Open i336 opened 9 years ago
Using the filename could be triccky, it can contain info about the format (resolution
, format_id
...). Would using the title be enough? (I think that's quite reasonable).
Ah, of course, I didn't think of that. I'm not that familiar with youtube-dl
's internal structure, I was looking for an existing easily reusable datapoint to make the feature easier to implement.
Just the video title would certainly be sufficient.
:D
I'd also welcome the title in the format listing, as this tells more than Available formats for <ID>
.
At least on demand. I'd expect this when issuing --get-format
and --get-title
together, but currently this produces nothing instead of a format listing with titles, as I'd expect it. Thanks.
I often use
-F
to list the possible video encoding formats I can use for videos.When I do this, I see something like
which tells me nothing about the video.
I've recently discovered that the formats available for YouTube videos is unpredictable and depends on what batch-transcoding settings were in place when the video was originally uploaded.
If I do an
-F
request for several videos, I'll get a terminal full of "Available formats for ....." and I'll then need to repeatedly crossreference the video IDs manually to work out what to do next - I might want to find a higher quality copy of a given video, or I might only want the audio track of another, etc, but I can only make the appropriate judgement calls if I know the title of the video in question!I would suggest [re]using the filename output format specifier (minus the file extension, if feasible) to control the presentation.
Thanks for such an awesome program, btw! :D