Subtitle The Pyramid [PATCHED]
Knowing how to synchronize each word sequence with the speech is perhaps the greatest difficulty. Inspired by the workflow of professional subtitlers, here is a method to achieve it efficiently:
subtitle The Pyramid
Although often outsourced to machine translations or to professionals services, subtitle translation is an art that requires a great deal of rigor. Here is what you need to remember when translating into any language and for any nationality:
Often neglected, positioning, size, color, font and layout are not useless details. On the contrary, they largely define the legibility and clarity of your subtitles. To choose the right settings, here are some important tips:
When you have made your subtitle file, you may wonder how to add your subtitles to your video. Many platforms give you the opportunity to add your subtitle file as a closed caption (CC) afterwards. But there is also the possibility to burn subtitles with specific parameters into your video. It all depends on your objective:
However, in recent years, some fascinating automatic subtitling software has emerged on the market. With technologies such as enhanced speech recognition and translation engine, an ergonomic subtitle editor, and collaborative tools, they save you an enormous amount of time on your video production. Their unique features guarantee you a superior result compared to default solutions like YouTube.
I. Subtitles for the Deaf and Hard of Hearing (SDH)This section applies to subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing created for English language content (i.e. intralingual subtitles). For English subtitles for non-English language content, please see Section II
Text in each line in a dual speaker subtitle must be a contained sentence and should not carry into the preceding or subsequent subtitle. Creating shorter sentences and timing appropriately helps to accommodate this.
Manage the design of the visual panels from the Panel Settings dialog; you can change the general look and feel of the panels, as well as the display of titles and subtitles. The flexibility afforded here lets you determine how the panels will look, and what kind of information is displayed in them.
This study consists of two experiments: in Experiment 1 we testedhearing viewers from the UK, Poland, and Spain, while in Experiment 2 wetested British deaf, hard of hearing and hearing people. In eachexperiment, participants were asked to choose subtitles which they thoughtwere better from 30 pairs of screenshots (see the Methods section). Ineach pair, one subtitle was segmented following the established subtitlingrules, as described in the Introduction, and the other violated them,splitting linguistic units between the two lines. After the experiment,participants were also asked whether they made their choices based onlinguistic considerations or rather on subtitle shape.
As the subtitles in this study were in English, we asked Polish andSpanish participants to evaluate their proficiency in reading Englishusing the Common European Framework of Reference for Languages (from A1 toC2). All the participants declared a reading level equal or higher thanB1. Of the total sample of Polish participants, 3 had a C1 level and 18had a C2 level. In the sample of Spanish participants, 1 had a B1 level, 4had a B2 level, 5 had a C1 and 16 had a C2 level. No statisticallysignificant differences were found between the proficiency of Polish andSpanish participants, χ2(3)=5.144,p=.162.
Two interesting patterns emerged from eye tracking results on the timespent reading the noun and verb phrases in the subtitles. SS subtitlesconsistently induced longer dwell time for noun phrases (IndArt,DefArt, Comp, Poss), whereas NSS subtitles induced longer dwell timefor verb phrases (AuxVerb and ToInf). We observed aninteraction effect in English participants: for Poss, they hadlonger dwell time in the SS condition than Spanish and Polishparticipants.
Results in revisits followed the same pattern: participants made morerevisits in the SS subtitles in noun phrases (IndArt,DefArt, Comp, Poss) and more revisits in NSSsubtitles in verb phrases (ToInf, AuxVerb). The interactionsindicated that there were more revisits for Adj in the SS conditionacross the three groups and for Poss in the SS condition forEnglish and Spanish participants. These results seem to indicate that nounphrases are more difficult to process in SS condition, and verb phrases inthe NSS condition.
This time we found a main effect of segmentation in all linguisticparameters apart from AuxVerb and AdjN: the SS subtitleswere preferred over the NSS ones. Figure 5 presents general preferencesfor all linguistic units and Table 8 shows how they differed by hearingloss.
Hearing and hard of hearing participants stated clearly they chosesubtitles based on semantic and syntactic phrases, whereas deafparticipants based their decisions on shape, with the preference towardsthe pyramid-shaped subtitles.
