What is Typesetting?

[Ichihara Asako]

To me, a typesetter is basically somebody who does signs. Karaoke is a different kettle of fish, at least in some cases, and styling the dialogue is also different. Though styling and signs are often done by the same person.

I've worked with a number of groups in the past, and all of them had dedicated kara artists that were separate to the 'typesetter'. Hell, I did styling myself in numerous cases. Almost anybody can style, and it doesn't take any particular skill, just patience to go through a script to make sure each line is styled correctly. But the effort required to do good signs (especially moving ones) is far beyond what I'm willing to put in.

It doesn't really matter how you want to define what typesetting is, or what a typesetter does. Every group out there does it in their own way, and if they want to credit multiple people as typesetters, when one is doing dialogue styling, one ASS signs and one AFX signs, then, so be it. They're all typestters, I guess. Anybody making cosmetic changes to the script can be considered a typesetter. At least in my humble view.

But, I wouldn't consider myself a typesetter. It's something I dabbled in, and as I said, I styled scripts on numerous occasions simply using aegisub's GUI, never manual ASS commands, but being able to do moving signs and stuff kind of defines a 'real' typesetter to me personally.

[pichu]

Originally Posted by edogawaconan

isn't basically all of them subset of typesetting...?

If you use "Compose" as the definition, yes... but basically you can't style the signs or style the credits with fonts and colors alone. So in a more specific sense, I pointed out those differences. I think it's implied.

This circles my question: "What is a good typesetting in fansubbing?"

[getfresh]

Originally Posted by b0nk

I'm usually a lurker on these forums but it seems this has turned into a clash between the old TSers vs the new TSers with the definition of typesetting on the line.

I consider myself pretty experienced enough to reply to this thread since I've used both formats of AE and textsub to typeset in the past and I've come to the conclusion that simply picking main dialogue fonts and colors is not really typesetting.

Real typesetting imo involves signs, most of the sign TSers I know can't stand dialogue styling. I usually categorize main dialogue styling as just styling pure and simple since that's all there really is to it.

I have to disagree for the most part. Typesetting is the action of setting the type/typeface/font. Onscreens use styling as much as any other part of typesetting. The act of setting the font is typesetting plain and simple. After that, further modification to the type is the styling of it.

*********EDIT*********

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

[edogawaconan]

Originally Posted by pichus

This circles my question: "What is a good typesetting in fansubbing?"

good combination of typeface, size, margin, color, and transparency choice in dialogue style is one of the defining factor for me.

[b0nk]

Onscreens are considered signs and usually those don't require much skill other than \fad, unless for some reason the animators decided to to give it some weird effect most can be done in a few mins. I usually make the timer do that kind of grunt work anyhow. The real signs require an actual sign typesetter to do.

[TheFluff]

Okay, okay, you win, define typesetting as whatever you want. I'll have to give up this argument altogether because I can't understand what the christ you're talking about anymore. I can't dispute what you're saying if I don't understand it.

Originally Posted by pichus

As for 'science' I mentioned, it's an analogy, i.e. indirect relationships.

Wait, what? Calling typesetting a science was an analogy? Indirect relationships? Between what?

Originally Posted by pichus

(again, I'm pride to know them but do they infer as a good typesetter? no)

Eh? I'm pride to... what? Do you mean "I'm proud to know said techniques but bragging about how I know them isn't trying to infer that I'm a good typesetter"? No, that doesn't make sense. What DO you mean?

Originally Posted by pichus

I refuse to post examples here because I don't want to stray into that direction; it's been thought out before I impose them here, since I already knew someone will flame on those little petty details. Sorry, everything is thought out thrice.

Impose what here? What is thought out thrice? I don't get it.

Originally Posted by pichus

If you need me to say what are the desserts directly, I'd be glad to say it directly, which won't sound professionally.

Desserts? What? Is this some kind of super analogy?

Originally Posted by pichus

Edit1: As a side note, you can't argue when classifying from a general statement (typesetting) to more specific meanings like blended signs in typesets.

I've read this sentence about ten times now and I still have no clue what you're trying to say with it.

Originally Posted by pichus

As a note, I say objective typesetting: because there is an objective (goal) to the typesetting I'm asking...

Personally I don't have any objectives I'm trying to achieve with my typesetting, I just place random lines in random places with random fonts for random purposes.
(hi captain obvious)

Originally Posted by b0nk

I've come to the conclusion that simply picking main dialogue fonts and colors is not really typesetting.

