Subtitle Styling

[Emess]

Originally Posted by pichu

Indeed, he already started a thread like this one before:

http://forums.animesuki.com/showthread.php?t=53934 (Fansub typeset styling 101)

As for me, I like taking challenges. I went on scripting that Karaoke script, not because I want to make decent Karaoke, but because I want to do something that no one else had ever done before: Templated AFX Karaoke. SRSLY, why can't people understand?

Styling these days has gotten very monotonous, so yes, I've grown bored of it. It was fun 3-4 years ago when I got into Fansubbing.

I was waiting for you to link/pimp your karaoke script. Has anyone figured out what to do with it yet? All I ever see is you raving about it and everyone else going lolwhut~

E~

[pichu]

Originally Posted by Emess

I was waiting for you to link/pimp your karaoke script. Has anyone figured out what to do with it yet? All I ever see is you raving about it and everyone else going lolwhut~

E~

Actually yes based on what I wrote on my wiki, but that leads to the karaoke based on my own techniques ... I wanted to see new techniques too -- which is why I've decided to distribute that karaoke templates automator . I think no one has figured out how to make the more advanced effects that you can work with (except for myself). Unfortunately, as I found out, it is very true that most AFX Karaoke makers are usually not well-verse with AFX enough to make effects without following any presets or procedures. It's sad but true, so somehow I'll have to make tutorials on all of the pre-requisites. You can use this karaoke script to make any karaoke that people make. The sad part is that you can even do more, but I want you to discover that on your own -- how powerful AFX truly is.

[edogawaconan]

and perhaps also how one can live without afx...?

[getfresh]

Very easily actually. I use no AFX in anything I do, and it looks just fine. Using AFX for the most part is absolutely unneeded as far as "subtitling" is concerned.

[pichu]

Originally Posted by getfresh

Very easily actually. I use no AFX in anything I do, and it looks just fine. Using AFX for the most part is absolutely unneeded as far as "subtitling" is concerned.

Indeed, however, it's very true that signs made with AFX are significantly faster than those that are made in .ass, especially when you want "looks just fine" part.

Example - Nonlinear scaling:
1. AFX: fit at the end frame, then scale frame by frame or per 2-3 frames with interpolations (save time with shortcut keys): 50 scaling keys can take me under 1 minute. (usually perfect scaling can be done in 30s)
2. ASS: Type your own codes, adjust the scaling factors and positions manually, then insert the values in \t. You don't want your sign to 'bounce'. This will take you way too long and highly inaccurate.

And, we're not even talking about worthless motion tracking here.

This is all thanks to the very horrible user interfaces available in aegisub and other programs for .ass. AFX's user-interface is very quick compared to aegisub; or else, you'll have to go through manual coding yourself for .ass.

[getfresh]

Originally Posted by pichu

Indeed, however, it's very true that signs made with AFX are faster than those that are made in .ass, especially when you want "looks just fine" part.

Example - Nonlinear scaling:
1. AFX: fit at the end frame, then scale frame by frame or per 2-3 frames with interpolations (save time with shortcut keys): 50 scaling keys can take me under 1 minute. (usually in 30s)
2. ASS: Type your own text, adjust the scaling factors and positions manually. Way too long and too inaccurate.

And, we're not even talking about worthless motion tracking here.

All I was saying is it isn't needed, not that it cannot be used for ease.

[pichu]

Originally Posted by getfresh

All I was saying is it isn't needed, not that it cannot be used for ease.

Time is worth more than gold, and hence speed is a necessity.

On static signs, .ass is slightly faster than afx. On linearly moving signs, afx and .ass may be the same speed in terms of typesetting. On shaky and nonlinear 2D and 3D movements, afx can be more than 5X faster than doing in .ass. (When doing right)

[getfresh]

then ask yourself "why do a shaky overlay" in the first place. Just static note or sign it and be done. It's a subtitle, you are a fansubber, we are not animators and should stop trying to be animators maybe. Just a thought...

[edogawaconan]

Originally Posted by getfresh

then ask yourself "why do a shaky overlay" in the first place. Just static note or sign it and be done. It's a subtitle, you are a fansubber, we are not animators and should stop trying to be animators maybe. Just a thought...

I see we're on the same wavelength for this one

+1

[getfresh]

Originally Posted by edogawaconan

I see we're on the same wavelength for this one

+1

you'd be surprised how logical I am, on top of being lazy

[pichu]

Indeed, I suppose I can save like 5-10 minutes of my time putting that note up instead of actually typesetting that shaky sign.

