Everybody Vote : Permanent or Non-Permanent Subtitles ?

[iparout]

Hi.

Well, the purpose of this post is simple and it concerns those who create subtitles for their movies:

Do you prefer to encode them Permanently on the picture or do you create Non-Permanent\Removable subtitles ?

Your vote will be appreciated.


P.S : BTW, this is my 100st post !!! :D lol

[ArdenDag]

I'm lazy, if the permanent subtitles don't detract from the movie (i.e. they are BELOW the picture) and the movie isn't crippled in quality because of them being burned in, then permanent all the way.

[ppera2]

This is complete odd poll.
When you serve coffee you ask each people about sugar and then put it in cups. :D

[iparout]

Originally posted by ppera2
This is complete odd poll.
When you serve coffee you ask each people about sugar and then put it in cups. :D

Huh ?!?

[ppera2]

Originally posted by iparout
Huh ?!?

Btw. this is my 338-th post :D

[masken]

VobSubs is the way to go :)

[Manao]

The only use in burning the subs in the movie is if you have to playback it on a system on which there is no player capable of showing ascii subs.

Else, there are only drawbacks : movie less compressible ( because of the high contrast at the borders of the subs ), you can't choose the place of subtitles when playbacking, if you want subs in the black borders, you must also lose bits with keeping these borders, and there also you make the movie less compressible. You can't have several sub's languages, you can't see the movie without the subs...

If you aim for a all-in-one file, then put the ascii subs and the avi in an ogm.

[BetaBoy]

I can't honestly vote on this.... this totaly depends on the intended use by the sub=ber.

I vote for a single solution that can do both.... "USF" anyone? ;-)

[iparout]

Originally posted by Manao
The only use in burning the subs in the movie is if you have to playback it on a system on which there is no player capable of showing ascii subs.

Else, there are only drawbacks : movie less compressible ( because of the high contrast at the borders of the subs ), you can't choose the place of subtitles when playbacking, if you want subs in the black borders, you must also lose bits with keeping these borders, and there also you make the movie less compressible. You can't have several sub's languages, you can't see the movie without the subs...

If you aim for a all-in-one file, then put the ascii subs and the avi in an ogm.

Iwill be burning non-permanent subs from now on, however I won't be using ASCII subtitles but the image subtitles produced by vobsub. For me, the OCR-training involved in creating the ASCII subs is not worth the 1,5 MB you save by using ASCII.

[seoulsteve]

Removable subs all the way...

If I want to trade movies with someone who actually speaks the given dialogue, they appreciate my efforts to keep the movie and subs seperable muchly.


:)

[iparout]

As I already said, I will most probably be doing removable subs from now on, however what bugs me most is that I want all my movies to be compatible with DivX standalone players that will come out in the near future and I doubt that those players will be able to playback DirectVobSub removable subtitles...

Any thoughts on that ?

P.S. : Are there *ANY* standalone DivX players out there yet ?

[N_F]

Until quite recetly I always used permanent subtitles because I hate having a lot of small files beside the main movie. But when you use Ogm this problem is solved as everythings in one file and you can choose wether you want subs or not.

[iparout]

Originally posted by Nadav
YOU ARE Absolutely Right ! ! !
That's the reason People should use Permanent Subtitle, and even so
the DivX standalone players that will come out in the near future will also not be able to playback Movies with Divx 3.11 encoding (not illegal) and that's the reason people shuold also encode the movie with Divx 5 or 4 (legal).

Hmmm... Another guy who shares the same thoughts with me... Maybe I should continue using permanent subtitles after all... At least for a while...

Is it possible that any future standalone DivX players will be able to support DirectVobSub removable subtitles or is it just impossible ? (Of course I know that it's way too early to ask such questions, but I just want your thought on this).

[gabest]

Is it possible that any future standalone DivX players will be able to support DirectVobSub removable subtitles or is it just impossible ? (Of course I know that it's way too early to ask such questions, but I just want your thought on this). I don't think we will see any standalone capable of rendering true type fonts, maybe with a fixed set already rendered and stored in ROM but that would still require lots of memory if someone wants to be able to use letter from all around the world. And I don't think anyone would use idx/sub either, they are just not easy enough to make for the average or too big to be disributed on the net in large databases. To my opinion the only solution would be a standalone with hard drive running windows or linux with enough horsepower.