Real typesetting imo involves signs, most of the sign TSers I know can't stand dialogue styling. I usually categorize main dialogue styling as just styling pure and simple since that's all there really is to it.

Not you too b0nk? How can what you call "dialogue styling" not be typesetting? It's presentation of textual material. Hence, typesetting (try reading the dictionary again). You can certainly argue that it shouldn't be the job of someone who does sign typesetting if you want, but I don't see why it can't or shouldn't be. If the sign typesetter in question doesn't want to do it, then sure let someone else handle it, but what's the point of stopping people from doing more than one task?

Originally Posted by pichus

No, how am I contradicting myself? I said typesetting as a general form. Signs typesetting are specific. I pointed out maybe to "Logos" under my spoiler tags in the first post, and "no" to karaoke only because one isn't trying to match anything, but the example I pm'd you is an objective typesetting, not a karaoke styling, but it's a karaoke. You should take a look at it before trying to talk.

Contradictions again (why am I surprised?). Now you're saying that "typesetting as a general form" isn't the same as "typesetting" (which might or might not be what you're now calling "objective typesetting"; I've stopped trying to understand what you're trying to define the difference between typesetting and typesetting as). Stop trying to redefine words all the time, it gets incredibly confusing.

As for the video, I did watch it but I still fail to see your supposed point. Is making romaji karaoke look like existing kanji karaoke typesetting, while karaoke without existing kanji is not typesetting? You're not making this any less complicated, you know.

Originally Posted by pichus

It's not a home brewed definition, but I've re-looked and re-analyzed at the definition. It's called flow of logic; perhaps it's something you should acquire.

HAY GUYS I DEFINE TYPE AND I DEFINE SETTING SO THAT WHEN I PUT THEM TOGETHER I DEFINE TYPESETTING! Wait, what does etymology mean again?

Originally Posted by edogawaconan

isn't basically all of them subset of typesetting...?

Yes, yes they are. Which is my point. It seems some of you (pichus, b0nk) are trying to say that typesetting that doesn't require mad 1337 AFX skillz and/or isn't related to signs isn't typesetting, which is bad and wrong. Typesetting is any and all presentation of textual material in visual form, be it logotypes, karaoke, signs, dialogue, notes, whatever. Saying anything else is trying to redefine a well-known and well-defined English word into something else. Don't do that, it's incredibly confusing.

[pichu]

@edogawaconan: then you're missing the point, I think. Oh well, it's 4AM here, and I can't think straight. Maybe I should have this thread renamed asking if there are people who are willing to give in to the ideal typesetting I'm after. It seems that everyone sees things differently.

I have been asking myself, am I a good typesetter? I'm so used to making signs that I tend to alter anything on the video for my ideal signs, and I hate dialogue or karaoke styling (not that I'm incapable of but just hated it). I destroy the video literally... So this makes me a bad typesetter. Should I pass what I am fond of to other people so that they can do the same `shameful` stuff (thought I think it's beauty) as me?

PS: I should stop confusing TheFluff with my philosophy. It doesn't seem that he gets any of the point across. I don't like to say it directly, but boy someone should educate him how to communicate on the forums properly.

[getfresh]

Originally Posted by pichus

@edogawaconan: then you're missing the point, I think. Oh well, it's 4AM here, and I can't think straight. Maybe I should have this thread renamed asking if there are people who are willing to give in to the ideal typesetting I'm after. It seems that everyone sees things differently.

I have been asking myself, am I a good typesetter? I'm so used to making signs that I tend to alter anything on the video for my ideal signs, and I hate dialogue or karaoke styling (not that I'm incapable of but just hated it). I destroy the video literally... So this makes me a bad typesetter. Should I pass what I am fond of to other people so that they can do the same `shameful` stuff (thought I think it's beauty) as me?

Of course opinions vary from one typesetter to the next, as typesetting is subjective.

[Yumi`]

Originally Posted by pichus

I don't like to say it directly, but boy someone should educate him how to communicate on the forums properly.

Likewise I guess.
I didn't get what you were trying to convey with your initial post, and reading the entire thread only got me lost in some ts-ts bashing mixed with some unrelated ts vs encoder nonsense.
If there is anything useful meant in this thread aside from a pointless attempt to redefining an existing term topped with some self-satisfaction, you really should made a better effort in expressing it from the start. Ppl would surely be very interested in picking something up from the experience out here but so far this just looks like an ego clash to me.

