What is Typesetting?

[getfresh]

I think what it all really comes down to is that this topic is a case of "toe-may-toe vs. toe-ma-toe." In other words, lets all just move on to something a bit less like watching retards try to screw light sockets (Thats not directed at any person posting, just using it for comparison).

[False Dawn]

As a final thought, I would agree with Pichu's point that someone who can only style subs is not really a typesetter on the basis that they're not fulfilling the whole job of a fansub typesetter (which is namely, to typeset signs, style the subs, etc).

I view the same with timers - timers who can't scene/fine time aren't really timers because they're not fulfilling their duties. I mean, yes, they can be bad at it, but not understanding the basics of it, in my eyes, means they're unfit to be timers without going that extra step.

Etc etc, yada yada, this thread has gone on too long.

[CelesAurivern]

Originally Posted by False Dawn

I view the same with timers - timers who can't scene/fine time aren't really timers because they're not fulfilling their duties.

Next, we'll be saying translators who aren't native Japanese speakers aren't fit to be called translators. Seriously people, is there really a need for such condescending attitudes?

Personally, I think fancy typesetting is like karaoke—we can live without it and it's not an indispensable part of producing a good fansub. What really counts is a good blend of translation and editing. Which is why I rate central-anime, a no-frills group, very highly.

But hey, all AFX people still deserve a little recognition for the hours of work they pour in. *round of applause*

[what_apath]

i puts the words on the screens

^___________________________^

[edogawaconan]

Originally Posted by pichus

Given the following premises:

Typesetter is someone who can typeset. If one can typeset, one can style text and one can do graphics too.

Sorry, where does this premise come from?

Originally Posted by pichus

While it is true that main dialogue styling is important, it is also true that you can K.I.S.S. (Keep It Simple, Stupid). That is, styling of main subs can be very simple - white Arial Bold with black borders, no?

Making it beyond K.I.S.S. is what's difficult.

[shomazta]

Originally Posted by CelesAurivern

Next, we'll be saying translators who aren't native Japanese speakers aren't fit to be called translators. Seriously people, is there really a need for such condescending attitudes?

I don't think you understand the point of this thread, well apparently alot of people don't (half of it is still a blur to me). You're argument regarding the origination of a translator is on completely different grounds. Whether or not a person has an extensive background in their respective feild of subbing has no relation to what makes them worthy of being whatever feild they're proclaiming themselves to be. A non-native translator could be better than someone who's grown up and has been submersed in that tongue. Whereas, a translator that merely translates what they feel like doing should not yeild the right to claim the title of translator. Yes, they are translating. Yet... they're not translating everything, and are therefore "not fulfilling their duties." We're not just talking about what is what (litteral) here, we're trying to converse what should be what (or so it seems).

Originally Posted by CelesAurivern

Personally, I think fancy typesetting is like karaoke—we can live without it and it's not an indispensable part of producing a good fansub. What really counts is a good blend of translation and editing.

Hmm... that's a personal opinion (as you stated), and in my opinion a release without properly typesetted signs is not "good*," maybe you could call it "decent?" Seeing as you feel signs are just an "extra," let me ask you (and everyone else) this:

Say, for instance, there is a seen in an animation that portrays a bag. Now, this bag has kanji/kana writings on it which you, a non-japanese speaking/reading person have no understanding of.

Are you suffice with just seeing an "onscreen?"
(click)

Would you be fine watching subs (in this sense I mean plain subtitles) overlaying the image?
(click)

Are you fine with no translation for that scene whatsoever?
(click)

Or would you much rather prefer someone taking the time to work in the English translation of that "sign," in such a way that the typeset does not stand out profusely and manages to blend in with the original (source) animation?
(click)

Just to clarify my standing on this issue; we all know that the definition of typesetting is simply setting type. So noone is wrong there. But what we should be debating/discussing is; What is good typesetting?

I feel that pichus didn't make this thread with intentions of discussing his personal abilities and/or why he's the right person to define good typesetting. I think he just wanted to challenge the rest of you "typesetters" out there to put some actual effort into your work.

[pichu]

Originally Posted by edogawaconan

Sorry, where does this premise come from?

