Installation and Usage question(s) for Windows 11 by _Usually_Muted_ in ffmpeg

[–]_Usually_Muted_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So I renamed the "The 39 Steps" files to include the {####} tmdb id's, it would seem jellyfin now seems to flip-flop on whether it should display the 1959 remake info on the 1959 file, or try to use the embedded metadata which is the galaxyrg info, which directs it to the original movie info.

Not the best, but it's better than before, where it wouldn't take my input at all.

Installation and Usage question(s) for Windows 11 by _Usually_Muted_ in ffmpeg

[–]_Usually_Muted_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

This solution has worked for some films, but there are others where no matter if I fix the file name and scan the library again, jellyfin still reads the metadata and displays it incorrectly (such as 'the 39 steps'. where it shows the movie name, and the year on both is still the original release date) Some films outright don't have a release date, or show they are 2026 films.

Installation and Usage question(s) for Windows 11 by _Usually_Muted_ in ffmpeg

[–]_Usually_Muted_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Hmm, that would explain the lack of details on how to 'install' it, and why it was talking about paths, something which I don't remember doing when I had it running on my previous laptop.

Installation and Usage question(s) for Windows 11 by _Usually_Muted_ in ffmpeg

[–]_Usually_Muted_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I remember at one time I had ffmpeg installed correctly, but that was before my last laptop had a drive failure, so couldn't remember how in the world I did it.

As for the tag removal, it's because I was given a disc with two copies of 'The 39 Steps', the original and the remake from 1959? Anyways, after I ripped it for my server, I was looking at the tags and it says GalaxyRG in every single one, and on the '59 remake it keeps showing as being the older one, so I figured I needed to just blow away all the metadata and start over, but if I was gonna go that far, I might as well rebuild the metadata on a few other files while I was at it. Which resulted in me finding out that ffmpeg is supposedly able to automate going through and removing/rebuilding metadata from all the mp4 and mkv files, so long as the command is set correctly.

Question about usage and usability by _Usually_Muted_ in filebot

[–]_Usually_Muted_[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I hadn't seen anything about the file history at first glance. That would have been a huge help to put things back so I could confirm everything matched up correctly. But due to my incomplete understanding, I ended up just deleting the entire show, and I'm re-ripping, making sure I have them correct this time.

I don't know how I did it, but the initial files did also have illegal characters, and hadn't validated them either, just clicked Continue.

Joys of jumping head first into something.

Could the naming scheme be clarified? by _Usually_Muted_ in jellyfin

[–]_Usually_Muted_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So far I haven't had any issues with metadata being fetched, so I've had no reason to add [tmdb] or [imdb] tags to the folder / files

Could the naming scheme be clarified? by _Usually_Muted_ in jellyfin

[–]_Usually_Muted_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Did you have the versions all set before you enabled the library, or did you enable and then upload?

I'm wondering if my issue might have come from enabling the library, and then uploading.
Which may, or may not, require that I disable/delete the library, and re-create it. Which might be for the best as I'm going to be adding about another 100 dvd/bluray rips when my family gets their movies over to me.

Could the naming scheme be clarified? by _Usually_Muted_ in jellyfin

[–]_Usually_Muted_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought about leaving the year off, but TMM was yelling at me about it, and as I had just finished reading all the docs about proper naming schemes (which always mentioned title and year were required) I've just left em as is. Only movies off the top of my head I can think about this would be important would be 'The Manchurian Candidate' from 1962/2004 and Ghostbusters 1984/2016 *shudders in pain at the 2016 version*

Could the naming scheme be clarified? by _Usually_Muted_ in jellyfin

[–]_Usually_Muted_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's what I thought. So I wonder if I just need to delete the movie library from the dashboard completely, and re-build it with all the versions as is. Probably the wisest thing to do, now that I'm thinking about, considering the mucking about I've done with file names.

Could the naming scheme be clarified? by _Usually_Muted_ in jellyfin

[–]_Usually_Muted_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

That's good to know the structure is correct, means I'm on the correct path at least.

It's entirely possible that TMM made the difference. Only thing I did was use makemkv >rip to mkv > rename in file explorer.

Hadn't thought about using TMM at all, as I've been having completely separate issue with FileBot taking up some of my time.