Originally Posted by pichus

This circles my question: "What is a good typesetting in fansubbing?"

So that is all what this thread is supposed to be about? I'm not sure what you're expecting by arguing about something so subjective.
Be it typesetting, timing, encoding or whichever job, in the end we all have to face the reality that perfectionism is barely noticed and almost only appreciated amongst fansub colleagues. It's no big surprise or secret that fansubbers only do it for their own fun. Each has his own preferences and opinions in this visually based "art". Trying to impose your own definitions and standards on that kind of hobbies is quite pointless imo. Unlike in -for example- some encoding discussions there aren't any hard statistics/numbers to argue with. Even though discussions like mkv vs avi and xvid vs h264 have had clear cut victors for quite some time, they are still dragging on. And these aren't even nearly as subjective as typesetting styles.

Originally Posted by pichus

I have been asking myself, am I a good typesetter?

Regardless of your TS skills, I 'd say your posting skills aren't very great if finding an answer to that is all the purpose this thread holds. At least that is what it reads like. Of course, I could be wrong or you could be presenting it poorly.

[pichu]

Not really... I already jumped into the question without giving a background overview of the situation for a better yield. I assume that everyone knows the background exactly how I understood it. Apparently, everyone seems to have no background at all during this conversation, in which at the moment, I don't feel like writing a background synopsis since it will require to be written in a lengthy thesis format. It's not about wrongfully presenting the information. Furthermore, I don't think it's "re-definition" of the word. The word, "typesetting" from the lexicon is too general. I'm only making it in a more specific sense as used in fansubs as of today without altering the original definition.

the process of setting material in type or into a form to be used in printing; also : the process of producing graphic matter (as through a computer system)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/typesetting

That is which we are producing graphic matter, let it be text, symbols, or drawings -- it doesn't matter. You guys only understand one definition without knowing another definition, which really disgusts me. You guys should do a bit more research before trying to argue with me.

PS: I am discussing about and am into objective typesetting, not subjective typesetting. How well it matches to the scene is objective. Need examples?

So you're basically saying that it's pointless to impose the new typesetting standards and to give out those lessons of the new typesetting standards to the fansubbing community? I guess I can just quit from fansubbing for all of my wasteful needs.

[Daiz]

Originally Posted by pichus

You guys only understand one definition without knowing another definition, which really disgusts me. You guys should do a bit more research before trying to argue with me.

So you're basically saying that it's pointless to impose the new typesetting standards and to give out those lessons of the new typesetting standards to the fansubbing community? I guess I can just quit from fansubbing for all of my wasteful needs.

Personally I have to say that it's you who only seems to want to accept one definition and ignore the others. Typesetting includes choosing the subtitle font, styling, sign/logo making, karaoke styling etc. These all belong to typesetting in fansubbing. Some people might think that some parts are more "worthless" than the others, but I don't think anyone sane would disagree that they don't belong to typesetting at all.

However, you go out and say that "these and these things do not belong to typesetting, typesetting only includes the master art of making signs in photoshop and afx that takes three days for professionals like me to create" etc. In my opinion this could be considered as an insult towards other typesetters and their work.

After people noted you about this, you rat out and say "I was just asking if this is good typesetting" and whatnot. That was not the message that the first post delivered. Now you are trying to rescue your face by saying "apparently you people don't understand anything about the secret black magic that is typesetting".

Honestly, just stop. This thread never started good, this thread has not brought anything new into the subject of typesetting, there is simply nothing useful in this thread. If you feel insecure about your typesetting and feel like boasting about your awesome Photoshop and AFX skills, this is not the right way to do it.

And what are these "new typesetting standards" that you are suddenly talking about? Wasn't this thread supposed to be about "what is good typesetting?" like you claimed earlier? Apparently you don't even know yourself what to write anymore.

This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

[edogawaconan]

Originally Posted by pichus

Furthermore, I don't think it's "re-definition" of the word. The word, "typesetting" from the lexicon is too general. I'm only making it in a more specific sense as used in fansubs as of today without altering the original definition.

There's this term sign typesetting already.

Originally Posted by pichus

I'm discussing objective typesetting, not subjective typesetting. How well it matches to the scene is objective. Need examples?

Originally Posted by picus

As a note, I say objective typesetting: because there is an objective (goal) to the typesetting I'm asking... Blending of signs, matching credits, for example.

