Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bunker12" data-source="post: 245020" data-attributes="member: 22891">Sorry but I don't agree with you on several points.1. The storage overhead for shooting in jpg as well as raw is nowhere nere negligble. Adding 60-80% extra storage is a lot.2. The standard for metadata is IPTC-tags at the moment. Lightroom is fully capable of updating your files with that data. If MediaPortal supports reading IPTC-tags it could support more photo-editing and/or -managing software than Lightroom. In fact, just about all the major ones I guess.3. Re-using an existing application's database has three problems:&nbsp; a) Future compatibility. If for example Adobe changes the database format a little so that MP can't read it we'd be stuck waiting for an updated version of MediaPortal.&nbsp; b) Locks users into having to use one single software for the photo library management.&nbsp; c) Non-standard solution. The standard on photo-sites and for editing and library-management software is that you create your own database and import any metadata in the actual images.Obviously you're right that creating jpgs when shooting saves you the conversion part though, but I wouldn't want an MP implementation forcing the users to do that. And jpgs are already supported so all You would really need is a meta-data reader. If you'd just share your folder with your camera jpgs and export your tags to those files from Lightroom, you'd be all set then.@ghanzCodecs for raw decoding is a Vista feature. There's no such functionality in XP. If MediaPortal used dcraw, it could support orf (Olympus) and just about any other raw file format. The Wikipedia article on raw images has a couple more links to libraries that could be used freely.<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format" target="_blank">Raw image format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia</a></blockquote>

[QUOTE="bunker12, post: 245020, member: 22891"] Sorry but I don't agree with you on several points. 1. The storage overhead for shooting in jpg as well as raw is nowhere nere negligble. Adding 60-80% extra storage is a lot. 2. The standard for metadata is IPTC-tags at the moment. Lightroom is fully capable of updating your files with that data. If MediaPortal supports reading IPTC-tags it could support more photo-editing and/or -managing software than Lightroom. In fact, just about all the major ones I guess. 3. Re-using an existing application's database has three problems: a) Future compatibility. If for example Adobe changes the database format a little so that MP can't read it we'd be stuck waiting for an updated version of MediaPortal. b) Locks users into having to use one single software for the photo library management. c) Non-standard solution. The standard on photo-sites and for editing and library-management software is that you create your own database and import any metadata in the actual images. Obviously you're right that creating jpgs when shooting saves you the conversion part though, but I wouldn't want an MP implementation forcing the users to do that. And jpgs are already supported so all You would really need is a meta-data reader. If you'd just share your folder with your camera jpgs and export your tags to those files from Lightroom, you'd be all set then. @ghanz Codecs for raw decoding is a Vista feature. There's no such functionality in XP. If MediaPortal used dcraw, it could support orf (Olympus) and just about any other raw file format. The Wikipedia article on raw images has a couple more links to libraries that could be used freely. [url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raw_image_format]Raw image format - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/url] [/QUOTE]

Verification