Fonts Good for Television

[HoosierGuy]

My editing program is Sony Vegas Studio 10.

I'm experimenting with where the good spots are to put lower thirds and text/fonts. I'm learning this by experimentation.

Now I want to focus on good fonts and bad fonts. What are the good fonts that can be used on TV? What are the ones to stay away from? What
are the fonts that always give great results? Which fonts do use big networks use?

I paid attention to some cheap looking commercials on a religious network last night and I saw small thin fonts and large ones. I'm just looking for well established fonts
used in broadcasting.

[budwzr]

Helvetica is the most common font used in public. If you don't have it, try Verdana. Some artists think fonts should be part of the design, while others never use designer fonts. Myself, I use only three fonts, Calibri, Verdana, and Gungsuhche.

Anyway, simple, clean, and highly readable is what you want.

[budwzr]

I'm experimenting with where the good spots are to put lower thirds and text/fonts. I'm learning this by experimentation.

Just watch the news and you will learn. They do what they do because it works.

You can learn from their mistakes too. If you see something new, and then it goes away, that means the viewers didn't like it. Like that 3D fly-in weather animation that probably made some people dizzy.

[lordsmurf]

Sans serifs = good
Serifs = not good
Scripts = awful

Comic Sans = you need to be punched in the eyes
That font sucks so bad that even comic books won't use it.

[zoobie]

Seems the corporate world uses a lot of Times New Roman in all UPPERCASE

Too Bad A Recent Study Shows That It's Easier To Read Fonts That Have Lowercase In Them...But The Corporate World Always Was Retarded...

[Case]

I paid attention to some cheap looking commercials

Instead, learn from high end product commercials (worldwide brands), and -as mention before- news bulletins (e.g. CNN - loads of on-screen text there). The typography in those two areas of screen use has had very careful consideration before final use: no cheap effects, but legibility above all else.

[HoosierGuy]

It's easy to watch the text/fonts on TV but how in the world do you tell them apart? Aren't there hundreds and hundreds of fonts? I'm just looking for three or four basic good fonts to start using over and over.

So I'll start experimenting with Helvetica, Verdana and Sans serifs.

[Cornucopia]

Also important:

Size should be as large as possible without getting in the way (which usually means they need to be pretty small), but NEVER, NO NEVER go smaller than 12pt, probably should use 14 or 16 point as your minimum (unless you're purposely trying to obfuscate the text).

You get better legibility with a 2-4 pixel contrasting/dark stroke/outline, and/or a drop shadow. (Drop shadow may cause problems with compression, though). Color should also be in contrast to background. That's why many "lower thirds" titles use a solid/semisolid or gradient bar behind the text. It's not just for artsy-ness, it's for greater legibility.

Keep all text within Title Safe areas.

Try to keep all text onscreen long enough for a slightly-less-than-smart person to be able to read them aloud. (People break this rule of thumb all the time!)

Remember, Special Effects are "SPECIAL". Use them only occasionally, otherwise they're not special, they're just cheap/goofy.

I concur with what lordsmurf suggested. Serifs, Scripts and "Handwriting" or specialty fonts often have sections of the glyph that are composed of 1 or 2 pixel-width lines. That's not good as you get interlace flicker/twitter or blurring. 4-5 pixels or larger is better.

Scott

[AlanHK]

Start by reading this:

http://screenfont.ca/fonts/today/interim/

I know a bit about fonts, enough to know this guy knows a lot more.

And you can, and I do, use serif fonts, but not ones with hairline serifs, like Bodoni. Even Times is too delicate.
But rounded or slab serifs are quite legible at low resolution.
I use Lucida Fax for my subtitles.
See http://new.myfonts.com/fonts/urw/lucida-fax-t/lucida-fax-trom/

[Cornucopia]

Well, that follows what I said about 4-5 pixel (or better) glyph-line-width. Slab serifs probably are good, as long as they're large enough point size.

One of my personal favorites is Lucida Casual.

Scott

[edDV]

RE: TV typeface readability

Just like audio mix bays often check their mix on 4" car speakers, video production bays should monitor type and graphics on a cheap 14-20" NTSC (no comb filter) CRT TV. You will quickly see the need for safe area, adequate typeface/type size and NTSC/PAL colors that work for readability.

TV broadcasters have researched this thoroughly and usually have rigid style rules. Follow their look.

