VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Page 1 of 2
1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 37
Thread
  1. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2012
    Location: dee
    Search Comp PM
    HI all!

    After some hard first trials I am now doing rather good with the process of burning some subtitles to AVI files.

    I start with MP4 or FLV videos which I convert to AVI and then I use AutoGK to add the permanent subtitles in .srt

    I am producing short videos of 640x480 or 640x320 (when the original material has that format).

    Well... the thing is that I have noticed that some of my resulting videos have subtitles with a larger font size than others. It doesnīt look good and I have no idea why or how, because I donīt see any settings on AutoGK where you can control font size for the subtitles.

    Could it be related to the height of the video? If the video is not high enough (320px) the font is smaller, and if the video is higher, the font is bigger. Just an idea...

    Any idea how to control that and make the subtitles all the same size and the size I choose?

    Thanks!
    Quote Quote  
  2. I'm a MEGA Super Moderator Baldrick's Avatar
    Join Date: Aug 2000
    Location: Sweden
    Search Comp PM
    I don't think it's possible.

    Can't you add the subtitles when you convert it to avi the first time? With for example avidemux, xvid4psp, format factory, freemake video converter, etc.
    Quote Quote  
  3. Originally Posted by Valerc View Post
    ...or 640x320 (when the original material has that format).
    I don't know of any movies with that aspect ratio. That's 2:1.

    You can't choose anything when using SRT subs. If you convert them to SSA then you can choose (in the subs) font, size, color, position, all kinds of things.

    And as Baldrick suggested. it would be much better to do the whole thing at once.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2012
    Location: dee
    Search Comp PM
    Good idea! I will try what Baldrick says with Avidemux. Itīs good in some cases to do it "all at once" FLV to AVI and subs. But that works if I need to create a normal video with only ONE source, but not if I need to cut and join parts of different videos and join them together in a new video. Because you need to edit the video.

    I used preexisting clips mostly in FLV or MP4 (and some had different resolutions (the same width of 640 but different heights: 320 to 480). I converted those subclips to AVI and joined them togheter in a video of 640 x 480 according to the info Gspot is telling me.

    About what manono says, the 640 x 320 resolution is what GSpot is showing for some of those preexistent clips I used, and some have different resolution than others.

    Manono, I tried to use SRT subs on Avidemux and they appear in the preview but the resulting AVI has no subs. I am using the 2.4 version on Avidemux because I had to uninstall the last version which was really bad. Now I tried the ASS subs and they donīt even show in the preview. I am not sure about the parameters (distance from top and bottom, for example).

    Really, I have an extra problem, which is the way YouTube is streaming my video, with thick black borders... Even if the video I uploaded was 640x480. What should I do to get YouTube to show my video without black borders?
    Quote Quote  
  5. Member
    Join Date: Oct 2004
    Location: Freedonia
    Search Comp PM
    For what it's worth, this past week I did a one off conversion for a friend to add some hardcode Chinese subtitles to a DVD. I had all kinds of problems getting the subtitles to add via AviSynth and AutoGK didn't work for me either. However, Xvid4PSP was able to add them to Xvid, so I just encoded to Xvid with very high quality and then re-encoded that to DVD. It's not an ideal situation, but it did work for me. The subs were good sized - not too big and not too small. If your final output is going to be AVI you might give Xvid4PSP a try. It has very few settings for subtitles but there's a chance that what it does by default might meet your needs like it did mine.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Originally Posted by Valerc View Post
    Really, I have an extra problem, which is the way YouTube is streaming my video, with thick black borders... Even if the video I uploaded was 640x480. What should I do to get YouTube to show my video without black borders?
    If the video is 640x480, then there will be thick 'pillarbars' on the right and left sides. That's the way it's supposed to be because the player is 1.78:1 and your video is 1.33:1 - the player is much wider than the video. If that's what you're talking about, then forget it as nothing's wrong and nothing needs fixing.

    And I can't help with AviDemux as I don't use it.
    Quote Quote  
  7. Have you looked at the guides near the bottom of the AVIdemux tool page? Check out this one.

    You sort of can control your subs in AutoGK by using external subs and tweaking them with some other sub editor.

    You don't say whether the subs from your clips are burned in, muxed or a separate file. You need different tool depending on the type of sub; for hardcoded subs use an OCR tool like SubExtractor or SubRip, then you can edit in Jubler.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2012
    Location: dee
    Search Comp PM
    Hi again...

