Rockbox Development > Feature Ideas

Convert folder.jpg to cover.bmp

<< < (2/4) > >>

Llorean:
You mentioned converting your whole collection, like the scripts on the PC, not simply displaying jpegs. What good is converting 10 or 20 when most peoples' collections have hundreds of albums?

RubenK:
My whole collection won't fit on my sansa. ;)
Ok maybe I should be more specific...
The thing I'm suggesting is:
 - You put a folder (album) on your sansa (or other mp3-player)
 - If Rockbox finds a folder.jpg file in that new folder (if any), it converts it to a cover.bmp file.
 - When the complete folder is removed, nothing happens, the files are just gone.
 - When a new folder is added to the drive, Rockbox finds the folder.jpg file and converts it to the required cover.bmp (like refreshing the database when new songs are added)
So, to summarize: a folder with a folder.jpg is added to the drive, Rockbox converts it into the required cover.bmp.
This way, Rockbox has to do that, say max. 10 to 20 times in a row? Does this realy take up that much memory?

>EDIT< You could convert all of them using a script, but in linux it's difficult (I can't figure out how...) This is just an easy and user friendly solution imo.

shotofadds:
I think it's a pretty reasonable request (and something I'd probably use from time to time). It should be pretty straightforward* to implement as a plugin, although the JPEG decoding code would first need to be moved from the current JPEG viewer plugin into the plugin lib.

If an "album art resize" plugin were written, it could either run as a standalone plugin (processing the whole filesystem?) or as a 'viewer' for individual directories. Just make sure it has a progress display and an EXIT button...

*Having just had a peek at jpeg.c I'll back away from attempting this for the time being. It looks like it'd soak up far too much time that I should be spending on other things.


--- Quote from: Llorean on October 13, 2008, 10:49:20 AM ---Your computer is many hundred times the speed of your MP3 player
--- End quote ---
That's maybe just a slight exaggeration... ;)

RubenK:
I thank you for looking at it. I understand the time off the people working on Rockbox should be spend as well as possible. If I had any experience I would try it myself, but this is far out of my league. Perhaps someone else who has some time on there hands can do this? I thank you for taking time to see what you can do, I know you guys are always busy (mainly because of people like me! :D)

Llorean:

--- Quote ---That's maybe just a slight exaggeration... ;)

--- End quote ---
I wouldn't necessarily say so. While the flat MHZ difference isn't a hundredfold multiplication, desktop CPUs have many advantages that would allow them to decode JPEG vastly vaster than these players could. It may not be hundreds, but the difference is significant enough that it would take many, many times longer than a database refresh takes.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page