The most important finding of this study is that viewers expressed avery clear preference for syntactically segmented text in subtitles. Theyalso declared in post-test interviews that when making their decisions,they relied more on syntactic and semantic considerations rather than onsubtitle shape. These results confirm previous conjectures expressed insubtitling guidelines (5, 6) and provide empirical evidence in theirsupport.
SS text was preferred over NSS in nearly all linguistic units by alltypes of viewers except for the deaf in the case of the definite article.The largest preference for SS was found in the SentSent condition,whereas the lowest in the case of AuxVerb. The SentSentcondition was the only one in our study which included punctuation. Thetwo sentences in a subtitle were clearly separated by a full stop, thusproviding participants with guidance on where one unit of meaning finishedand another began. Viewers preferred punctuation marks to be placed at theend of the first line and not separating the subject from the predicate inthe second sentence, thus supporting the view that each subtitle lineshould contain one clause or sentence (6). In contrast, in theAuxVerb condition, which tested the splitting of the auxiliary fromthe main verb in a two-constituent verb phrase, the viewers preferred SStext, but their preference was not as strong as in the case of theSentSent condition. It is plausible that in order to fullyintegrate the meaning of text in the subtitle, viewers needed to processnot only the verb phrase itself (auxiliary + main verb), but also the verbcomplement.
One important limitation of this study is that we tested static text ofsubtitles rather than dynamically changing subtitles displayed naturallyas part of a film. The reason for this was that this approach enabled usto control linguistic units and to present participants with two clearconditions to compare. However, this self-paced reading allowedparticipants to take as much time as they needed to complete the task,whereas in real-life subtitling, viewers have no control over thepresentation speed and have thus less time to process subtitles. Theunderstanding of subtitled text is also context-sensitive, and as ourstudy only contained screenshots, it did not allow participants to relymore on the context to interpret the sentences, as they would normally dowhen watching subtitled videos. Another limitation is the lack of sound,which could have given more context to hearing and hard of hearingparticipants. Yet, despite these limitations in ecological validity, webelieve that this study contributes to our understanding of processingdifferent linguistic units in subtitles.
Future research could look into subtitle segmentation in subtitledvideos (see also Gerber-Morón and Szarkowska (28)), using other languageswith other syntactic structures than English, which was the only languagetested in this study. Further research is also required to fullyunderstand the impact of word frequency and word length on the reading ofsubtitles (67, 68). Subtitle segmentation implications could also beexplored across subtitles, when a sentence runs over two or moresubtitles.
Put simply, the Pyramid Principle is just a structured way of communicating your ideas where you start with your main point and then work your way through the supporting details of that main point. It is represented pretty well with a pyramid because you start right at the top of the Pyramid and then move down to the bottom with more supporting details and data.
In this example the Pyramid Principle is quite easy to see. The title of the slide is the main point, the subtitles of the slide represent the key arguments, and the bullet points below that make up the supporting details and data. Each aspect of the slide fits into one of these three layers, and everything on the slide has a purpose.
Look at the title of the slide for example. Just like the top box of a pyramid this provides a summary for the entire slide. Then the next level is the subtitles, which directly support the title, and then below each of those you have additional details. A chart is a little harder to visualize in a pyramid but for the subtitle on the right the layers are very clear.
The right side of the slide looks pretty good. They kept it simple with the text but then again used some bolding to help make the higher level points stand out more than the lower level points. The pyramid structure is apparent at every level, with the subtitle as the top level of the pyramid, the three bolded points as the next layer, and the bullet points providing the supporting details of the bottom layer.
Enter the URL of the YouTube video to download subtitles in many different formats and languages.BilSub.com - bilingual subtitles >>> function onSubmit(token) document.getElementById("loadform").submit();The Movie Great Pyramid K 2019 - Director Fehmi Krasniqi with Английский subtitles Complain, DMCA A- A+ close video open video English (auto) Romanian Russian Spanish Many of you have followed the\n 041b061a72