefully by splitting my original post in 3 different parts, you will be able to solve some or all of them or tell me where i went wrong in my assumptions and or configuration.

 

Thanks in advance,

 

Ernst

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd really like to see these translations of aspect ratios for display done at the server level as the ones we report now are pretty much meaningless to humans.

 

If @@Luke isn't willing to do that, then I can look into building the translations into CA.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Ebr, that is why I originally posted this topic in the Server forum.

I totally agree that the aspect ratios don't mean a thing (although they are technically not incorrect)

My assumtion is that the aspect ratios do not allow for the two decimal places where they should.

In my example, 160:67 would be 2.388:1 or 2.39:1 which would be supported by CA4

 

I'm not sure about the resolution issue though, maybe the resolution should be taken from the width (1920 or 1280) instead of the hight?

 

Just my two cents.

 

Just noticed Luke's reply, that is awesome!

Maybe the observations i just made could help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure about the resolution issue though, maybe the resolution should be taken from the width (1920 or 1280) instead of the hight?

 

Resolution is currently derived from width, not height.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet I don't see 720 as resolution in my example because according to the log, CA4 is looking for a 536 icon and not 1280.

 

Now i'm really confused

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yet I don't see 720 as resolution in my example because according to the log, CA4 is looking for a 536 icon and not 1280.

 

Now i'm really confused

 

Can I please see that log?  The only icons I'm looking for should be hdtype_1080 and hdtype_720 and the selection is based on the width being > 1900 and 1200 respectively.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Will get you that log, however I can't at the moment or I'll have a riot on my hands

Kid being impatiant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Great! was starting to doubt myself :P

 

Installed the new version and it works like a charm.

 

Thanks Ebr

Edited by Ernst
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Solution

Wow, I'm sorry for running you around.  I made changes quite a while ago to this and, apparently, I forgot to roll them out.  So I've been looking at the current code and not being able to figure out how it wasn't working and it is because you don't have the current code.  :mellow:

 

I'll post an update.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...