Originally Posted by dictionary.com

1. something that one's efforts or actions are intended to attain or accomplish; purpose; goal; target: the objective of a military attack; the objective of a fund-raising drive.

5. not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.

...be consistent a little?

it might be just me but here's my impression of what you're trying to say:

• sign typesetting = typesetting
• anything else != typesetting

[pichu]

As a suggestion, bad arguments are those that are done without any references to well-known sources (which most of you seemed to have lacked of - aegisub's definition of typesetting is relatively bad because it lacks of real references [subjective definitions don't count], so I won't even call that a good reference); I hate to admit, but it seems that everyone here really needs to learn how to make good arguments. Most arguments I've seen here are relatively weak, and for my sake, mine is weak because I don't feel like digging up materials since it will take me another one or two hours to do so. However, in the last remark about the definition, it seems that no one can ever turn down that definition logically, so it stands corrected. And true, arguing subjectively is basically pointless. Which is why I'm trying to stray towards objectiveness, i.e. signs.

Originally Posted by Daiz

Personally I have to say that it's you who only seems to want to accept one definition and ignore the others. Typesetting includes choosing the subtitle font, styling, sign/logo making, karaoke styling etc. These all belong to typesetting in fansubbing. Some people might think that some parts are more "worthless" than the others, but I don't think anyone sane would disagree that they don't belong to typesetting at all.

However, you go out and say that "these and these things do not belong to typesetting, typesetting only includes the master art of making signs in photoshop and afx that takes three days for professionals like me to create" etc. In my opinion this could be considered as an insult towards other typesetters and their work.

After people noted you about this, you rat out and say "I was just asking if this is good typesetting" and whatnot. That was not the message that the first post delivered. Now you are trying to rescue your face by saying "apparently you people don't understand anything about the secret black magic that is typesetting".

Honestly, just stop. This thread never started good, this thread has not brought anything new into the subject of typesetting, there is simply nothing useful in this thread. If you feel insecure about your typesetting and feel like boasting about your awesome Photoshop and AFX skills, this is not the right way to do it.

And what are these "new typesetting standards" that you are suddenly talking about? Wasn't this thread supposed to be about "what is good typesetting?" like you claimed earlier? Apparently you don't even know yourself what to write anymore.

This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

Yes, they do fit into the definition, but let's reword it, shall we?

Typesetters should know;

1. how to style textual presentations
2. how to compose graphical materials in computer images
3. how to compose graphical materials in computer animations

Well, you can just pick a sans font and white on black style for subtitles. What else are needed? Then you need to be what #2 and #3 talked about, i.e. signs, credits, logos, and rare karaoke. That is what typesetting is all about. It's not something that those fansubbers claimed to be typesetters (they're more fit to be stylers) can accomplish.

---

Since no good arguments can stray on being subjective (opinion-oriented)... You should have already known that I'm asking for objectiveness. It's implied. Hence, I only talk about signs, credits, logos, and rare karaoke.

---

Originally Posted by edogawaconan

There's this term sign typesetting already.







...be consistent a little?

it might be just me but here's my impression of what you're trying to say:

• sign typesetting = typesetting
• anything else != typesetting

As I repeat, objectiveness is the key. It's implied. Why would I be dumb enough to impose my opinions (subjective) on others? I know for a fact, it won't go anywhere. So let's leave styling out of the picture, which has signs TS (more objective or factual goal, i.e. how well it matches) in play. Typesetting is typesetting with those two or three properties.

[edogawaconan]

Originally Posted by pichus

Typesetters should know;

1. how to style textual presentations
2. how to compose graphical materials in computer images
3. how to compose graphical materials in computer animations

Well, you can just pick a sans font and white on black style for subtitles. What else are needed? Then you need to be what #2 and #3 talked about, i.e. signs, credits, logos, and rare karaoke. That is what sign typesetting is all about. It's not something that those fansubbers claimed to be typesetters (they're more fit to be stylers) can accomplish.

*fixed*

#1 is not that easy, actually (and I remember that you being blamed for your choice of font for certain new series this season)

[pichu]

Originally Posted by edogawaconan

*fixed*

#1 is not that easy, actually (and I remember that you being blamed for your choice of font for certain new series this season)

Yes, I was blamed for styling Shigofumi because I was testing a combination of two Japanese fonts... I could have picked a styling of basic sans (Helvetica-Medium) on white with black border. Then, everyone will be happy for its simplicity. You don't really know what others think about until you actually showcase it to thousands, yes? And, I hate to listen to opinions from a few people along (some people in the group hate it and some like it - so it's up to the public to decide, which I get about 20% likes and 80% dislikes ). Nonetheless, I don't like styling.