The other current worse case for readability will be 4:3 YouTube in a 240p/360p size.

[budwzr]

It's easy to watch the text/fonts on TV but how in the world do you tell them apart?

You don't have to know the name, it's the style you're after.

[budwzr]

This is Verdana. Similar to Helvetica. See how the "a" looks?

This is Tahoma in the same size. Not as good, it's narrower, and the arch on the "a" isn't as good.

=============================================
Either one of these would work fine, but Verdana somehow looks better, right?

[lordsmurf]

Tahoma is fine at a proper size ratio.
Verdana is big and bubbly.
Arial is blah.

Honestly, if it came with your computer, don't use it.

[intracube]

Size should be as large as possible without getting in the way (which usually means they need to be pretty small), but NEVER, NO NEVER go smaller than 12pt, probably should use 14 or 16 point as your minimum (unless you're purposely trying to obfuscate the text).

Isn't the font point size (pt) an absolute measurement (72 points per inch)? For desktop publishing when the dimensions of the final medium are known (ie the paper size) using the pt system makes sense.

Also, fonts can be scaled to the right size on a computer screen, as long as the computer has accurate information on the physical display size and resolution.

But as TVs vary in size, there's no way a graphic designer can know what size a font will eventually be shown at.

So isn't the pt system for TV graphics meaningless?

- Maybe software for TV graphic design uses a notional display size/pt system (but as I haven't used any commercial programs I'm just guessing).

A while back I looked online for guidance on TV font sizes, and settled on 17-18 pixels/scanlines high* as a minimum font size.
*the measurement from the baseline to the cap height (typically the height of a capital letter):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typeface#Font_metrics

See the last post on this thread:
http://forums.creativecow.net/archivethread/2/471620

[lordsmurf]

No, it's not.

You have to calculate for the average set size for your audience,
and then account for smallest sizes.

It's the difference between professionals that have done demographics research,
and the amateur/homemade that does whatever they want, based on nothing.

[AlanHK]

So isn't the pt system for TV graphics meaningless?

Yes it is.

Different programs will translate what they call "points" into pixels in different ways. You really shouldn't use the word "point" at all in a video context.

If someone recommends "x points" without saying the program, screen resolution, etc., it really means nothing to anyone else.

[Cornucopia]

If you use professional apps on a regular basis, as opposed to prosumer or consumer apps, you'll find that there is more consensus between them, and while there IS variation, you can throw out a term "14pt" and have any one of those apps get pretty close to what was intended.

Yes, I could have used PIXELS or Percentage of Screen height, but both of those have drawbacks as well. Pixels are very exact as a specification, but 10 pixels on a 15" screen is alot smaller than 10 pixels on a 65" screen. Percentage of Screen height is very good for proportional design, but doesn't address resolvability when shown in a small window (like Youtube).

But I don't need to defend my suggestion to you; I have no trouble being fully understood when I suggest "24pt" or whatever to my professional media colleagues - seems to mean plenty to them.

Scott

[AlanHK]

But I don't need to defend my suggestion to you; I have no trouble being fully understood when I suggest "24pt" or whatever to my professional media colleagues - seems to mean plenty to them.

And I work professionally in print publishing; I lay out text for a living. I could give you a whole lecture on measuring type if you wanted.
I'm sorry, but "point" is meaningless when talking about screen fonts.
Video images are measured in scan lines or pixels.

Doesn't matter what you and your friends agree on, a point is 1/72 inch.
I can hold my type ruler up to the screen and measure a font in a full screen image and get a different point size depending on whether it's my PC, laptop or TV.

Yes, I could have used PIXELS or Percentage of Screen height, but both of those have drawbacks as well

"As well". They ALL have problems. Which is why just stating a "point size" is insufficient. Someone using different software than you will get a different result from that figure, and it doesn't mean they are less "professional", just that their software designers made different assumptions.

[intracube]

EDIT: In the time taken for me to compose this response, AlanHK has posted. Cornucopia; I don't know whether you were replying to me or him in your last post, but I'll put up what I've typed anyway.

If you use professional apps on a regular basis, as opposed to prosumer or consumer apps, you'll find that there is more consensus between them, and while there IS variation, you can throw out a term "14pt" and have any one of those apps get pretty close to what was intended.
..
But I don't need to defend my suggestion to you; I have no trouble being fully understood when I suggest "24pt" or whatever to my professional media colleagues - seems to mean plenty to them.

I didn't in any way mean to knock your original suggestion to the OP. My question/comment was aimed at whoever decided on using the point system for TV graphics in the first place, and trying to figure out the reason for it.

I think I'm correct in saying it's primary use was/is in typography/DTP where it's an absolute unit of measurement (72 points to the inch).

Yes, the 'pt' unit can be standardised between tv graphics apps, but it can't be an absolute measurement of size.

The common meaning/use of the 'pt' has been changed, and I wonder why a different unit of measurement wasn't decided upon for tv graphics - one that would avoid confusion.

I'd be interested to know what formula/scale is being used by these apps, if you've got a link to that info. e.g. assuming no overscan on a TV; what size screen would render a 72pt high box as 1 inch high?

Yes, I could have used PIXELS or Percentage of Screen height, but both of those have drawbacks as well. Pixels are very exact as a specification, but 10 pixels on a 15" screen is alot smaller than 10 pixels on a 65" screen.

Indeed. Also, 10 pixels when working at SD resolutions (720x480/576) is going to look a lot bigger in the frame than at HD res. (1920x1080) **assuming both images are displayed at a common size.
My suggestion of 18px high was for SD content; I overlooked HD.

As I said, I haven't used high end software (DTP or TV related), so I was throwing the question out there.

--

Separate from the discussion about which measurement unit to use, decisions on font size can be complex - maybe more so in the last ten years, as much larger TVs have entered the market:

In the 90s, it seemed like there was a narrower range of popular TV sizes. These days, consumers might choose to replace a CRT TV with a similar sized LCD panel (24-29inch), while others might decide to upgrade to 40/50inch screens.

That's obviously going to lead to a compromise in design. There's also the 4:3/16:9 issue - which IMO is more of a problem.

[AlanHK]

In the 90s, it seemed like there was a narrower range of popular TV sizes. These days, consumers might choose to replace a CRT TV with a similar sized LCD panel (24-29inch), while others might decide to upgrade to 40/50inch screens.

That's obviously going to lead to a compromise in design. There's also the 4:3/16:9 issue - which IMO is more of a problem.

I'd expect TVs to basically become PC monitors. Instead of text subs being image overlays, they'd be text streams with formatting info.

But there is a huge legacy of videos with hard coded and overlaid subs that will need to work too. I'd hope there would be a way to intelligently scale thems at the user end, so you aren't stuck with what some designer thought would look good on what he thought you were going to view it on.

As for 4:3 vs 16:9, the DVD standard already has allowance to include subs for both displays and the appropriate one is used. Few DVDs actually seem to use that though.

I expect they'll just go from assuming that everyone has 4:3 to assuming that everyone has 16:9, and tough if you don't.

[intracube]

Now I want to focus on good fonts and bad fonts. What are the good fonts that can be used on TV? What are the ones to stay away from? What
are the fonts that always give great results? Which fonts do use big networks use?

It depends on the type of programme; news, documentaries, entertainment, etc.

Also networks are likely to use commercial (expensive) fonts. There are often free alternatives to commercial fonts that look very similar, but are free from licensing issues.

For lower thirds with smaller font sizes, I'd favour sans-serif fonts - but for larger text and logos serif fonts can also work well.

Also try and limit yourself to a few carefully chosen fonts - lots of different fonts can weaken/water down any style you're aiming for. It's interesting looking at how many fonts are used in the evening news broadcasts in the U.S:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPPh-CSx-eY#t=34s
count the fonts. I spot 6 or 7 in the first minute

Later on in that YT clip there's a few examples of lower thirds.

It's easy to watch the text/fonts on TV but how in the world do you tell them apart? Aren't there hundreds and hundreds of fonts? I'm just looking for three or four basic good fonts to start using over and over.

A good graphic designer will know many of the common ones. There's also tools to help identify fonts:
http://www.fonts.com/FindFonts/SearchBySight.htm

[intracube]

I'd expect TVs to basically become PC monitors. Instead of text subs being image overlays, they'd be text streams with formatting info.

That wouldn't be practical in a lot of cases, as TV graphics use complex compositing/effects that are beyond the processing abilities of set top boxes. Text subtitles on TV are often text streams. The original teletext system in the UK can display the subtitles in two sizes (possibly dependent on the TV). I haven't found a way to change the size on DSAT, but I can't see any reason why that feature couldn't be implemented.

But there is a huge legacy of videos with hard coded and overlaid subs that will need to work too. I'd hope there would be a way to intelligently scale thems at the user end, so you aren't stuck with what some designer thought would look good on what he thought you were going to view it on.

I can't see how burned in subtitles/text can be retrospectively scaled.

[Cornucopia]

But I don't need to defend my suggestion to you; I have no trouble being fully understood when I suggest "24pt" or whatever to my professional media colleagues - seems to mean plenty to them.

And I work professionally in print publishing; I lay out text for a living. I could give you a whole lecture on measuring type if you wanted.
I'm sorry, but "point" is meaningless when talking about screen fonts.
Video images are measured in scan lines or pixels.

Doesn't matter what you and your friends agree on, a point is 1/72 inch.
I can hold my type ruler up to the screen and measure a font in a full screen image and get a different point size depending on whether it's my PC, laptop or TV.

Yes, I could have used PIXELS or Percentage of Screen height, but both of those have drawbacks as well

"As well". They ALL have problems. Which is why just stating a "point size" is insufficient. Someone using different software than you will get a different result from that figure, and it doesn't mean they are less "professional", just that their software designers made different assumptions.

And I work in the video/film industry (>20years now). Back when the DTP industry was THE killer app for graphical computers, doing Video on computers was just getting started. So they borrowed a lot of nomenclature from DTP, including Point sizes - even though they shouldn't/couldn't have a clear 1:1 correspondence. And it stuck - even after the mutual analogies & applications diverged. So even though it "shouldn't" officially be considered applicable to video, the rule of thumb still stands.

Don't believe me? Do a Google search on "point pixel conversion". You'll find I have a LOT of "friends" as you called them.
24pt ~=32pel.
Now, I understand where you're coming from and agree (yes, they all have problems); do you understand where I am coming from? It's kind of rude what you said earlier about "meaning nothing to anyone else", particularly when I was the only person mentioning points at that stage.

BTW, afa Textual downstream rendering, the industry has already moved toward that, as BD uses OTF fonts when rendering subtitles, and future settop chips are slated to have the same thing. It's even more important to go this way to correctly accommodate Stereo3D subtitles, as they have a number of complications based on screen size and viewer distance that can only be resolved if adjusted at the end display stage. Luckily, all viewers can benfit from this technology advance.

Scott

[squadjot]

Just don't use Impact, it oozes newbie... and the "r's" are REALLY ugly

Theres numerous good "poster" fonts to use instead.

Helvetica Compressed
Compacta
Folio Condensed
etc etc

[HoosierGuy]

Later on in that YT clip there's a few examples of lower thirds.
[/URL]

As I've been paying attention to commercials and their fonts I've noticed different fonts on the same screen in the same scene.

Once I pick the point size for my font I can also scale it and such. Doesn't that effect point size? If I take a 14 point and increase the scale to make
it larger, does that increase the point size?

[intracube]

Once I pick the point size for my font I can also scale it and such. Doesn't that effect point size? If I take a 14 point and increase the scale to make
it larger, does that increase the point size?

I haven't used Vegas, but from looking at this clip:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krOUIKZs6MU#t=1m8s
there are several ways to change the font size - shown at 1:08, 2:34 and 5:17.

You could say that changing any of these options has the same effect as changing the text point size - but by doing so, you're getting further and further from the original definition of the point/pt unit.

[JamiePatt]

Aren't there hundreds and hundreds of fonts?

Most awesome question ever!

[DarrellS]

There is a program called "The Font Thing" that you can view fonts with. It shows all fonts installed on your system or you can browse folders that you have fonts in. You can use it to install or uninstall fonts on your system. You can type what you want in the viewer to see how it will look with the font selected.

There are a lot of free font sites that you can download fonts from.

[usually_quiet]

There is a program called "The Font Thing" that you can view fonts with. It shows all fonts installed on your system or you can browse folders that you have fonts in. You can use it to install or uninstall fonts on your system. You can type what you want in the viewer to see how it will look with the font selected.

There are a lot of free font sites that you can download fonts from.

This thread originally ended in 2011, and JamiePatt apparently became a member here just so he could grave-rob the thread to make fun of HoosierGuy.