Which is the best font style for titles and also for credits roll?

[abdul azeem]

Hi guys i am a newbie. Actually i need help on fonts i dont know which font will be good for titles, lower thirds,credits and other words needed to be splashed on the screen like (one million years ago) etc.. I need a decent font style for my video pls help me it would be great if you give me the direct link also...

[smrpix]

Sans serif fonts like Helvetica (Ariel) are considered the most readable. Your computer comes with several. But really this is an artistic question based on what best suits your content that no one but you can answer.

[El Heggunte]

IMNSHO, the "best" subtitle fonts...

1) do NOT have 'serif'

2) make a clear distinction between

-- the lowercase l and the uppercase I, plus
-- the lowercase l and the arabic numeral 1

Hope this helps.

[videobruger]

https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/216996-Best-subtitle-font

[johnmeyer]

Tahoma.

[JVRaines]

I actually prefer a clean slab serif typeface for subtitles and captions. Main titles, however, are a completely subjective matter of art design.

[SameSelf]

If you have large titles and under each title descriptive text, a sans serif font for the titles and a serif font for the descriptive text would likely be advised by any competent graphic designer. So I wouldn't necessarily shrink away from serif fonts. I use them all the time with great effect. However, plain text is rarely sufficient. I often employ outline strokes and drop shadows to give the text enough contrast against whatever the background is (unless it is plain black). But don't take my word for it, get a decent book on type-setting and learn for yourself the rules on how to make text more readable, e.g.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/0321934288

And imho Adobe Premiere Pro's title generator is unparalleled in avoiding a pedestrian look unless you take your credits to a vector graphics program like Adobe Illustrator.

[johnmeyer]

If you have large titles and under each title descriptive text, a sans serif font for the titles and a serif font for the descriptive text would likely be advised by any competent graphic designer. So I wouldn't necessarily shrink away from serif fonts.

That's good advice for designs destined for print. However, the reason serifs have long been a no-no for video has to do with scan lines (old CRT technology) and pixel rows. If the text moves, as it most certainly does in a credit roll, at each moment in time the software has to decide where to put each pixel that makes up each letter in the title. Mathematically the software will want to put some pixels between each scan line or row of pixels, but of course that is not possible. So, it has to make a decision as to whether, for the current frame, to put the pixel in the line/row above or the line/row below where the mathematics of the scroll dictate it should be. As the text moves along, these round-off decisions can lead to a slight jittering of the credit roll.

This is an issue, no matter what font you use, but because those little horizontal lines that make up the serifs are often only 1-2 pixels high, they often shimmer and wobble because of these issues and look really bad.

With interlaced video, these problems can be far worse. The worst artifacts were those you'd see when displaying interlaced video on CRT displays. Even when the text wasn't moving, you'd often see shimmering on serifed fonts.

If you every happen to see replays of sports from the 1970s through 1990s, the era when the first computer text generators were used for broadcast, you'll note that all the text is not only san-serif (i.e., no serifs) but the fonts were really "fat" and "thick."

If you want to do really professional credit rolls, you need titling software that handles these issues cleverly. If you don't have good software, the scroll can look pretty pathetic. However, no matter what software you use, if you choose a serifed font, you will increase the likelihood of having problems. Some serifed fonts have fairly small and fat serifs, and you might be able to use some of those.

[edit]Here is a link to a long post I made in another forum about issues dealing with a credit scroll. My NLE (Vegas) does not automatically handle credit scrolls correctly (as I suspect is true with other NLEs), and I describe what you need to know in order to deal with it.

Credit Roll (Title Scroll): Getting it to Work

[Cornucopia]

Totally agree. And that is why there has long been fairly strict rules regarding titling with major TV submissions.
Because of higher resolution density in HD, these rules can be slightly relaxed, and with 4k relaxed even further still, but I wouldn't go overboard with the fancier styles (serifs, italics/scripts, ornamentals) unless used for larger headline sections.