[masken]

If the ROM code for the KiSS player, for example, would go open source, I'm sure we'd see alot of cool things :D

[iparout]

*Bump*, just for other people to see and vote too...

[The_Little_Engineer]

I always use non-permanent subtitles, and i place them just in the buttom of the actual picture, that way I'm sure that they are still there if I ever get that widescreen tv I hope for, and I can turn them off if I want the entire picture.

[ssjkakaroto]

I vote for a single solution that can do both.... "USF" anyone? ;-) i think i'm missing something here but how can it do both? if you're saying what i'm thinking then ssa or srt could do both too right?

cya

[rere]

Non-permanent subtites !!!
Otherwise will be no difference between movies on tapes and movies on disks.

[ihgl]

I prefer MaestroSBT subtitles on my DVD:s. Easy to remove if you do not like them - just to push a button. ;-)

[killingspree]

non-permanent always... i just keep them in case i do not fully understand a line in a foreign language (mainly english, but also french and spanish)

steVe
PS: also, i always use OCR... why? because i like using them in Bsplayer without having to install vobsub :D

[geoffwa]

SRT files support position codes (X,Y coords), but do these actually render in DVobSub (never tried them myself).

Non-permanent is the way to go, you save bits on encoding.

I really don't see the point in encoding for stand-alone players, I have to turn off all of Xvid's neat settings :(

[Blankman]

Non-permanent. There should be more tools providing greater flexiability on managing text sub files (e.g. positioning, color, fonts, etc.). And everything should support standalone players. I rather double the size of the encoded file than use some exotic XviD settings that breaks compatibility. :p Using the proper "T" is important to me. Videos should be players on dedicated entertainment hardware (toys), and not on office equipment (tools).
:D

[gabest]

Originally posted by geoffwa
SRT files support position codes (X,Y coords), but do these actually render in DVobSub (never tried them myself). This isn't supported by the renderer because the output resolution is not constant (window can be resized, video frame size may change).

[systemloc]

Originally posted by Blankman
Non-permanent. There should be more tools providing greater flexiability on managing text sub files (e.g. positioning, color, fonts, etc.). And everything should support standalone players. I rather double the size of the encoded file than use some exotic XviD settings that breaks compatibility. :p Using the proper "T" is important to me. Videos should be players on dedicated entertainment hardware (toys), and not on office equipment (tools).
:D

This sounds like flawed logic to me. If you are targeting video to a toy with no consideration for computers, there would be no motivation to use anything other than DVD! MPEG2, with AC3 or MPEG 2 audio. The only way Xvid has value is that it allows you to do things that you can't with MPEG2. That is put more video in less space. Space is a concern when putting things on mass storage such as hard drives, or transporting through the internet. Space should not e a concern with toys because the toy can be designed to accept media with sufficient space as to accomodate MPEG2's size. A portable player of advanced codecs, then, is in a strange market. Advanced codecs are rapidly advancing and changing. This invalidates their use in toys, as having to know much about how it works and why it won't work with the latest version of the codec negates it being a good toy. Because it is not a toy then, the manufacturer must go to great pains to make it as toy like as possible, else it be relegated to geeks who know how and are willing to encode specifically for this gadget. In order to avoid this, the manufacturer must ensure that supported codecs always play even when the codecs advance. This neccessitates upgrading the player to support various iterations of the supported codecs.

My overall point is that no one should waste their time with a product that only has partial support for a codec. It is simply not a rational idea unless you are willing to spend your time reencoding for the device all the time. The alternative, because there are no devices such as this yet, is to simply get a portable DVD player. MPEG2 is superb with this device because it supports a single unchanging standard which is industry supported. In addition, the size of a DVD allows re-encoding at high enough bitrates that additional loss of quality is minimal.