---- Edit ----

Then you need to be what #2 and #3 talked about, i.e. signs, credits, logos, and rare karaoke. That is what sign typesetting is all about.

This won't make any sense, yes? I mentioned about credits, logos, and rare karaoke... what do they have anything to do with signs? none. Some credits are even signs (i.e., Bleach credits)


----- Edit #2 -----

Originally Posted by Daiz

Honestly, just stop. This thread never started good, this thread has not brought anything new into the subject of typesetting, there is simply nothing useful in this thread. If you feel insecure about your typesetting and feel like boasting about your awesome Photoshop and AFX skills, this is not the right way to do it.

And what are these "new typesetting standards" that you are suddenly talking about? Wasn't this thread supposed to be about "what is good typesetting?" like you claimed earlier? Apparently you don't even know yourself what to write anymore.

This thread is bad and you should feel bad.

This is my reply... I never intend to say how much I knew about photoshop and how well I knew about assa. Here are the concise clauses.

Person A: I am quite experienced with .ass typesetting.
Person B: I've known .ass typesetting for more than four years and have found techniques that no other typesetters [implying Person A] may know.

Person A: I am quite good with Photoshop and you're telling us how good you are with AFX or you're an AFX expert.
Person B: I've known Photoshop for more than 10 years but only one year with AFX, so I can't claim that I'm an expert in AFX, but I can say for a fact that I know enough AFX to do the job I desired.
Person A: Now, you're just being a showoff, full of bluffs. *starts nitpicking every little things like spelling and word usage and attack stuff without mentioning what was said earlier and afterwards -- typically what low-level flamer would do*

(obviously, the conversation ends here, as it shows that Person A has nothing to say in terms of experiences without understanding that the statements are attacking his, and the same techniques that were used against me 10 years ago [reason why I mentioned when did I start using the forums] won't work against me now)

--- In fact, those statements from Person B are refuting those claims from "A" in order to bring down Person A's pride in arguments to think he/she may think he knows more. So please excuse me for the misunderstanding, as Person A is misleading this whole thread.

On the second part of the paragraph in the quote, I've wanted to get apprentices for our standards of typesetting, but I need to have a futher understanding of the situation. Hence, I started this thread to initiate that plan, but it seems that people are getting the wrong idea without really wanting to understand the intention all thanks to Person A's misleading.

Maybe I should have reported Person A to the moderators, since he's misleading all the train of thoughts into his opinions.

Sadly, just answer the question. What is your vision of fansub typesetting? (particularly objectiveness [obviously since I don't like opinions], i.e. signs, credits, etc)

[jfs]

...what a tiring read this thread was. Didn't read everything but I think I've got most "points" down.


First, for the question pichu apparently initially wanted to ask: "What defines good styling of translations of on-screen foreign-language text in anime fansubs?"
My answer:
I really don't care, as long as it's readable and doesn't actually destroy the image.
Leave it out entirely? Fine, as long as it's not vital to the story.
Put a note at the top/bottom of the screen? Just perfect, it's readable and easy to spot.
Plain text put next to the original text? Make sure I can read what it says and that it doesn't clutter up the picture, please.
Fancy extended sign styled to match the original, put next to it? Sure, if it looks pretty and it's still readable without having to actually look for it.
Replacing the original text entirely? Fine with me, if it provides the translation I need. Still make sure it looks reasonable.

So what do I really prefer?
Leave out as much as possible. Don't bother with fancy styling, just put notes at the top of the screen to tell me what a sign says.
If there's large complicated/cluttered screens of interesting text or signs, either:
1) If the complete text is vital to the series there's probably plenty of time available. Put the translation on top of the original text if there isn't space next to it. Or just go with a note at the top overlapping whatever.
2) If it isn't so important, just summarise it in a short note.
3) Don't put it in the release at all, but instead make a still you can publish on your website or whatever for interested viewers.
4) Combination of 2) and 3).
5) Just leave it out entirely, who cares?


On the word definition crap:

@Fluff: In English the meaning of a word is defined by its usage. Really.