Scott

[SameSelf]

SD interlaced CRTs, shudders, glad that format is dead. HD/UHD have blown up the old rules. Move with the times or get left behind. The broadcast industry is so backwards. I literally gag at the mention of interlace. But some people like to take their cues from TV.

That is a bummer that Vegas struggles with credit rolls. They are so simple in PP that is almost criminal. Just type out the text and stretch out the timeline as needed. Ridiculously easy. It is probably the main reason I still use PP. I just render out the roll as a TIFF + alpha to drop on top of a timeline outside of PP. I have tried credits in AE, not nearly as flexible in terms of text design, believe it or not. PP inherited nearly all of the text designs tools from Adobe's other desktop publishing applications. Love it.

[johnmeyer]

The credit roll is easy in Vegas. Getting results that look good on a big display, especially when making a DVD, is what takes a lot of work. Many people create their credit scrolls, but don't look at the result very critically, and therefore simply don't see (or don't care) about the shimmering text.

Yes, I said DVD. I know that many people have nothing but contempt for this old-fashioned format, but a huge percentage of event videography (e.g., weddings) is still delivered on DVD. This is because Blu-Ray, even after all these years, is still far from ubiquitous, and most people who hire a videographer to film an event expect delivery of a physical item, rather than an upload. In fact, for a funeral I did last spring, the woman was extremely afraid of having any of the historical footage of her late 106-year-old famous mother available online where it could be stolen and used by others for their own purposes. Also, online video may disappear some day (it can't be free forever).

Video on a thumb drive works, but you can't do menus, and everything I've read says that longevity of thumb drives is probably not much more than a decade or so, whereas DVDs will probably outlast all of us, and may be the best archival format yet developed, assuming that you use the right media.

I did two weddings last fall and I delivered them on both DVD (SD, of course) and also in HD on a thumb drive. When I got orders for additional copies, those orders were 100% for the DVD version.

[SameSelf]

I don't know what sort of shimmering problems you are talking about, and I test all my video on a 70" LCD. And, yes thank you, I am very critical of all my productions, but then I rarely experience the problems that "many people" experience.

I have nothing against DVDs (except that they are SD). I regularly master them myself. And agree that they are great for archival purposes. But I also master blurays as well. What I despise is recommendations based on obsolete technology i.e. CRTs. There is no reason to make an interlaced DVDs anymore. And I truly hope you don't shoot your events interlaced.

It sounds like you are a fairly informed videographer, and I assure you, if I was one of your customers, I would gladly accept a bluray in all its HD, fat bitrate glory. I don't do event videos for a living, but I have been forced to deal with these outfits regrettably many times. I have never seen even one offer bluray as a delivery option (that includes some with Telly awards). And when I thought that ordering a download would get me HD quality, all I got was an MP4 at a lower AR than SD. But I blamed myself for that one because I should've known they weren't going to host a file the size of a bluray.

Thus I think it is just too costly for these firms to deliver HD video versus it being a ubiquity problem for consumers. Also, I think Hollywood is part of the problem. That is how most people consume DVDs. And Hollywood does such a great job encoding film for DVD that they have conditioned consumers into thinking that DVD quality is nearly as good as bluray. At least, I can barely see any difference between the DVD and Blurays for the handful of movies for which I own both. That is also a testament to the h/w scalers in modern HDTVs. But you and I both know that film to DVD and video to DVD are two very different animals. I am not questioning your production values. But, for example, if you told me you bring a focus puller with you on shoots, then I would probably fall out of my chair.

Credits however are a form of CG and as such aren't confined to the same constraints as video in the native progressive world. I think there is plenty of room for creativity to add a signature look to your productions which I would think is very important as a indie producer.

EDIT: Lastly, let's not forget the OP asked about titles as well, not just credit rolls. And I simply cannot imagine confining myself to sans serif fonts for titles.

[mike20021969]

Almonte Snow everytime(!)

