I the the interface you have so far is really really great - easy to use and very clear. It provides the key information really well, and gives access to further detail if you need. The ability to stack films* and compare is excellent.
Awesome! That is good to hear 😁
*(although i find the 'delete file' option nerve wracking - seems to bypass the trash on my mac! Would there be a preference to turn this option off? I'm not sure I could leave an intern with it).
Did you enable the "use trashcan" option?
Note: As with most other applications as well, the Trashcan usually only works on disks that support a trashcan on that disk. As far as I know this would only be your internal harddisk. So deleting a file from your NAS will not support the trashcan. To enable trashcan support, all the files that you delete would need to be copied to your local harddisk first for it to be able to get into the trashcan. Some NAS devices, I know this can be enabled on QNAP devices, allow you to enable an automatic trashcan on the NAS.
Disabling the delete function ... let me think about that. Feels like a useful setting indeed. I've taken note of this and will see if I can include this in a next release.
What is the difference between 'width / height' and 'coded_width / coded_height'
From what I understand, some encoders require width and height to be multiples of a certain number. For example multiple of 16 or something like that. The actual width may not meet those requirements, so a codec_width is used to meet those requirements. The padding pixels may be cropped out again when decoding the video. (Source)
I think your approximations of aspect ratios is probably a good idea, though it may be useful to be able to highlight that which are approximations rather than exact eg, "16:9*" - that helps us spot potential issues to address
Not a bad idea, but just looked at the code and this may be more work than I would care for. The current module that handles the approximation has no means (yet) to indicate that it was an approximation. Calculation this afterwards, even though that would be inefficient, would come with problems as well. For example, a ratio may end up with one of those fun situations where we would like to compare 0.333333333333333333 with 0.333. (just an example to indicate that division can come with hard to compare results)
To give you some "fun" ratios where rounding or size limitations will cause problems:
10:9 = 1.111111111111111
4:3 = 1.333333333333333
5:3 = 1.666666666666667
16:9 = 1.777777777777778
16:7 = 2.285714285714286
21:9 = 2.333333333333333
Taking note though - see what I can come up with. 👍
I think I may have a trick somewhere in the middle, but have to do some digging in my code to see if this becomes an option.
As for pixel aspect ration, you have already found an example where we have to go "in the ballpark" mode 😉
The "p" versus "i" is indeed a thing I intentionally chose to ignore the proper "i" option. For example, 1080i is not very uncommon as far as I know, and I can see interlaced to be not uncommon with lower resolution recordings (especially older ones). However ... most users do not care about that little detail, and just associate 1080p with a certain resolution instead of progressive or interlace video.
To avoid completely remodeling MovieScanner, I'd need some reliable methods to deal with some of these issue.
Suggestions are welcome of course, but they have to remain implementable. 😊