    Thanks so much manono and nic2k4

    The streaming and resolution issue is killing me...!! I have done 2 different trials with my original video, which is 640 x 320, and converted it to 848 x 480 and later to 1270 x 720 according to Youtube guides. http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/static.py?hl=en&topic=1728588&guide=1728585&page=guide.cs

    First I tried them on my own player, and what happens is this: I drag and drop the 640x320 to the GOM player and it has teh black borders. Later I drag and drop the 848 x 480 and what happens is that the player window becomes bigger, BUT I still see the exactly same black borders. And guess what happens after I drag and drop the 3rd one, the 1270 x 720? The player window becomes even bigger and the same black borders are there... SO, itīs not a problem of making the 640x320 bigger. How do you get rid of the black borders?

    In this case I just did a quick conversion using AutoGK without subtitles, only to change the resolution. I wasnīt interested in getting the best quality but only in trying to see if I could make those borders disappear. I changed from the original 4:3 to 16:9 and also from 640 to 850 and later to 1270. But like I said, the results were almost the same.

    I didnīt say that I created this video with Sony Vegas to make the AVI (because I needed to edit the many parts it had). Maybe thatīs the key? Maybe if I render it with certain parameters or resolution thatīs

    The exactly same happened when I uploaded the different resolutions to youtube. The 3 look basically the same...

    About using external subtitles, that sounds a good idea. I am using Subtitle Workshop for my subs, and they are a simple text file with different extensions. Thereīs a variety of formats it can create. However, I am not sure how to set the font size. Really, this has worked well with AutoGK, EXCEPT for the font size. About Jubler, before trying to use a new program I would like to try with the ones I have and those I already know how to use. I am rather exhausted after having downloading over 30 different programs, tweaking codecs, doing dozens of trials.... I would just like to know why I canīt make Avidemux to work and really add the subs like in the preview...
    Quote Quote  
  9. Originally Posted by Valerc View Post
    Later I drag and drop the 848 x 480 and what happens is that the player window becomes bigger, BUT I still see the exactly same black borders. And guess what happens after I drag and drop the 3rd one, the 1270 x 720? The player window becomes even bigger and the same black borders are there... SO, itīs not a problem of making the 640x320 bigger. How do you get rid of the black borders?
    Your source video is 640x320 or 2:1. We'll leave aside for the moment whether or not it's in the correct aspect ratio. You're converting it to either 848x480 or 1280x720. Both are roughly 1.78:1 ratios. 2:1 is wider than is 1.78:1. If the aspect ratio is to be maintained, there should be black borders added above and below. Is that what's happening? If you want to get rid of the borders you either do a straight resize to 848x480, and change the aspect ratio, or you crop into the sides of your 2:1 video until it's then 1.78:1. For example, cropping from the left and right sides of your 640x320 source video until it's maybe 568x320 and then converted to 848x480 or 1280x720 will make sure there aren't any black bars on the resulting videos.

    In this case I just did a quick conversion using AutoGK without subtitles, only to change the resolution. I wasnīt interested in getting the best quality but only in trying to see if I could make those borders disappear. I changed from the original 4:3 to 16:9 and also from 640 to 850 and later to 1270. But like I said, the results were almost the same.
    If starting with a 640x320 video, it's impossible for AutoGK to make a 1280x720 video. It'll make it something like 1280x640 and the remaining black is being added by your player. It's probably the same with YouTube. Open the AVI you made with AutoGK in VDubMod and check the real resolution.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2012
    Location: dee
    Search Comp PM
    Thanks manono... I just can say that when I had tried all the possible combinations of resolution and crop ideas from different programs, when I was at the verge of desperation, this is the ONLY thing which worked. I used Avidemux video filter to crop and it worked!! I just set the border dimensions and.... great! Also the subtitles filter worked this time... I had trouble with them before. The only thing I didnīt like is that when encoding it keeps showing you the average bitrate, and what I can say is that itīs decreasing at an alarming rate. My original AVI bitrate was around 29M/sec and 485 M in size now this video I get from Avidemux is only 10 M and 468 kbps.. Isnīt it like TOO much of a reduction in quality. Strangely, I donīt notice a change while playing both in my own player, but maybe when uploading itīs different.

    I used the video codec MPG4 AVC (x264), one pass, constant quality. And audio codec MP3.