[JVRaines]

Yes, I said DVD. I know that many people have nothing but contempt for this old-fashioned format, but a huge percentage of event videography (e.g., weddings) is still delivered on DVD. This is because Blu-Ray, even after all these years, is still far from ubiquitous, and most people who hire a videographer to film an event expect delivery of a physical item, rather than an upload.

People pay $$$$ and expect to get something they can hold in their hands. The low resolution of DVD-Video is starting to be a problem, though. I have had a couple clients demand a DVD and then complain that it looks fuzzy on their giant UHD video screen.

Video on a thumb drive works, but you can't do menus, and everything I've read says that longevity of thumb drives is probably not much more than a decade or so, whereas DVDs will probably outlast all of us, and may be the best archival format yet developed, assuming that you use the right media.

Customers have to adjust to the idea that their content is data which transcends the medium in which it is stored. The younger generation already gets this. In the archival world, it's well-established that good old magnetic tape is the best medium for storage on the order of 30 years or more (disregarding the issue of tech obsolescence).

[johnmeyer]

I rarely experience the problems that "many people" experience.

I understand that you are taking issue with my generalizations. Let me provide some evidence and statistics to back up my claim.

What I despise is recommendations based on obsolete technology i.e. CRTs. There is no reason to make an interlaced DVDs anymore. And I truly hope you don't shoot your events interlaced.

Yes, CRTs are obsolete. However, DVDs are not. Check out these two links, as one of many examples I can provide:

United States DVD Sales Chart for Week Ending July 10, 2016

United States Blu-ray Sales Chart for Week Ending July 17, 2016

What you will see is that the numbers are pretty much the same, meaning that even at this point, almost a decade after Blu-Ray was introduced, DVD is still selling almost as much. By contrast, the DVD was introduced in 1997, and within 2-3 years, VHS copies of movies were nowhere to be found. It completely wiped out that technology because it was better in almost every way.

DVDs resilience is actually quite remarkable and, in my experience, unprecedented. I am old enough that the first records I played were 78 rpm "shellac" discs. When 33 1/3 LP vinyl records appeared in the 1950s, 78s disappeared almost immediately (although a few did persist into the 1960s and the Beatles actually released one of their singles on 78). When transistors came along, tubes disappeared from amplifiers within a few years (although it took longer for other devices to become "transistorized" because early transistors couldn't handle high voltages). When the audio CD was introduced in 1982, the vinyl record disappeared completely within about three years.

(Of course the vinyl LP and the tube amplifier both later made a modest return, much to my surprise, but that's a different story for a different time.)

As for interlaced video. I always recommend that everyone leave their interlaced video as is, and don't deinterlace it because that always degrades the video, and you can't go back. Interlaced video is not bad, and it looks great. Pretty much all 1920x1080 broadcasts are still interlaced ("1080i").

However ...

I would never shoot interlaced now that we have 60p/50p. There is no reason to do so, and post production is obviously a lot easier with 60p.

It sounds like you are a fairly informed videographer, and I assure you, if I was one of your customers, I would gladly accept a bluray in all its HD, fat bitrate glory. I don't do event videos for a living, but I have been forced to deal with these outfits regrettably many times. I have never seen even one offer bluray as a delivery option (that includes some with Telly awards).

That is not surprising at all. I used to be a regular on one of the forums for my NLE (Vegas). It is probably the favorite NLE for event videographers. Over the past decade they've done informal polls and in the last one, done about eighteen months ago, most people said they had never been asked for a Blu-Ray and had never delivered them. Speaking for myself, I have been shooting in HD since 2005. I live in Carmel, CA which is right next to Pebble Beach which is home to some of the richest people on the planet. In the eleven years I've been shooting in HD, and delivering many of my productions to dozens, and sometimes hundreds of customers, do you know how many requests I've had for Blu-Ray?

Zero. Not one. This despite the fact that I always offer the option.

Thus I think it is just too costly for these firms to deliver HD video versus it being a ubiquity problem for consumers.

I'm not sure I follow that logic. The cost difference is pretty minor, and any increase in cost can be passed onto the customer who, when paying $$$$ for a wedding video is not going to care if the deliverable costs $5/disc or $10/disc.