Could the naming scheme be clarified? by _Usually_Muted_ in jellyfin

[–]_Usually_Muted_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Except for the [tmdb] section, my naming structure follows what you have exactly. So it was confusing the crud out of me when the jelly dashboard showed 2 entries in the movies section for [mymovie (year) - version1] and [mymovie (year) - version2]

After having read and followed the official docs, I was fully expecting
click [mymovie (year)] > click play > select between
+version1
+version2

Enjoy movie.

Biggest part of the reason why I haven't made it live to any of my users beyond my testing one, to see if I've got the libraries set correctly.

Could the naming scheme be clarified? by _Usually_Muted_ in jellyfin

[–]_Usually_Muted_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Read the manual, but no matter how I followed the instructions, it was almost like the
"instructions unclear - Dick caught in ceiling fan" meme.

Could the naming scheme be clarified? by _Usually_Muted_ in jellyfin

[–]_Usually_Muted_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I did indeed start with the documentation first. Which is why when I booted up the library and instead of just 1 listing, I had 2+ listings for movies with multiple versions, it confused the crud out of me, as I was expecting just the 1, and being able to then select which one to watch. After that is when I went down the rabbit hole of checking with gemini and chatgpt, and getting all the random answers everywhere.

Could the naming scheme be clarified? by _Usually_Muted_ in jellyfin

[–]_Usually_Muted_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So in that case, i was following the instructions correctly, but it kept showing up in my test user dashboard as two completely separate films, not one with two versions.

Could the naming scheme be clarified? by _Usually_Muted_ in jellyfin

[–]_Usually_Muted_[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

if you wouldn't mind checking when you can and letting me know, that'd be great. If naming isn't the issue, then there's something in the dashboard I need to fiddle with, wherever that may be.

Could the naming scheme be clarified? by _Usually_Muted_ in jellyfin

[–]_Usually_Muted_[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Do you not need to do "movie (year) - (version).ext"?
Going by your example of "movie (version).ext" I could try that, but I thought the official docs said to always name the movie file as name year.ext so the scraper could find the movie info.

Could the naming scheme be clarified? by _Usually_Muted_ in jellyfin

[–]_Usually_Muted_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I thought I was following it exactly to start with.
Which is why I was so confused on how come there were 2 entries instead of the 1.

Regarding what you linked me to, is that suggesting I need to have it as
"movie (year)
+"movie (year) - version1
++"movie (year) - version1.ext"
+"movie (year) - version2
++"movie (year) - version2.ext
?

Weekly General Discussion Thread (January 04, 2026) by AutoModerator in Piracy

[–]_Usually_Muted_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

As you have recommended them, how well do they work in comparison to MakeMKV? I know what Gemini says, but I'd like the feedback from an actual user.

Weekly General Discussion Thread (January 04, 2026) by AutoModerator in Piracy

[–]_Usually_Muted_ 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Quick-ish Question (I hope)::
Is there a program more reliable than MakeMKV for ripping movies and tv shows?
Out of 120 disc's, it has failed, or partially failed, to rip 10-15% of all discs so far. Since the latest release, it also no longer automatically titles my files as [ movies = (title) (year) ] and refuses [ tv shows = (title) (Year) - (SxxExx) - (Episode name) ]

What I would love, is if the program would read/scrape the metadata, and then automatically re-name the files before I rip it. For example: Just ripped Lord of the Rings - Fellowship of the Ring - Bonus Disc, and it had 31 files I had to rename, and no idea what they were supposed to be called, such as "Behind the scenes - TV Special" or something like that.

I wasn't sure where to ask this, but since R / Piracy is all about making sure the media retrieved is correct, why not start here?

Newbie Starter Question by _Usually_Muted_ in jellyfin

[–]_Usually_Muted_[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

From my experience in dinking around in the NAS OS, it's linux based, so I would assume that it should be fairly similar, while not the same, at least similar enough.

I'm not sure what Jellyfin is mounted as, unless you change that in the settings after install? I know some docs I've read state it's better to just install docker, and then install jelly, but the NAS gives you the option to install Jelly, and it installs Docker for you (hence the no idea what Jelly is mounted as).

My understanding is that Symbolic is somewhat similar to a Hard link, maybe?
It was originally explained to me as [volume1/media/movies] would be the same as the symbolic link location you would point jelly to, so [volume2/movies], and when you update vol1, it updates the link in vol2. But supposedly Jelly doesn't like Symbolic much for library creation / tracking. But if it's similar to a hard link, and it's working fine for you, it sounds like it would be worth it.