The subtitles for the Afghan speakers were white, with a black (or dark) shadow to the bottom right, slightly larger than, or the same size as,
the letters. This must be _more_ difficult to generate, technically,
than white text on a black strip. The shadow to the bottom right of the letters meant the top left was bare against the background - not very
useful with white text against white beards.
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
The subtitles for the Afghan speakers were white, with a black (or
dark) shadow to the bottom right, slightly larger than, or the same
size as, the letters. This must be _more_ difficult to generate, >>technically, than white text on a black strip. The shadow to the
bottom right of the letters meant the top left was bare against the >>background - not very useful with white text against white beards.
Seems pretty sharp and legible to me ...
<http://andyburns.uk/misc/bbc-subtitles.png>
Andy Burns wrote:
<http://andyburns.uk/misc/bbc-subtitles.png>
I agree, your example seems fairly clear. Though I think you're viewing
at more than SD
and perhaps there were some whiter beards ...
J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
The subtitles for the Afghan speakers were white, with a black (or dark)
shadow to the bottom right, slightly larger than, or the same size as,
the letters. This must be _more_ difficult to generate, technically,
than white text on a black strip. The shadow to the bottom right of the
letters meant the top left was bare against the background - not very
useful with white text against white beards.
Seems pretty sharp and legible to me ...
<http://andyburns.uk/misc/bbc-subtitles.png>
I've just watched (14:30-14:57, BBC News channel) the (depressing but informative) documentary on Afghanistan, made by Clan Productions (though with BBC producers, or something like that, in the credits).
WHY, after what must be 40-50 YEARS of subtitles, are companies (Clan are
not alone) still producing illegible subtitles? Does nobody check them?
(The obvious answer is no.)
It's not as if it's a technology problem: the BBC's own subtitles, which I turned on to see, are clear white on a black strip. The subtitles for the Afghan speakers were white, with a black (or dark) shadow to the bottom right, slightly larger than, or the same size as, the letters. This must
be _more_ difficult to generate, technically, than white text on a black strip. The shadow to the bottom right of the letters meant the top left
was bare against the background - not very useful with white text against white beards.
Sorry, rant over - it just does make me cross that, after all this time, apparently professional companies - this was a (nearly) half-hour
programme, otherwise quite well done by the look of it, not just some
video grabbed from a security camera or similar. And that the BBC are accepting such material, and presumably paying quite a lot for it. (And
I'm not just talking about subtitles for the hearing-impaired [though
those are important too - but on the whole BBC News does those OK]: these
are needed for the _majority_ of viewers [I don't think many of us speak
the Afghani languages].)
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G()AL-IS-Ch++(p)Ar@T+H+Sh0!:`)DNAf
Never raise your hand to your children. It leaves your mid-section unprotected
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 293 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 210:39:12 |
| Calls: | 6,619 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 12,168 |
| Messages: | 5,317,248 |