    Should I change that?
    Quote Quote  
  11. I can't help there as I've never used AviDemux. Others can help. But your information isn't complete because we don't know your settings. You left out things such as the resolution and the quality you chose. But, based on what you've told us, yes, I'd agree it's a pretty big reduction in size and also probably in quality.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2012
    Location: dee
    Search Comp PM
    Hi manono. I used Vegas to create the AVI and it had 720x480, and the codec was DVC/DV video. I used that codec because I got many error messages whe trying to use that one. And I always use the best quality.

    What should be the best codec and config to upload to youtube for better streaming?

    Thanks!
    Quote Quote  
  13. Well, you won't want to upload a DV video, I don't think. First, I don't even know if it accepts DV AVIs. Second, YouTube won't resize it so you'll be stuck with a video with the wrong aspect ratio. What's best? I don't know. I just make (mostly) 640x480 XviD AVIs using quant 3 with good quality MP3 audio. h264 with AAC audio is well supported. They'll just ruin it anyway when they reencode it. Here's what they will accept:

    http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=55744
    Quote Quote  
  14. Originally Posted by Valerc View Post
    About using external subtitles, that sounds a good idea. I am using Subtitle Workshop for my subs, and they are a simple text file with different extensions. Thereīs a variety of formats it can create. However, I am not sure how to set the font size. Really, this has worked well with AutoGK, EXCEPT for the font size. About Jubler, before trying to use a new program I would like to try with the ones I have and those I already know how to use. I am rather exhausted after having downloading over 30 different programs, tweaking codecs, doing dozens of trials.... I would just like to know why I canīt make Avidemux to work and really add the subs like in the preview...
    It doesn't appear that you can adjust font size in Subtitle Workshop, but there may be some presets in the output format panel, under cosmetics. I haven't used that program, but it seems to be specialized for translating subs.

    Check out this guide on editing subs with AVIdemux and Jubler; Jubler has full font control.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2012
    Location: dee
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by nic2k4 View Post
    Originally Posted by Valerc View Post
    About using external subtitles, that sounds a good idea. I am using Subtitle Workshop for my subs, and they are a simple text file with different extensions. Thereīs a variety of formats it can create. However, I am not sure how to set the font size. Really, this has worked well with AutoGK, EXCEPT for the font size. About Jubler, before trying to use a new program I would like to try with the ones I have and those I already know how to use. I am rather exhausted after having downloading over 30 different programs, tweaking codecs, doing dozens of trials.... I would just like to know why I canīt make Avidemux to work and really add the subs like in the preview...
    It doesn't appear that you can adjust font size in Subtitle Workshop, but there may be some presets in the output format panel, under cosmetics. I haven't used that program, but it seems to be specialized for translating subs.

    Check out this guide on editing subs with AVIdemux and Jubler; Jubler has full font control.


    Like you say, it seems that thereīs certain control you can get from SW. I wil have to give Jubler a look, probably.

    Thanks!
    Quote Quote  
  16. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2012
    Location: dee
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by manono View Post
    Well, you won't want to upload a DV video, I don't think. First, I don't even know if it accepts DV AVIs. Second, YouTube won't resize it so you'll be stuck with a video with the wrong aspect ratio. What's best? I don't know. I just make (mostly) 640x480 XviD AVIs using quant 3 with good quality MP3 audio. h264 with AAC audio is well supported. They'll just ruin it anyway when they reencode it. Here's what they will accept:

    http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=55744

    Hey, manono. Really, I know very little about the different formats like HDV or DV. The thing is that Vegas has given me few possibilities to enconde, because it wonīt accept some of the codecs listed and thatīs why I had to do what it allowed me to, and I tried many possibilities to see whatīs best.

    Just one thing, if you do a 640x480 thatīs 4:3 and not 16:9. And 16:9 is what YouTube reencodes to. See here:
    http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/static.py?hl=en&topic=1728588&guide=1728585&page=guide.cs

    I was trying to make mine near 640 too, and I used 654x368, which is the 16:9 proportion.

    What I really donīt know is, once you choose if you are going to use 16:9, what width is better to use: 640, 720 or 1270 for example. For a given proportion like 16:9 in this case, is it better to use bigger or smaller widhts ??
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Valerc View Post

    Just one thing, if you do a 640x480 thatīs 4:3 and not 16:9. And 16:9 is what YouTube reencodes to. See here:
    http://support.google.com/youtube/bin/static.py?hl=en&topic=1728588&guide=1728585&page=guide.cs
    Actually it doesn't, it just displays as pillarbox 16:9 (the borders on the left and right are added by the player, not the re-encode). Think of watching 4:3 content on your HDTV, there are black borders added by the TV. This was discussed in one of your other threads


    I was trying to make mine near 640 too, and I used 654x368, which is the 16:9 proportion.