[Blankman]

Originally posted by systemloc
This sounds like flawed logic to me. If you are targeting video to a toy with no consideration for computers, there would be no motivation to use anything other than DVD! MPEG2, with AC3 or MPEG 2 audio. The only way Xvid has value is that it allows you to do things that you can't with MPEG2. That is put more video in less space. Space is a concern when putting things on mass storage such as hard drives, or transporting through the internet. Space should not e a concern with toys because the toy can be designed to accept media with sufficient space as to accomodate MPEG2's size. A portable player of advanced codecs, then, is in a strange market. Advanced codecs are rapidly advancing and changing. This invalidates their use in toys, as having to know much about how it works and why it won't work with the latest version of the codec negates it being a good toy. Because it is not a toy then, the manufacturer must go to great pains to make it as toy like as possible, else it be relegated to geeks who know how and are willing to encode specifically for this gadget. In order to avoid this, the manufacturer must ensure that supported codecs always play even when the codecs advance. This neccessitates upgrading the player to support various iterations of the supported codecs.

My overall point is that no one should waste their time with a product that only has partial support for a codec. It is simply not a rational idea unless you are willing to spend your time reencoding for the device all the time. The alternative, because there are no devices such as this yet, is to simply get a portable DVD player. MPEG2 is superb with this device because it supports a single unchanging standard which is industry supported. In addition, the size of a DVD allows re-encoding at high enough bitrates that additional loss of quality is minimal.

What the heck does this have to do with the main topic? The side bar goes way off base. You should have posted it as a seperate topic. :p

I don't see any flaw or issue here. You just completely missed my point.

Anything can be categorized as a Toy or Tool depending on the role that is applied to the item. If a PC is being used for entertainment (i.e. watching videos) then it is a Toy. If a PC is being used to create a product that has value then it is a Tool.

Economics dictates that if you want your entertainment product to succeed, you need to use Tools to create products for Toys. Now if Joe OuttaTouch chooses to create a video on a souped-up Tool that will play horribly (if at all) on just about every Toy because he enjoys encoding with the latest alpha test codecs, using every new feature imaginable, and using H&W dimensions that is not MOD 16 but his video card can handle it, then he producing something that has practically no value to anyone. :angry:

The Tool user has to bear the responsibility to producing products that will work with Toys. So the Tool makers should be conscious of the state of existing Toys and avoid prematurely phasing out old tools in favor of the new tools. Otherwise the Tool users may be led in producing poor products for Toys. <- This way my point. Get it? ;)

Out of necessity, Toys must lag behind Tools. Only features that have been proven in Tools should be phased into Toys. A good Toy producer should be managing the users' experience. They should be giving the users a favorable experience, by offering only features and performance that they can reasonably warrant. Only a risk taker who has practically nothing to lose (or is extremely foolish) would be daring enough to go after a niche market by producing products that incorporate bleeding edge Tool features into their Toys, or that forces Toy users to incorporate bleeding edge Tool features into their Toys. :(

Isn't it comforting to know that young kids have the option of cruising safely in a 1 cylinder 5 HP engine cart, rather than risk killing themselves as soon as they step on the gas petal of a 32 cylinder 4000 HP engine car, because the gasoline parents can buy supports the lower performance Toy? People should not be forced to transform their Toys into Tools. That only works safely in cartoons and anime. :)

[Cyberman]

Originally posted by Manao
The only use in burning the subs in the movie is if you have to playback it on a system on which there is no player capable of showing ascii subs.

Yah, right - who needs different fonts, anyway? Or cast-in-stone timing that can´t be mixed up by the player.
What use are subtitles that always look the same, no matter how incompetent the player(program) is?
</Sarcasm>

Of course hard subs have drawbacks, but there are many advantages too. Just recently I tried to add several SSA subtitles into MKV(soft, of course).
It didn´t work. The one subtitle using a different font got it all wrong, half of the text was off timing the effect didn´t work as it should.
I suppose most of that can be removed by adding more work on my part, but quite frankly, I don´t see why I should invest an insane amount of time when it´d be easier to just hard sub it.

I like the idea of soft subs, but it has to work GUARANTEED. Otherwise it´s just a waste of time.