Also, I think Hollywood is part of the problem. That is how most people consume DVDs. And Hollywood does such a great job encoding film for DVD that they have conditioned consumers into thinking that DVD quality is nearly as good as bluray.

Are you saying that Hollywood has a reason for sticking with DVD? That makes absolutely no sense and is contradicted by everything else that Hollywood has done: they shoot movies in IMAX so they can get more money by getting you into an IMAX theater; they tried to move us all to 3D, not just in the theaters, but with our TVs. Also, Hollywood has several HUGE reasons to make Blu-Ray successful: it is harder to copy, and therefore reduces piracy; and they get to re-sell the same, older movies, just like they did when going from VHS to laserdisc, and then from those technologies to DVD.

But, for example, if you told me you bring a focus puller with you on shoots, then I would probably fall out of my chair.

Like many people with whom I've had similar discussions, you don't understand event videography. What we do is often called "run and gun." What this means is that you have a split second to react, and you'd better get it right because you don't get to re-shoot ("can you come down the aisle again, I didn't get a good take because your veil got in the way"). I do a lot of sports, and if you miss the one-handed catch because you were fiddling with some camera adjustment, you don't get to shoot it again. Despite these issues, you still have to provide decent exposure, focus, and all the other elements of proper photography, although you do usually (not always) have to deal with lighting and sound as you find them.

I can always tell when I am dealing with someone who has not had to shoot under these conditions because they always ask, "Why don't you just do another take?"

I roll my eyes ...

[pandy]

Programmer fonts for low resolution devices are best as they are designed to be legible even on low resolution displays - perhaps something from this one https://www.slant.co/topics/67/~programming-fonts https://damieng.com/blog/2008/05/26/envy-code-r-preview-7-coding-font-released https://damieng.com/blog/tag/coding-fonts but i assume most of modern font may give suboptimal results on low res displays - overall this is not trivial to match esthetic expectations and at the same time low res display capabilities.

[SameSelf]

^^Wow, that was long. You sound like you have some sort of bone to pick. I assure you I have none. Don't let the the denizens of Pebble Beach force you into some creative box. If they are too stupid to know the difference btw DVD and BD, then it is up to you to market the difference. Have a split screen demo playing on a huge UHD TV when they walk into your studio, so they can make an informed choice. Instead of boxes labelled DVD and Bluray, label the boxes SD and FHD. I am pretty sure everyone understands the big box store marketing lingo. At my local Redbox, the bluray is often unavailable while the DVD still is. So consumers know the difference; maybe they don't see the difference in your product? You only have yourself to blame if nobody has ever checked the bluray box. The question I have is whether the additional margin for blurays is worth the additional work because it sounds like maybe not? Otherwise, you would be pushing blurays harder? Are you really trying to tell me that you use boxy sans serif fonts or low resolution programmer fonts in your wedding DVDs? That sounds atrocious, I'm sorry.

Also, I got a chuckle when you described the choreographed pageantry of a walk down the aisle as a run-and-gun shoot. I have no doubts if someone really wanted, they could pull focus on the bride as she walks down the aisle and, who knows, as she is standing at the altar as well. I have done enough event videography over the last few years to know not everything is as you describe.

[johnmeyer]

^^Wow, that was long. You sound like you have some sort of bone to pick. I assure you I have none.

Sorry, I type really fast, so my posts are often too long. My bad.

And no, I have no bone to pick, certainly not with you.

... maybe they don't see the difference in your product? You only have yourself to blame if nobody has ever checked the bluray box.

I really don't think it is up to me to create a demand for an entire technology. After a full decade, if people who have more money than Midas don't want Blu-Ray, I'm sure as heck not going to take the blame for that. I give them the option, but they don't want it and, as I noted in my long post above, surveys that were taken at a video editing site confirmed this to be the way it is elsewhere, not only in this country, but in many other countries as well.

