![]() ![]() I find it also jumps several frames across the length of the video and is nearly always one or two frames out. I like Subtitle Edit, but I find that it is very unreliable, especially in terms of generating consistent time-ins and time-outs.įor example, if a subtitle starts or finishes exactly on the second (like 00:00:03:00), it is almost always impossible to land on this frame,as it always falls one frame before or one frame after, which means I often have to go and correct the subtitle file later, in Excel for example. I have tried Spot, Swift and Isis and found EZTitles the easiest to use. From the ones I have tried EZTitles would be my first choice. I am currently using Subtitle Edit, mainly because I can't afford an expensive software. So, as it is often said, "your mileage may vary". Some people have told me that Quark is a piece of cake, however they won't touch InDesign (PageMaker's "son"). Efficiency - if required - may turn into a priority later. It takes a careful survey of one's marketplace and some testing before taking the plunge. My intent is to efface the impression that, since there are so many fansubbers around, any idiot can do it hands down. The same is expected to happen when moving to another subtitling software environment. However I can't find my way in either QuarkXpress or Frame Maker, it's like moving into a different realm. I've been using PageMaker since the mid-1980s, I can quickly build or rebuild any publication using it. It's like a friend of mine, who has been in IT since the days it operated in secluded quarters, says: "The best software for you is the one you really know how to use." ![]() They should try 'Y' first, I hope they all have demo versions. Now they want to go on their own, and wonder if they should buy 'X', or perhaps 'Y' instead. Does any driving school use a Porsche or a Ferrari? I don't think so.Īnd then there is the flock who worked in-house using subtitling software 'X'. It won't!Įfficiency becomes an issue that will come up later, after they master the craft. If they read what has been said about the professional subtitling software here, they may take the plunge, buy one of the expensive, or even the more affordable packages, and think it will be a piece of cake. While some subtilers or subtitle translators have training and experience, I often see many translators who never did it saying they have got their first subtitling assignment, and want guidance to get started. Most people, I believe, will agree that timing subtitles is a tedious business. Attempt to align a text based on speech rate and character count? Well some maybe, but how successful is it? Unless one has speech recognition far greater than that on Google which it can timecode with only need for minor correction I don't understand why they are so glamourized, otherwise what is it that makes them worth all those hundreds of dollars, euros or pounds? Just what is it about "professional packages" that make them so much better? I'm not sure a normalized waveform is any better GNU Subtitle Editor can do that anyway. The features and waveform seem good but spotting seems a bit "fiddly" compared with Jubler. I also have Aegisub but it does not have a line character counter and is maybe not so stable on Linux. My workhorse (for volunteer work) is Jubler – it's stable and the interface is quite clear and simple. If the subtitle software does not provide a waveform you can probably count me out. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |