?

Log in

No account? Create an account
entries friends calendar profile My Website Previous Previous Next Next
Poll #704545… - Which is not unduly obvious, as I am about to explain
dronon
dronon

Which font is best for subtitles? Aesthetics aren't as important as how quickly you think your brain could read it. Are some letters too indistinct, too close or far apart? Just slightly weird-looking to throw you off? Are letters too similar? Keep in mind that the resolution on a regular TV screen looks slightly more blurry than this.

1
1(8.3%)
2
0(0.0%)
3
1(8.3%)
4
3(25.0%)
5
2(16.7%)
6
2(16.7%)
7
3(25.0%)
3 comments or Leave a comment
Comments
momentrabbit From: momentrabbit Date: April 5th, 2006 05:24 pm (UTC) (Link)
4? 4?! Madness. Look at the kerning. You'll be unable to tell the difference between a ol and a d! 6 or 7, at worst 1.

'Course, that's just my opinion. I could be utterly mad and trying to sow confusion and discord.

Muahaha!
porsupah From: porsupah Date: April 7th, 2006 10:02 pm (UTC) (Link)
Aw, you're so cute when you're being evil. =:)
porsupah From: porsupah Date: April 7th, 2006 10:08 pm (UTC) (Link)
I'd be fine with any of them, I think. The more important matter, I'd say, is ensuring there's a good outline and/or shadowing, so they're legible in front of anything that may appear on screen.

Indeed, that's one lovely thing about the Matroska container (.mkv, by convention) - the subtitles are embedded within the file, not burned into the video, so the font choice is controllable by the user. It's easy enough to have soft subtitles as a separate file, too - that just makes the process a bit simpler, with everything in just the one file.

Another benefit of soft subs is that the user (or player) can choose where they should appear - if it's widescreen material on a 4:3 display, the subs can go to the lower portion of the screen, leaving the video clean.

Of course, I'll now discover all that's entirely irrelevant. ^_^
3 comments or Leave a comment