-- André Braga, on Fri, 20 Nov 2009 09:22:59 -0200: > On the other hand, two of those attributes I proposed (sampling, > codec) are *guaranteed* to map to actual, fixed properties of digital > media files, *always*. There's always going to be sampling and > encoding, even in the RAW case! It's even trivial to retrieve them > automatically given some clever sniffing daemon. Which doesn't make > it > any less important to have them directly on Tracker. In fact, Adobe > has included asset management tools for the several later releases of > their suites for this very reason. Besides the mentioned idea to have those attributes un-visible and toggleable for visibility in FileTypes prefs. I'm no video buff. I know I'm ignorant in that respect and my asking is actual curiosity: Would the Tracker-visible attributes really help when working with videos? Wouldn't the information of the sampling or interlacing only become interesting when inside a video editing app? Inside that app you have a list of clips and a file/query dialog to add more clips etc. Here, the hidden attributes can be displayed, sorted, queried for. Is there really much gained by having them in Tracker? BTW, I asked myself the same thing for the image Exif stuff like aperture, focal length, iso. Do many people need to see this in Tracker, do they sort a folder after iso settings? Or does this information only become interesting when actually viewing an image? Maybe with photos it makes more sense, because of a possible ThumbnailView in Tracker... Anyway, I'm not questioning your apparent better familiarity with this subject, I was just wondering. Besides, once all attributes are agreed upon and standardized, the state visibiliy flag can evolve. Regards, Humdinger -- --=-=--=-=--=-=--=-=--=-=--=-=--=-=--=-=--=-=--=- Deutsche Haiku News @ http://www.haiku-gazette.de