[creamyhorror]

Originally Posted by pichu

Indeed, I suppose I can save like 5-10 minutes of my time putting that note up instead of actually typesetting that shaky sign.

But you wouldn't, because you're an artist

[Heibi]

Originally Posted by getfresh

you'd be surprised how logical I am, on top of being lazy

As a long time fansubber I'm glad to see someone still thinks the way I do.

Ledgible subtitles are the most basic of basics for fansubs. All the artsy-fartsy fonts just make it harder to read. I'm reminded of the pink-curly font I saw on Zettai Children. Hard to read and it was all crammed together due to its "font-style".

Please, fansubbers, quit with the artsy fonts for dialogue. Diffferent colors for different characters is one thing...etc.

[getfresh]

Originally Posted by Heibi

As a long time fansubber I'm glad to see someone still thinks the way I do.

Ledgible subtitles are the most basic of basics for fansubs. All the artsy-fartsy fonts just make it harder to read. I'm reminded of the pink-curly font I saw on Zettai Children. Hard to read and it was all crammed together due to its "font-style".

Please, fansubbers, quit with the artsy fonts for dialogue. Diffferent colors for different characters is one thing...etc.

For dialogue 90% of the time I use "serifless" fonts myself. I do use them sometimes, but mostly just roman type, or onestroke type comic fonts. I firmly believe in it being readable over being "nifty"

[Daiz]

Originally Posted by getfresh

"serifless"

It's called Sans-serif, just FYI

[getfresh]

Originally Posted by Daiz

It's called Sans-serif, just FYI

No, it's called serifless. A Sans-serif is a font with minimal to no serifing. Arial and fonts like Arial are completely without serifs, and were first classified as being serifless fonts. There is a difference as the completely serifless fonts were later introduced and created for computers.

And sorry the most proper name for them would be "Grotesk"

[pichu]

So are handwritten and script fonts...Grotesque is a San Serif typeface (aka font). And I believe in Latin san just means 'without' btw

[TheFluff]

Originally Posted by pichu

So are handwritten and script fonts...Grotesque is a San Serif typeface (aka font). And I believe in Latin san just means 'without' btw

"sans" means "without" in French. In Latin it'd be "sine".

Originally Posted by getfresh

No, it's called serifless. A Sans-serif is a font with minimal to no serifing. Arial and fonts like Arial are completely without serifs, and were first classified as being serifless fonts. There is a difference as the completely serifless fonts were later introduced and created for computers.

And sorry the most proper name for them would be "Grotesk"

Grotesque (or Grotesk) is a type of sans-serif typeface design (the first sans-serif typefaces were called Grotesque and the name stuck; later other types of sans-serif typefaces in other styles were designed). It is a subset of sans-serif typefaces; that is, all Grotesque typefaces (this is somewhat confusing because there is a typeface called simply "Grotesque" but it is also a name for a particular typeface design classification) are sans-serifs but not all sans-serif typefaces are classified as Grotesque. I have never heard of the term "serifless", neither as an alternative name for the Grotesque typeface design, nor anywhere else. Speaking of a serifless sans-serif typeface would be a tautology.

[getfresh]

Originally Posted by TheFluff

"sans" means "without" in French. In Latin it'd be "sine".


Grotesque (or Grotesk) is a type of sans-serif typeface design (the first sans-serif typefaces were called Grotesque and the name stuck; later other types of sans-serif typefaces in other styles were designed). It is a subset of sans-serif typefaces; that is, all Grotesque typefaces (this is somewhat confusing because there is a typeface called simply "Grotesque" but it is also a name for a particular typeface design classification) are sans-serifs but not all sans-serif typefaces are classified as Grotesque. I have never heard of the term "serifless", neither as an alternative name for the Grotesque typeface design, nor anywhere else. Speaking of a serifless sans-serif typeface would be a tautology.

try www.fonts.com they use the term serifless

[TheFluff]

Originally Posted by getfresh

try www.fonts.com they use the term serifless

As far as I can tell it is used in two (2) instances on the entire site, namely in the descriptions for two typefaces, Beorcana and ITC Syndor. The site does not use it as a classification and a google search for "serifless" gives around 3100 hits (this thread being #6, and the official description PDF for Beorcana being #4) compared to several hundred thousand for "grotesque font" or "grotesk font".

edit: oh wait I just found some history pdf on fonts.com that mentions it as well, but my point (that is is a quite unusual term) still stands