It's derived from the definition of the word in the lexicon (Merriam-Websters), given by the "assumption" (assumption that the dictionary's definition is valid) or the premise. One can relate this way:

If you can style (i.e., do text) and can do graphics, can you typeset? Perhaps (I can't be certain where a case may fail), I didn't intend to put it this way (an equality as oppose to implication), as this is more restrictive - which will even show more failures. Just think that styling is a subset of typesetting; it's quite clear how it is implied.

I remembered doing this when I was learning Prolog, and this is when I fully understood implications and classifications/subsets in a logic. And it works wonders in forums when debating a logical situation (I used it sometimes before) since it looks like people here are confused by implications, inferences, and subsets.

[edogawaconan]

Originally Posted by shomazta

Are you suffice with just seeing an "onscreen?"
(click)

not bad (bad choice of font and "On Screen". some other font, please? with different color and shadow transparency for a bit blending, perhaps )

Originally Posted by shomazta

Would you be fine watching subs (in this sense I mean plain subtitles) overlaying the image?
(click)

if done wrong, it's worst out of four - c'mon at least use same color as the text on bag and no border, and use sans serif font like arial or w/e, it'll feel much better than this even if it's worse than #4

Originally Posted by shomazta

Are you fine with no translation for that scene whatsoever?
(click)

if totally unrelated, it might be better (or best)

Originally Posted by shomazta

Or would you much rather prefer someone taking the time to work in the English translation of that "sign," in such a way that the typeset does not stand out profusely and manages to blend in with the original (source) animation?
(click)

see #3, if it's correct then I call it a waste of time. and same as #2, bad if done incorrectly

then my question:
if the typesetter only able to do #2 (or better but not as good as #4 - or the scene is much more difficult to do #4) then he decided to do #1, is he not a typesetter?

Just to clarify my standing on this issue; we all know that the definition of typesetting is simply setting type. So noone is wrong there. But what we should be debating/discussing is; What is good typesetting?

Good typesetting would be combination of everything inside it: good styling and good sign and something else. (and yes, the title should be "What is good typesetting?")

[pichu]

Unfortunately those aren't good examples... Both #2 and #4 looked the same to me. For me, I'd use similar font, the same color (simulate artifacts if needed), the same weight, similar size (sizes and weights can vary but that's just styling), warped (i.e. the bag is stretched), and the same blurriness. The point of the job is that you don't want your typesets to standout in the video while maintaining its readable to avoid killing the scenes. Subs are already distracting themselves, which can't be avoided. Hence, this is why I feel the need for 'fancy signs.' Fancy karaoke are quite different than fancy signs, as fancy karaoke are meant to be eyecatchy whilst 'fancy signs' are meant to be part of the video (unnoticeable blends).

To answer your question... styling isn't typesetting (as I have proved it) since styling is a subset of typesetting. When you typeset, you need to know how to handle graphics, i.e. screen text [blend], as well as text.

[Daiz]

So something that belongs to typesetting isn't typesetting? Great logic you have there.

Also, I honestly wonder what kind of person brings mathematical formulas and whatnot into discussion about opinions. Your whole "truth table" doesn't actually prove anything, it's like you are just trying to look intelligent by saying "if you can't prove your opinions with mathematical knowledge and booleans and whatnot, then I win!"

Typesetting is still typesetting even if you only do a small amount of it. We could argue that a typesetter isn't doing his/her job properly if he/she doesn't make SUPER BLENDING TEXTS to the video, but I seriously suggest that you stop saying that typesetting isn't typesetting before we do that.

[edogawaconan]

Typesetting is a set that is something like this (more or less):



basically typesetting is generic term for everything inside it.
so, saying styling isn't typesetting is like saying sign typesetting is not typesetting.

(yes i'm using picture for absolutely no reason and its accuracy is questionable)

[shomazta]

Originally Posted by edogawaconan

so, saying styling isn't typesetting is like saying sign typesetting is not typesetting.

Okay. If all this "typesetter" knows how to do is place/animate sign-typesets yet has no understanding of styling, then the same applies... If you can't do everything, then you're not anything hmm... not litteral of course.

edit: we all know that typesetting has more to it then just one over the other (styling/placement). Simply being capable of one thing doesn't entitle you to call yourself "typesetter" seeing as that, as I just said, is more then one part of the job.

an apple seed can become an apple tree, yet you wouldn't call it an apple tree would you?

someone has the ability to style typesets, yet is incable of everything else... sure you're a typesetter (in the litteral term) yet you(this person) should make some sort of an attempt to become a "true" typesetter. Why do something if you're not going to put all of your effort into it?

