I use Mp3tag since one or two years now. Since I discovered it, I really cannot use anything else as it is a really great software with impressive capabilities and possibilities to optimize metadata of tracks. It is by far the best metadata tweakign software.
I may have two small suggestions for improvement:
1 - It might be good to consider a direct action button (i.e., like add tags from a text file, add tag from another tag,...) as follows : Add tag from clipboard memory. It cna coem really handy when you sleect all the tracks of the song and copy them to the clipboard. That way isntead of creating a text file where you paste the tracklist and then ask MP3tag to use this file as template, you make it easier.
2 - It might be good to be able to add cover pictures other than in just the pciture formats proposed (like bmp or else).
You know that you can C&P all tags from 1 file or a selection of files to another section of files without using an additional seperate step of a text-file?
Do you really want to embed large uncompressed picture formats like bmp to your music files?
Anyway if possible I think you would get trouble to see this picture in a lot of other software or other platforms.
The desire for a new "button" is not enough, a button detects or sends only the state on/off.
You have to describe in detail how the transport of data via the clipboard should look like, in both directions.
How would you describe what is a "tag" in your opinion?
I do not mean to copy tags from one track to another. I mean copying in the clipboard a tracklist for instance, removing unecessary columns using word and then copying the bare tracklist to replace in one paste all the tracklist of the tracks selected on MP3tag.
Well if you take a picture in .jpeg, rename it in .bmp the size do not change. All my collection uses bmp and I wish to remain so.
In my case DetlevD it's for import not export. For instance, say I am adding a video game music album to my collection. I use VGMDB.net as reference for utmost correct metadata. Considering these let's take this example:
This is what I currently do:
I copy the tracklist from VGMDB.net of the album i'm interested in. I paste the tracklist on word to remove useless tracknumbers and duration column. Copy only the tracknames, paste it onto a notepad file. I save the file then I press "ADD tag from text file" button on MP3tag and then it's settled.
What I wish that MP3tagcould perform in the future:
Once the desired tag (in this example it is tracknames of all the songs in the album) are copied onto the clipboard, I would press ideally a button called "ADD tag from clipboard" which opens a similar prompt box so I can choose where the clipboard data goes for which tag.
I hope it is more clear now. Maybe there's an easier to do so than what I currently do. Please let me know if you know such. Thanks!
If you simply change the file extension you do not change the file contents.
If you change a .jpg to .avi it does not become a movie.
Isn't this function already there in the shape of the extended tags dialogue?
In this dialogue, you can select a field (either new or for editing) and paste the clipboard contents.
This contents is then saved in all the selected files.
If you do that on windows it works. And i never meant to change the file contents: a picture stays a picture after all. It's just all my albums scans are in .bmp so I just change the filetype from jpeg to bmp for "conformism" stake. It is just an OCD habit there is no point more than that.
This is interesting, maybe I do not know how to use this function to its full potential
Let me detail my example then:
In the clipboard I would have all the names of tracks I want to put in a single block, the different tracknames would be spaced only by "return to the line button".
Track 1 name
Track 2 name
Track 3 name
In this instance how can the extended tag dialogue help me to put all the track names easily. Because as far as I know You can only do either change a track individually or change all tracks identically.
You are right: There is no point in that creating files with incorrect suffixes and it is completely senseless.
My question again:
Do you really want to embed large uncompressed picture formats like bmp to your music files?
If you embed an BMP you put tag-data to a mp3-file that exceeds the size of the music-part and probably multiplies the needed space.
No, it does not. And I mean that you get a different file contents. If you rename a bmp to txt and attempt to load that file into the editor, you see the bits and bytes but no picture and no decent text.
Also, I would like to draw your attention to the ID3 V2.3 standard about embedded pictures: http://id3.org/id3v2.3.0#Attached_picture
It states there "The "image/png" or "image/jpeg" picture format should be used when interoperability is wanted." So BMP is a sub-optimum choice.
Basically, you are right. But you are free to start an action group afterwards that deletes the unwanted data from that field until the correct data is there. Not as elegant as the file-tag solution, I know. But you can emulate it.
To answer both of you. Yes I want to use bmp because: 1. All my scans are made in this way. 2. You can literally drag and drop a picture from the web (it will be saved automatically in jpeg); replace the".jpeg" by ".bmp" and it will still be a picture that has the same size and same weight as the jpeg version (it might change additional parameters but unless they are really bad, I do not see any problem with it).
If you do not believe me just try it yourself, it works. (of course you cannot change a jpeg to a text file that doesnt make sense, my point was that you can convert a picture file format to another picture format without changing its weight) --> so it's easy to do
I'm only tagging lossless music files (ALAC), so the size isn't a matter when it comes to embedded pictures. And I think the metadata for lossless files must be flexible (maybe?).
You need to detail your idea more because it seems more tedious than my copy from web-paste to word-copy from word to a txt.file-press the text to tag button Operation. I'm interested if it cna make things faster.
I really don't see any problem with it. The image is the same after all. I can open it on the viewer of Windows and MAC and it is sufficient for me. Unless it corrupts my picture and make them deteriorate with time or something worse for the computer can you please explain the point in not keeping bmp?
Unless you have solid arguments that it corrupts something I don't see the point of changing it. And by the way I never used, and I will never have the use of Irfanview.
You are actually not keeping bmp files (which describes a certain file format) but jpg files for which you use an extension that does not match the internal file format.
Apparently, the programs you use to show the files are clever enough not to care about the filename extension. So why should you bother and rename the files. Leave them as they are.
If you want to get real bmp files, open a jpg in a bitmap editor and save it as a bmp. YOu could then compare the original jpg with the transformed bmp, especially in respect to size.
That would actually explains a lot. I think it does indeed work this way. Thanks for the info. I know about the bmp conversion and indeed then the files weights much more. I have done this since ages so now I can only continue this route... I would have to find specifically all files that are "wrongly" typed and then correct them by a batch process to make a correction worth the time it would take. Any clues to do that easily?
What do you exactly mean by "set to a wrong file type"?
Do you mean that for instance you have pictures of the correct type "bmp" or "png" and you want to convert them to "jpg".
Or do you mean that some pictures only have the wrong suffix and i.e. you want to rename them in changing their suffix to the correct type?
You don't refer to embedded mp3-pictures? I think you know that irfanview is not able to handle these.
I refer to pictures that have been consistently set to wrong file extension. I have hundreds if not thousands of jpg image whose suffix are in .bmp or another format. I, thus wish to correct all wrong file extension for these thousands of pictures via a batch process. Is it possible?
I indeed want to rename properly all the pictures with the wrong suffi but in a batch process ebcause there are thousands of them.
That is not a question of MP3Tag and in your special case I can see no gain in starting it from MP3Tag.
Irfanview itself is able to do work in batch-mode.
It can rename and covert pictures in many different ways.
As you have been told it can also detect a wrong file-suffix and offer to correct it to the right one.
The problem is that as far as I know this feature can not be used in batch-modus without copying the wrong file to a second right file.
For instance: If you have a abc.bmp that in reality is a JPG-file in batch modus irfanview will create an additional abc.jpg and keep the abc.bmp.
If you cannot live with that and delete 1 of the double files later, you have to work manually with the files in a folder.
Open the first file in the folder with irfanview. If it offers a renaming because the suffix is wrong click yes to rename. Then press the blue error in the menue to open the next file and so on. Irfanview will always offer you a renaming if the suffix is wrong.