    What I really donīt know is, once you choose if you are going to use 16:9, what width is better to use: 640, 720 or 1270 for example. For a given proportion like 16:9 in this case, is it better to use bigger or smaller widhts ??
    If you have 4:3 content, then use 4:3 square pixel dimensions (640x480). Otherwise you distort the image. That is what that youtube link says if you read the bottom of the page
    Last edited by poisondeathray; 17th Jul 2012 at 09:43.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2012
    Location: dee
    Search Comp PM
    Well, all this is rather new to me, but according to what I have learned, you have 2 choices: you put up with the black pillars YouTube adds or you reconvert to 16:9 and change the pixels appearance, right? I think I prefer to distort the image because I have already done it and itīs not really affected IMO. I really hate the black pillars, on the other hand...
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Yes, if you stretch and distort 4:3 content to 16:9, you make people look fat . Round objects like tires and circles become ovals. Most people wouldn't do it this way, but of course it's up to you

    If you recall on that other thread, you can use a custom 4:3 player when embedding on your own website, so there are no black bars (but on youtube, the player is always 16:9, so you always get pillarbox when watching on youtube main site)
    Quote Quote  
  20. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2012
    Location: dee
    Search Comp PM
    You are very kind, you remember all my "case", poisondeathray. ) I have seen those videos that you mean, when people or things look fat and compressed, and I have also seen the other extreme, when everything looks thin and long. I assure you my images are nothing like that. At all. Otherwise I wouldnīt do it... They look rather normal to me. I think that the difference is that my original pixel ratio was 0.89 and the new one is 1, so itīs a 10% change only. All my guessing because I am a newbie about this stuff...

    I donīt want the pillarbox anywhere if I can help it, though.. LOL...
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Valerc View Post
    I think that the difference is that my original pixel ratio was 0.89 and the new one is 1, so itīs a 10% change only.
    Are you sure?

    As manono said above, 640x320 is 2:1 , and 640x480 is 4:3

    Anyways, if you're happy with the appearance that's all that matters, right ?



    I donīt want the pillarbox anywhere if I can help it, though.. LOL...
    Anything wider than 16:9 will be letterboxed (black on top & bottom) , anything narrower than 16:9 will be pillarboxed whe viewed on youtube . Only when you use a custom sized player can you control this (and you can't control the player when viewed on youtube directly)
    Quote Quote  
  22. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2012
    Location: dee
    Search Comp PM
    About my original video, it was 720x480, which is 1.5 and not 2... (and 0.889 px ratio).

    My new one is 608x344 and thatīs 1.77, not 2...

    I think I want to keep the Youtube appearance as neat as I can and later adjust the rest from my site player, where you can customize both horizontal and vertical size.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2012
    Location: dee
    Search Comp PM
    But really, the worst problem I had with this video is that itīs made with several different clips of different qualities and resolutions. So I had to cut them all according to the one with the smallest resolution (and bigger horizontal pillarboxes). But fortunately, my other cases are more homogeneous and not so complicated...
    Quote Quote  
  24. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    About my original video, it was 720x480, which is 1.5 and not 2... (and 0.889 px ratio).
    That's 4:3 content , because it uses "non square" pixels

    4:3 = 720/480 x 0.889

    There are different names for these (e.g sometimes PAR is called SAR or sample aspect ratio), but the math is the same. Essentially its:
    Display Aspect Ratio = Frame Aspect Ratio x Pixel Aspect Ratio

    It can be thought as:
    DAR = (w:h of frame dimensions) x (w:h of pixels)
    Quote Quote  
  25. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2012
    Location: dee
    Search Comp PM
    Name:  sert5.jpg
Views: 60
Size:  41.6 KB

    OK, here you can see an image of the "complicated part", the part with the worst horizontal pillars... Thatīs whatīs left of them after the cut, because they were really big... ) But the image proportions donīt look bad to me... And the rest of the video doesnīt have any black pillars almost.

    So... Whatīs the conclusion? I am a bit confused... )) Itīs not distorted.
    Quote Quote  
  26. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Valerc View Post

    OK, here you can see an image of the "complicated part", the part with the worst horizontal pillars... Thatīs whatīs left of them after the cut, because they were really big... ) But the image proportions donīt look bad to me... And the rest of the video doesnīt have any black pillars almost.