Originally Posted by getfresh

BTW I think we are beginning to beat a dead horse here...

^^

[edogawaconan]

Originally Posted by shomazta

edit: we all know that typesetting has more to it then just one over the other (styling/placement). Simply being capable of one thing doesn't entitle you to call yourself "typesetter" seeing as that, as I just said, is more then one part of the job.

yes sure. It's just how we can't say someone who can only do addition/subtraction/multiplication a mathematician, but he's certainly doing mathematical operation.

To an extent however, that might be possible. If one's typesetting an episode that doesn't contain any sign/credit/whatsoever, and all he's done for that episode is just styling, he can still be called the typesetter for that episode

[pichu]

daiz, you're missing the point... the statement is: "because i can style, i'm a typesetter." And it seems that a lot of people are missing the whole point. To say it worse, people who only style are wannabe typesetters. Hence, I say styling is not typesetting. Or, to put it more appropriately: Typesetting is not just styling or placing/formatting the text. (excuse me for the literary correct) Tell me what's an opinion formulated in this situation? I failed to see it.

Originally Posted by daiz

Also, I honestly wonder what kind of person brings mathematical formulas

A researcher. And truth table is one of the ways I can prove things. There are two or more other ways to approaching this situation. Truth Table is easy to understand for people who have no f***ing clue about this approach.

[Daiz]

Okay, I've completely had enough of this thread. This thread is going nowhere, it's just literally repeating the same goddamn things over and over and over again. I would like to remind you that fansubbing is a hobby, not a profession. You don't have to take everything so goddamn seriously and nitpick if someone calls himself/herself a typesetter even if he/she did only font typesetting. But you still do. You just have to take this goddamn elitist approach to typesetting. Sure, you can call yourself a good typesetter, because you most likely are one. But you seem to forget that you don't need to call other typesetters bad (or "wannabe typesetters" like you expressed it) in order to call yourself good. The only reason why I can see you do this is because you have a very low self-esteem. Or maybe you're just a goddamn elitist prick by nature, I wouldn't know.

Anyway, I've had enough of this discussion, since anything I would say would make no difference for you and you would just continue to reply with the same things over and over again. We could continue this probably forever, but since it would be still completely pointless, I'm going to stop now.

I just hope that everyone else realizes how pointless this thread is and leaves it alone to die a silent death.

[False Dawn]

Originally Posted by Daiz

But you seem to forget that you don't need to call other typesetters bad (or "wannabe typesetters" like you expressed it) in order to call yourself good.

I thought mocking other fansubbers was what fansubbing was all about

[martino]

Originally Posted by False Dawn

I thought mocking other fansubbers was what fansubbing was all about

Depends on where you are in the food chain I guess...

[pichu]

Just as a note: Fansubbing is a serious business, comprising of serious hobbyists. You'll have to meet up with people like us trying to work our best in 'fansubbing.' In my case, I tried to make the signs to look good and yet I did fail in many occasions - I admit. But I repeatedly fixed the failures until I was satisfied with the work.

MOTD: It is my belief that for whatever work being done, one should try as hard as possible; otherwise, don't even bother getting involved.

[shomazta]

Originally Posted by Daiz

Anyway, I've had enough of this discussion, since anything I would say would make no difference for you and you would just continue to reply with the same things over and over again. We could continue this probably forever, but since it would be still completely pointless, I'm going to stop now.

I just hope that everyone else realizes how pointless this thread is and leaves it alone to die a silent death.

Ha... ha...? Was all that really necessary? You made the choice to read this thread (at least the initial post). All pichus is asking is that if one(you/whoever) is going to consider themselve a typesetter they at least put effort into it.

[b0nk]

Yes Fansubbing is serious business more so typesetting usually seems to be the one position in fansubbing that can and usually does take the most time. To certain masochists, typesetting can take hours or days to complete depending on the amount and difficulty of the signs.

This has basically become a stylers vs signs positioners flame war with random hosers expressing their opinions. We all have our own style and we know how much time we spend on our hobby it's just that some people are willing to spend more time than others on it and that is evident in our work.

We all know crap TS work when we see it, so let's just let our work do the talking instead.