@pichu: I think you're mistaking what that second meaning of "type" ("distinctive mark or sign") generally means. It's more along the lines of "design that can be trademarked" than "any graphical representation of anything". A seal design is a type, so is a logo for whatever ("logotype") and well, I can't really think of much else. I think the noun "design" has mostly taken over what "type" means. That second meaning is very rare in modern English I believe.

For the etymology of "typesetting", think back to Gutenbergs printing press, it was around that time the word was invented. Yes, it means picking out types (blocks with marks on them, akin to seal stamps that had been used for hundred of years for wax sealing confidential documents etc., see there's meaning 2 of "type" suddenly) and setting them onto a plate to form a layout. So typesetting is picking a set of types and using them to produce a text and otherwise design.

So any design task that involves text is "typesetting" when you transfer that to modern technology. If you mean "styling of translations of on-screen foreign-language text" then say that, or just shorten it to "sign styling" or perhaps "sign typesetting", because by itself the common meaning of the word encompasses all of dialogue styling, logo styling and design, sign styling, karaoke styling and effects, and perhaps I'm forgetting something.


In my opinion, main dialogue styling is much more important than making typesetting signs in a fancy way. I'm going to be reading the main dialogue all the time so it better be styled well so it's easy to read.
In fact, if a sign is styled so it blends perfectly with the original video chance is I might just miss it and if it's vital to the story, perhaps miss something there, defeating its own purpose.
See where I'm getting? It might be fun but in the end it might really just be waste of time.


(Yes I know, frankly karaoke effects are even more waste of time, pointless and really might just distract you from the original video, making you unable to enjoy what the original animators produced.)

[Tofusensei]

I think you guys are sort of missing a major point though.

One of the most important reasons why people try to match signs as well as possible and come up with "leet" karaokes, etc., is because it is fun to do those creative and technically difficult things for the typesetter. I think that, by and large, that's the main reason typesetters do the things they do. It's more for experimentation and having fun than anything else.

It's the same reason most people fansub, it has very little to do with the actual anime and more about enjoying being entrenched in the "scene".

-Tofu

[pichu]

Originally Posted by jfs

...what a tiring read this thread was. Didn't read everything but I think I've got most "points" down.


First, for the question pichu apparently initially wanted to ask: "What defines good styling of translations of on-screen foreign-language text in anime fansubs?"
My answer:
I really don't care, as long as it's readable and doesn't actually destroy the image.
Leave it out entirely? Fine, as long as it's not vital to the story.
Put a note at the top/bottom of the screen? Just perfect, it's readable and easy to spot.
Plain text put next to the original text? Make sure I can read what it says and that it doesn't clutter up the picture, please.
Fancy extended sign styled to match the original, put next to it? Sure, if it looks pretty and it's still readable without having to actually look for it.
Replacing the original text entirely? Fine with me, if it provides the translation I need. Still make sure it looks reasonable.

So what do I really prefer?
Leave out as much as possible. Don't bother with fancy styling, just put notes at the top of the screen to tell me what a sign says.
If there's large complicated/cluttered screens of interesting text or signs, either:
1) If the complete text is vital to the series there's probably plenty of time available. Put the translation on top of the original text if there isn't space next to it. Or just go with a note at the top overlapping whatever.
2) If it isn't so important, just summarise it in a short note.
3) Don't put it in the release at all, but instead make a still you can publish on your website or whatever for interested viewers.
4) Combination of 2) and 3).
5) Just leave it out entirely, who cares?


On the word definition crap:

@Fluff: In English the meaning of a word is defined by its usage. Really.

@pichu: I think you're mistaking what that second meaning of "type" ("distinctive mark or sign") generally means. It's more along the lines of "design that can be trademarked" than "any graphical representation of anything". A seal design is a type, so is a logo for whatever ("logotype") and well, I can't really think of much else. I think the noun "design" has mostly taken over what "type" means. That second meaning is very rare in modern English I believe.

For the etymology of "typesetting", think back to Gutenbergs printing press, it was around that time the word was invented. Yes, it means picking out types (blocks with marks on them, akin to seal stamps that had been used for hundred of years for wax sealing confidential documents etc., see there's meaning 2 of "type" suddenly) and setting them onto a plate to form a layout. So typesetting is picking a set of types and using them to produce a text and otherwise design.

So any design task that involves text is "typesetting" when you transfer that to modern technology. If you mean "styling of translations of on-screen foreign-language text" then say that, or just shorten it to "sign styling" or perhaps "sign typesetting", because by itself the common meaning of the word encompasses all of dialogue styling, logo styling and design, sign styling, karaoke styling and effects, and perhaps I'm forgetting something.


In my opinion, main dialogue styling is much more important than making typesetting signs in a fancy way. I'm going to be reading the main dialogue all the time so it better be styled well so it's easy to read.
In fact, if a sign is styled so it blends perfectly with the original video chance is I might just miss it and if it's vital to the story, perhaps miss something there, defeating its own purpose.
See where I'm getting? It might be fun but in the end it might really just be waste of time.


(Yes I know, frankly karaoke effects are even more waste of time, pointless and really might just distract you from the original video, making you unable to enjoy what the original animators produced.)

Dear jfs:

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?

In reality, we should all believe that all objects including your chairs, your computers, trees, etc are defining symbols (i.e., marks and types). Typesetting, from merriam-websters, has a more general definition: the process of producing graphic matter (as through a computer system). The case is closed how I am going to use this definition to fansubbing.

Fancy Dialogue styling will distract your eyes in a way. Fancy signs typesetting will pacify your eyes, and by fancy, I mean it blends exactly into the scene without you noticing it until you saw the video overlays but still is readable quite nicely (i.e., you don't have to flinch to watch the video). That's the difference. Basically, all subtitles are distracting.

Hey, making karaoke and watching fancy ones are enjoyable moments. Opening and the ending credits are already distracting the scenes more than the karaoke itself anyways.

[Daiz]

Originally Posted by pichus

Sadly, just answer the question. What is your vision of fansub typesetting? (particularly objectiveness [obviously since I don't like opinions], i.e. signs, credits, etc)

I already answered this.

Originally Posted by Daiz

Typesetting includes choosing the subtitle font, styling, sign/logo making, karaoke styling etc.

Also, regarding this:

Originally Posted by pichus

Typesetters should know;

1. how to style textual presentations
2. how to compose graphical materials in computer images
3. how to compose graphical materials in computer animations

Well, you can just pick a sans font and white on black style for subtitles. What else are needed? Then you need to be what #2 and #3 talked about, i.e. signs, credits, logos, and rare karaoke. That is what typesetting is all about. It's not something that those fansubbers claimed to be typesetters (they're more fit to be stylers) can accomplish.

In my opinion, even if a person only does 1, he is entirely free to call himself/herself a typesetter, because he/she is doing a typesetter's job. If you have multiple typesetters for different subjobs of typesetting, like sign typesetting, font typesetting then just credit them like that. Even if you do only one part of typesetting, you are still a typesetter. You can call it "font styling" or whatnot but it still is typesetting and that fact won't change no matter how hard you say "if one only chooses and styles the font he/she can't be a typesetter!"

Originally Posted by pichus

It's not something that those fansubbers claimed to be typesetters (they're more fit to be stylers) can accomplish.

Honestly, this is just insulting towards other typesetters.

[pichu]

Well I'm sorry, but really... I'm refuting this: If I can style, I am a typesetter.

Given the following premises:

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

Is the following conclusion valid?
If I can style, I am a typesetter.

Let T = typesetting
Let S = Text Styling
Let G = Graphics

Given:
T -> SG

Prove:
S->T is valid.

Use the Truth Tables:

T	S	G	T->SG	S->T	(S->T)->(T->SG) (Conclusion)
0	0	0	1	1
0	0	1	1	1
0	1	0	1	0
0	1	1	1	0
1	0	0	0	1	* (I can typeset, I can't style, nor do I know how to do graphics [FAIL])
1	0	1	0	1	* (I can typeset, I can't style, but I know how to do graphics [FAIL])
1	1	0	0	1	* (I can typeset, I know how to style, but I don't know how to do graphics [FAIL])
1	1	1	1	1

I haven't done truth table in a while, so please be considerate, but if you don't know what is it, go study the following links:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Truth_table
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boolean_algebra

Let's represent 1 = true, and 0 = false. The * in the last column are the ones that fail that clause (whether styling concludes to be a typesetting)

As one can see, that conclusion is invalid. If you can refute my logic this way, please say so but in a boolean algebra or truth table fashion rather than words. Basic boolean stuff.

Even without "G", it's still invalid, as T->S =/=> S->T... Basic Definition (note: T->S == !T + S). I just add in "G" for a bit more meanings.