    So... Whatīs the conclusion? I am a bit confused... )) Itīs not distorted.


    "horizontal bars" is letterboxing (horizontal bars on top & bottom) => this means content is wider than the display

    "vertical bars" is pillarboxing (vertical bars on left & right) => this means content is narrower than the display

    If you had letterboxing (horizontal bars), and you enlarged the image, you are trying to convert to a 16:9 display, but you lose the edges of the frame (you lose active pixels)



    It's impossible to say exactly unless you provide more information or sample clip, because the bars might be encoded into the frame, or they might be added on display, or some other combination . How it looks on youtube might look different than on your media player
    Quote Quote  
  27. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2012
    Location: dee
    Search Comp PM
    OK... LOL... Here you can see it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdnlN3c7xKw&feature=youtu.be

    But itīs my first upload and I want to take it down and change it for a better version. By the way, I used Avidemux to subtitle it (SRT) and as you can see the text looks blurry. It didnīt happen when I used AutoGK, but with AutoGK the problem was the font size, which was big or small at random.
    Quote Quote  
  28. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM

    By the way, I used Avidemux to subtitle it (SRT) and as you can see the text looks blurry.

    .
    .

    .
    My original AVI bitrate was around 29M/sec and 485 M in size now this video I get from Avidemux is only 10 M and 468 kbps.. Isnīt it like TOO much of a reduction in quality. Strangely, I donīt notice a change while playing both in my own player, but maybe when uploading itīs different.

    I used the video codec MPG4 AVC (x264), one pass, constant quality. And audio codec MP3.

    Should I change that?
    You change the CRF value in the encoding settings to something lower. It is set at 26 by default, so set something like 16-20. (lower CRF value is higher quality, bigger filesize)

    Also did you try changing to ASS subs? You have full control over size, font, color + many other things. Avidemux has ASS subtitler

    Ok, there are some other problems : do you see the horizontal lines when there is motion or people move ? - that's combing. The source you have probably didn't inverse telecine correctly. There are also some stuttering from repeat frames

    Name:  combing.jpg
Views: 59
Size:  54.0 KB
    Last edited by poisondeathray; 17th Jul 2012 at 11:06.
    Quote Quote  
  29. Member
    Join Date: Feb 2012
    Location: dee
    Search Comp PM
    Mmmm... I donīt know that CFR means....

    I used 2 pass and average bitrate of 4000 kbs to encode, with video codec MPG4 AVC (x264). But I still didnīt upload it.

    Avidemux is not loading the SSA subtitles when I enconde and the result is a video with no subs. Are the ASS the same or similar than SSA? Avidemux offers control over size and position for SSA and SRT, with is good enough, but the thing is the blur...

    With stutter do you mean like the James Dean part? Itīs the weirdest to me. His face looks like melting at some point... ) I have just seen the original source and it was like that too. I also didnīt like it, but...

    The horizontal lines donīt look so bad to me... But how would you improve that? I think that the main problem is that the material is diverse, with diverse quality.
    Quote Quote  
  30. Member
    Join Date: Sep 2007
    Location: Canada
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by Valerc View Post
    Mmmm... I donīt know that CFR means....

    I used 2 pass and average bitrate of 4000 kbs to encode, with video codec MPG4 AVC (x264). But I still didnīt upload it.
    Initially you said you used constant quality mode, when you use that mode, CRF is the quality level. Lower is higher quality. 2 pass is a different method of rate control

    Avidemux is not loading the SSA subtitles when I enconde and the result is a video with no subs. Are the ASS the same or similar than SSA? Avidemux offers control over size and position for SSA and SRT, with is good enough, but the thing is the blur...
    They are slightly different, but avidemux should be able to load both . I'm not sure what you mean by blur - do you have an example that is "not blurry" ?

    With stutter do you mean like the James Dean part? Itīs the weirdest to me. His face looks like melting at some point... ) I have just seen the original source and it was like that too. I also didnīt like it, but...
    The stutter is on the street scenes every few frames is a repeat

    It might be that you set the composition to 29.97 (film is 23.976) , so whatever program you used is adding repeats

    The other sections should be 23.976, but probably weren't IVTC'ed, so you see the combing


    The horizontal lines donīt look so bad to me... But how would you improve that? I think that the main problem is that the material is diverse, with diverse quality.
    It depends what the source content was. But it looks like it wasn't processed ideally, there might be some things you can do to improve it, but it's impossible to say without looking at the source material or having more information
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads