New Language/Sub system for anidb - Discussion [DONE]
Moderator: AniDB
-
- AniDB Staff
- Posts: 438
- Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 1:43 am
- Location: Portugal
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.
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.
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.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.
Code: Select all
* type (mono, stereo, 5.1, ...)
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.)
that would cause more harm than do good. 1 commentfield for all is enough.* quality (dropdown)
* comment
no clue. i wa sjust throwing out suggestinons. i don't know how reasonable or doable they are like the vfr case shows.suppy wrote:what would you do about VFR?Der Idiot wrote:...
how about a field for fps
...
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
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...DerIdiot wrote:how about a field for fps and playback resolution and a checkbox for anamorph for the videopart.
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.