Quote from: pIv on 31 October, 2007, 10:13:42 AMMp3tag.exe ver 2.39 (www.mp3tag.de) don't assign names to embedded cover arts and I don't choose it by right click of mouse.You're right. Mp3tag lets you embed multiple images but they are all of the type "front". This means there's no way to display all of them in foobar2000 unless mp3tag lets you assign different types to the embedded images or foobar2000 implements a workaround.
Mp3tag.exe ver 2.39 (www.mp3tag.de) don't assign names to embedded cover arts and I don't choose it by right click of mouse.
Front cover: folder.*;front.*;cover.*Back cover: back.*Disc picture: medium.*;media.*;disc.*;cd.*;dvd.*
It's not only about name schemes : it's about folders too. One should be able to choose a folder (or several folders) for all front covers, a folder (or several folders) for all back covers, etc.
Surely, as a matter of principle, album cover file names and locations should be fully user customisable
Quote from: Jose Hidalgo on 21 November, 2007, 02:27:44 PMIt's not only about name schemes : it's about folders too. One should be able to choose a folder (or several folders) for all front covers, a folder (or several folders) for all back covers, etc.I am the same opinion - but that was absolutely not my topic. Forget for one moment what you saw in foo_uie_albumart and ask yourself why must (1.) the location of the images and (2.) the names of the images be defined in one place/at same time and by using TAGZ functions. If the following (a little bit modified):Front cover: *folder*.*;*front*.*;*cover*.*;*%album%*.*;<only one picture>Back cover: *back*.*Disc picture: *medium*.*;*media*.*;*disc*.*;*cd*.*;*dvd*.*really matches all possible and senseful name shemes why should a user then bother about the names at all and not just define possible locations? Why should he use the $replace function to define albumfolder as location when a simple checkbox for "Look in albumfolder" would do the same job?Quote from: Kiteroa on 21 November, 2007, 02:27:44 PMSurely, as a matter of principle, album cover file names and locations should be fully user customisableFully customizable means i can define my front covers as images with "back" in their name - nobody would do that, or? Can someone give me one example of names that would not match to the patterns above?
My general point is that there will always be lots of users with different needs which cannot be anticipated by developers. Good software allows users to meet their own needs by allowing customisation. Why should that be restricted? If people want a particular set up and they are prepared to put their own effort in to get it how they want - why shouldn't they be able to? A good application can be fitted to the way people need or want to do things - it should not force users into a particular way of operating! A good default, but fully customisable: everybody gains!
1/ For conventional albums, name of the front cover is "%album artist% - (%year%) %album% - front.jpg"2/ For OSTs, name of the front cover is just "Soundtrack - (%year%) %album% - front.jpg"Let's assume that we put all front covers in the same folder (I'd hate to do that, but let's assume it). Would foobar according to your method be able to recognize all patterns automatically...
So there's a stub image for missing album art ([no image]), but then "[multiple items]" needs a stub image too.