Support and General Use > Theming and Appearance Customization

Album Art patch - read it from ID3?

<< < (2/2)

Kitty:
yea i figured that.. its only like 5kb more.. but whatever :]

thanks anyway.

accel:

--- Quote from: stripwax on October 11, 2006, 05:50:07 PM ---Kitty - here's another good reason.  If you store the album art in the ID3 tags, it makes your ID3 file bigger.  If you have an album of music (let's say 10 tracks) then EVERY ONE of those ten tracks is unnecessarily including the same album art image in that track's ID3 tag.  10 tracks = 10 identical images embedded in ID3 tags.  That is such a waste of space.  What the album art patch does it better -  one image per album (hence the name, in fact.)

--- End quote ---

yeah but .bmp's are a lot bigger than jpegs

2202083:

--- Quote from: accel on October 11, 2006, 08:48:49 PM ---
--- Quote from: stripwax on October 11, 2006, 05:50:07 PM ---Kitty - here's another good reason.  If you store the album art in the ID3 tags, it makes your ID3 file bigger.  If you have an album of music (let's say 10 tracks) then EVERY ONE of those ten tracks is unnecessarily including the same album art image in that track's ID3 tag.  10 tracks = 10 identical images embedded in ID3 tags.  That is such a waste of space.  What the album art patch does it better -  one image per album (hence the name, in fact.)

--- End quote ---

yeah but .bmp's are a lot bigger than jpegs

--- End quote ---
ooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu

Yotto:
Okay, first of all, we're discussing a patch in an inappropriate forum, which is a no-no.

Secondly, "raw images versus id3 tags" is a totally seperate issue than "bitmaps versus jpegs."  If the person who wrote the album art patch (or one of you who want it were to do it for him, as I'm sure he's overworked as it is) were to implement id3 tag images, they'd have to implement jpg images as well.  Then guess what?  Cover.jpg would work.

So get at it, "I bet it's not that hard to do."

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page