New Language/Sub system for anidb - Discussion [DONE]

DonGato · Post by **DonGato** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 5:17 pm

http://anidb.info/perl-bin/animedb.pl?s ... #eid_39865

4 English external sub files.
3 Japanese (maybe the same but one as rar and the other as idx/sub)
4 German
2 Chinese

How we handle such cases?

Post by **Der Idiot** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 7:16 pm

thats the extremest case btw. there are only 4 further episodes which have more than 5 subtitles. but the example shows it can become difficult to handle and thing shouldn't get too limited or we run in another dead end again soonish.

Post by **fahrenheit** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 8:02 pm

i also agree with droping the non-important fields.

as exp is trying to inovate, why not inovate the concept of files, allowing multiple streams for video, audio, subtitles and data/other, a bit like the matroska container, although they don't have a very teorical limit, they have a pratical limit of 100 or so streams, that would solve the expansibility problem for the near future.
As for anidb specific content, i would set a maximum limit of 100 possible streams divided among each type, with pointers for where each type started, to help fetching data of structure.

like so we could do a cleanup of non-important fields on the db, but on the downside it would take more time to implement and would give more work.

Post by **Der Idiot** » Fri Feb 10, 2006 11:56 pm

oh and just for being an ass let me mention we got at leats 1 file with 2 videostreams in an mkv. i would ahve to chekc which file it is, but i remember it back from when worf and i edited the filecomments

DonGato · Post by **DonGato** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:38 am

I would handle such rare exceptions with file comments.

Post by **nwa** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:40 am

DonGato wrote:Really bad quality? How is that portrayed now?
In any case I would keep such data in the comments of the file or the group.

ATM it's portrayed by Picasso on the wall of your house, group comments won't work for that as we got plenty of 'no group' files (and those group comments are becoming a bit of an issue of unrelevant information atm) and simply commenting "very bad quality" would get rather messy.

Post by **Der Idiot** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 1:42 am

Code: Select all

 * type (mono, stereo, 5.1, ...)

can be dropdown as well as there are hardly that many choices

1.0 - mono
2.0 - stereo
4.0 - dolby surround
5.1 - 5.1 surround
(which are the actual sane and often used ones)

6.1 - 6.1 surround <-- 3 files for that atm
7.1 - 7.1 surround <-- none, but hey better be prepared

2 more options hardly hurt so add 6.1 and 7.1 as well.

(6.0, 2.1 are possible as well, but no one sane releases in that... seriously. we got some files flagged with "6 channel" in the filecomments, but i bet my ass on it they are all 5.1. 6 channel without 1 bass is utterly retarded.)

* quality (dropdown)
* comment

that would cause more harm than do good. 1 commentfield for all is enough.

Post by **Der Idiot** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:49 pm

ok this isn't completely related to the language system, but oh well. it's still close to it.

how about a field for fps and playback resolution and a checkbox for anamorph for the videopart.

all that can be easily autocreqed later on from aom so it's hardly an additional effort for the users.

DonGato · Post by **DonGato** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:02 pm

Is such info that important to have?

Post by **Der Idiot** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:07 pm

DonGato wrote:Is such info that important to have?

well thats what i ask. atm we collect such info in the comments. some people would argument thats the place for it, but i don't agree with that. the commentfield is meant for not yet implemented feature and errors in the file imho.

suppy · Post by **suppy** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:58 pm

Der Idiot wrote:...
how about a field for fps
...

what would you do about VFR?

DonGato · Post by **DonGato** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:29 pm

About those I think the only one being useful for most people would be the anamorphic flag.

Post by **Der Idiot** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:23 pm

suppy wrote:
Der Idiot wrote:...
how about a field for fps
...
what would you do about VFR?

no clue. i wa sjust throwing out suggestinons. i don't know how reasonable or doable they are like the vfr case shows.

to throw in another one:

[ 23:34:27 ] [ worf ] when you are already thinking about additional fields to describe the video
[ 23:34:58 ] [ worf ] why not add a nice little icon for 4:3 and 16:9 too? doing all the math all the time is kindy annoying
[ 23:35:12 ] [ worf ] and i'd rather have 16:9 files than 4:3 ones

DonGato · Post by **DonGato** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 12:50 am

I would use a simple flag saying it's 16:9.

Post by **nwa** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 5:41 pm

DerIdiot wrote:how about a field for fps and playback resolution and a checkbox for anamorph for the videopart.

There is no difference between 'Playback Resolution: 853x480' and 'Anamorphic 16:9 (853x480)' ... I got confused about the 2 allowed file comments that I had to ask rar what's up with them...
Basically, currently we have Resolution (pixel) and then there's the Aspect Ratio which also defines the playback resolution.

If the AR != pixel resolution then the video is already anamorphic generally, when the given DVD resolution is 720x480 (which is stretched) then you can either resize it to a resolution identical to that of its respective AR or you can leave it as it is and have the player resize it for you, which is what anamorphic means.

There are a shitload of files that have the 'Anamorphic' comments that I think it does need a separete field, but I'm not so sure if we need the anamorphic checkbox as ppl should understand that by seeing the difference between pizel and playback resolution and the given AR, if they don't, then they don't know what anamorphic means either.

Furthermore, 16:9 and 4:3 are not the only AR's, there are also 1.85:1, 1.66:1, 2.00:1, 2.21:1, 2.35:1 and god knows what else.