As for seeing a difference, I do post the HD version of the highlights for a local ballet Nutcrakcer performace every year:

2015 Ballet Fantasque Nutcracker Highlights

As you see, it is 1080p, with no blown highlights (which, if you've ever filmed the stage, is not easy), and even without an assistant, and even while running multiple cameras myself, I managed to get pretty decent focus. But, despite the quality, I don't get requests for any HD version (even on a memory stick).

Are you really trying to tell me that you use boxy sans serif fonts or low resolution programmer fonts in your wedding DVDs? That sounds atrocious, I'm sorry.

I don't think I ever said anything about using Courier or other monospaced fonts. I also only mentioned "boxy" (I used the typographic term "fat") fonts when I was describing what sports broadcasters did with their character generators from the early 1970s until HD came along, and I did so only to illustrate how important and real the problem was.

I work with people associated with NFL Films and transfer a lot of old sports films (I have a 1954 Kinescope waiting to be transferred) and so I see these graphics a lot. Modern character generators have better options, and some of the issues can be dealt with if the character generator provides proper aliasing.

Also, I got a chuckle when you described the choreographed pageantry of a walk down the aisle as a run-and-gun shoot. I have no doubts if someone really wanted, they could pull focus on the bride as she walks down the aisle and, who knows, as she is standing at the altar as well. I have done enough event videography over the last few years to know not everything is as you describe.

Actually, it IS as I describe. For instance, in the last wedding I did, the bride and groom took a different path down the aisle than what I expected, and this was compounded by having a 6' 6" person stand up in front of a camera. I had the tripod way up in the air, specifically to shoot over the congregation when they stood, but hadn't counted on both these things happening. I had to use the quick release on my tripod to rip off one of the four cameras I had filming the event, and then went hand-held. I covered that move with another camera and then for the portion I was able to film with the hand-held, I used stabilization in post to get rid of the shake (because I had stabilization turned off for all the cameras that were locked down).

And don't get me started about little flower girls (or dogs -- I've see three dog ring bearers). You can't choreograph or script what they're going to do.

As for the term "run and gun," I didn't invent it, and it is used to describe any situation in which you don't have time to set up, use your tape measure to get perfect focus to the subject, adjust the lighting, use a hand-held meter to measure exposure on faces, etc. One of the reasons I got into media restoration a decade ago was to help event videographers cover the inevitable mistakes and problems created by this environment, and still be able to use shots that were made under these trying circumstances.

If you want to be in control at all times, event videography is not for you.

[SameSelf]

I don't think I ever said anything about using Courier or other monospaced fonts. I also only mentioned "boxy" (I used the typographic term "fat") fonts

Well now, you are just talking out of both sides of your mouth, and I really have no idea what you are saying anymore.

[koberulz]

I think you might be confusing pandy's post as being one of johnmeyer's.

[johnmeyer]

I don't think I ever said anything about using Courier or other monospaced fonts. I also only mentioned "boxy" (I used the typographic term "fat") fonts

Well now, you are just talking out of both sides of your mouth, and I really have no idea what you are saying anymore.

Huh? I think my point was pretty clear, but for those having trouble understanding, my point is that serifs cause problems (long explanation already given) and because of this, professionals in the broadcast business went out of their way to avoid any fonts having thin horizontal appendages, one example of which is the serif. The result of this avoidance was the predominant use of fat fonts, especially in the lower thirds seen during sports broadcast.

Here is an example from an early 1970s football game that I helped restore for a collector:

1974 Stanford vs. Penn State

You'll see the fonts about seven seconds into the clip. This particular example also uses a dark outline around the font, but the reason for that is a discussion for another thread.

Why you would say that I am "talking out of both sides of my mouth" is puzzling because I was not contradicting myself in any way, which is what that expression means.

And, my original recommendation in this thread to use Tahoma still stands. There are hundreds of other fonts that will work nicely, but this is one that has been "voted" for in several forums over the years as being distinct enough from Arial/Helvetica, which people are tired of seeing, yet friendly to the TV screen.