|
|
|
out of sync
|
|
|
0101001
Newbie
|
15. July 2006 @ 10:27 |
Link to this message
|
|
hey i bought a boxset that's in japanese with english subs but when people start talking the first person's subtitles don't come on until the second person is talking and their subtitles don't come on until someone else starts talking i've tried numerous programs on my computer to try to sync them but none of the programs will open the files, can anyone help?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
k0k0m0
Senior Member
|
28. July 2006 @ 12:00 |
Link to this message
|
to solve the problem you mention you can rip everything to your hard drive, use subtitle workshop to fix the delay, and then burn again.
It's a bit tedious, but it can be solved...
Out of synch subtitles usually happen when you have a video in NTSC and a subtitle in PAL for example
I logged in on March 1st 2005, and it's incredible to believe that in so short time I've learnt all that I know about DVDs from this forum...
|
|
carlmart
Member
|
2. August 2006 @ 06:11 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
Out of synch subtitles usually happen when you have a video in NTSC and a subtitle in PAL for example
Not necessarily. Time is the same, whether in NTSC or PAL: same minute, same second. One being in 30fps and the other in 25fps shouldn't affect absolute time related things like subtitles.
I have downloaded titles that came originaly from 25fps, 24fps and 29.97fps masters, always to be synchronized to NTSC, and they always worked well.
What does happen is some versions start earlier or later, or are longer. And then you can't sync them. If the absolute time is the same, adjusting it in Subtitle Workshop should do it.
But you have to re-author, of course.
|
|
moonrocks
Member
|
2. August 2006 @ 09:03 |
Link to this message
|
"Time is the same, whether in NTSC or PAL: same minute, same second."
That's not correct. PAL plays at a faster rate, that's why for the same movie you'll notice the PAL runtime is shorter than the NTSC runtime.
Movies are shot at 24fps. When converted to PAL you're then displaying 25 frames from the movie in 1 second where originally 24 frames were displayed. A 4% speedup. Some people can hear the difference, especially musicians.
If you take subs which were timed for the PAL version of a movie and just reauthor them with the NTSC version, even if you set the start time of the subs correctly they will slowly drift out of sync. You have to re-time the subs for NTSC.
"Det blåser også her." - Erik den røde |
|
carlmart
Member
|
2. August 2006 @ 09:40 |
Link to this message
|
I am afraid you are mixing up your concepts a bit.
A second is a second, and a minute is a minute. That may be in PAL or NTSC. It doesn't matter. One minute in PAL will have exactly, exactly the same as one minute in NTSC: 60 seconds.
It doesn't matter the quantity of frames every second had within. 25 frames will always correspond to 30 frames. It's only a different way to split it. Some say PAL images are more "film-like" because they aproach the way film is shot.
PAL does not play at a faster rate, or PAL countries would be several years ahead if they did.
What happens to movies is a different question. Movies are telecined converting 24 frames onto 25 frames in PAL countries and onto 30 frames in NTSC countries. They do not run faster, or music would be out of tune and musicians would be angry.
What you are describing happens if say you shoot PAL video, then transfer the 25 frames to film one to one, then screen that at 24fps. The audio will be 4% slower and sound like it. Some will listen to that change in tune.
I say it again: if you have a subtitle that came from PAL master and you want to use it in an NTSC film there won't be any problem.
If you open an srt file, you will see that you have hours:minutes:seconds:decimals. Same as the original film it belonged to. Whatever the norm. If a film had 1 hour, 35 minutes, 20 seconds when it was telecined, believe me it will have exactly the same in a PAL or an NTSC DVD.
It doesn't matter whether the decimals in what should be time-code data are split in 25 or 30 frames. It will not drift out of sync. You don'thave to re-time anything.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 2. August 2006 @ 09:44
|
|
moonrocks
Member
|
2. August 2006 @ 10:19 |
Link to this message
|
"One minute in PAL will have exactly, exactly the same as one minute in NTSC: 60 seconds. "
Yes, 60 seconds is always 60 seconds, so.. after pressing play, then pressing stop 60 seconds later, for both your PAL and NTSC videos (from the same 24fps source) exactly 60 seconds has gone by in each case.
But, your PAL video will not have stopped on the same frame as your NTSC video. It will be ahead of it. PAL plays at a faster rate, 25 fps to NTSC's 23.97. It will reach the end of the movie quicker, the audio pitch throughout will be higher, approximately 1 semitone.
"What happens to movies is a different question. Movies are telecined converting 24 frames onto 25 frames in PAL countries and onto 30 frames in NTSC countries. They do not run faster, or music would be out of tune and musicians would be angry."
PAL video from a 24fps film source will run faster than the NTSC video from the same source. Most people, myself included, never notice the difference. Some musicians though are bothered by this, they hear the difference of the raised pitch.
You can see the different runtimes on PAL and NTSC DVD's of the same movie. The PAL movie finishes earlier. If you just take those PAL subs and reauther them with the NTSC video and don't re-time them they will go out of sync and complete before your movie is over.
"Det blåser også her." - Erik den røde
|
|
k0k0m0
Senior Member
|
2. August 2006 @ 11:29 |
Link to this message
|
I ain't no expert, but experience has shown me that with identical subtitles of identical movies but in different systems, mixing subtitles (NTSC in PAL and viceversa) has not given a perfect result.
Thus I always resync them...
I logged in on March 1st 2005, and it's incredible to believe that in so short time I've learnt all that I know about DVDs from this forum...
|
|
carlmart
Member
|
2. August 2006 @ 11:44 |
Link to this message
|
|
Sorry, Moonrocks. You have it all wrong.
I can't think of a better way to explain it than the one I did.
0101001: your problem is quite probably due to a delay in the titles that can be corrected. But for that you will have to reauthor your film and use Subtitle Workshop to correct the sub problem.
|
|
moonrocks
Member
|
2. August 2006 @ 12:13 |
Link to this message
|
carlmart, let's look at it from another angle, not the academic explanation, but the practical.
If, as you say, a PAL video from an 24fps film source is not running faster than the NTSC version from the same source, what do we make of the fact that PAL versions of the same film have shorter runtimes?
For example, I own both the NTSC and PAL version of Søren Kragh-Jacobsen's "Mifune". My NTSC DVD has a runtime of 102 minutes and my PAL disc has a runtime of 98 minutes. There are no scenes edited out of the PAL DVD, scene by scene, line by line of dialouge, it's identical to the NTSC version. Yet it finishes 4 minutes earlier. How does this happen if it's not running faster?
I have "Gregory's Girl" on both NTSC and PAL DVD. The runtime on my NTSC DVD is 91 minutes and the PAL is 87 minutes. If the PAL version is not running 4% faster why is it finishing earlier?
If I ripped the English subs of my PAL DVD of "Mifune", and made no adjustments to their timing, and then reauthered them to the NTSC video, the subs would be over after 98 minutes. What we see for sub-titles for minutes 99-102?
"Det blåser også her." - Erik den røde
|
|
Headborg
Member
|
7. August 2006 @ 20:05 |
Link to this message
|
If I may add my limited knowledge to this 'civil debate'- respectfully-moonrocks needs to review the whole framerate thing a bit more closely...but he's kinda right....and a second is a second.
Another concept that must be looked at reguarding subs is "Cueing" the cue method being employed to "tell" the file "when/where" to appear and how long to stay displayed. There seems to be 2 methods:
Time Based 01:45:87 and Frame Indexed Frame:2334-2345 With the first..a second is a second and it's absolute. But with the lader- if the framrate has changed--pulldown--etc There will be a screwed up subtitle sync issue.
|
|
AdRock925
Member
1 product review
|
7. August 2006 @ 20:11 |
Link to this message
|
|
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 7. August 2006 @ 20:19
|
|
moonrocks
Member
|
8. August 2006 @ 09:08 |
Link to this message
|
"respectfully-moonrocks needs to review the whole framerate thing a bit more closely..."
I'd be happy to do that, but I'm not sure what part of the framerate issue you're referring to. If you could explain it a little more specifically where I've gotten the framerate thing wrong that would help. Film 24 fps, NTSC 29.976 fps, PAL 25 fps.
"....and a second is a second." I keep hearing people say this :) But I still don't know what to make of it. Help me out a bit. Yes, a second is a second. A minute is a minute. But, one minute of an NTSC video is not equal to one minute of a PAL video, yes? Sure, 60 seconds goes by in both cases, but the video stops at different points, and that's where the problem begins.
What I'm trying to explain, which I guess I'm not doing a good job of, is that PAL video runs faster than NTSC video. Because of PAL's 25 fps, you end up with a movie with a shorter runtime and hihger audio pitch. Because the runtimes are different between the PAL and NTSC version of a movie, the timings of the subs will be different. You can't just take subs ripped from a PAL movie and reauthor them to the NTSC video.
When a 24 fps film source is transferred to NTSC the film is slowed down to 23.976fps to adjust for the NTSC framerate, then 3:2 pulldown is applied. The first frame of film is transferred to the first 3 fields of video. The second frame of film is transferred to the next 2 fields of video, etc. After 4 frames of the film source you'll end up with 5 frames of NTSC video.
When you play the original film source for exactly one second you will stop on frame 24. When you play the NTSC video for one second you will stop at frame 30. But because of the 4 to 5 frame transfer ratio, you have stopped at the same place on both your original film and your NTSC transfer. They are both running at the same speed and your original audio pitch is preserved.
When film is transferred to a PAL video 3:2 pulldown isn't applied. The first frame of your film source goes to 2 fields of PAL video. The second frame of your film goes to the next 2 fields of video, etc. So after 4 frames of your film you end up with 4 frames of PAL video.
But the PAL video is running at 25 fps and that's where the problem comes in. When you play the PAL video for one second, you don't stop at the same place as you did with the film or your NTSC video. You've stopped at frame 25, you are one frame further along.
PAL video is displaying the same number of frames as the original film source but at a faster framerate. Therefore PAL video has a shorter runtime and higher audio pitch than an NTSC video. It's running faster. It's called "PAL Speedup".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAL#PAL_speed-up
"Det blåser også her." - Erik den røde
|
|
Headborg
Member
|
8. August 2006 @ 12:08 |
Link to this message
|
Ok, here goes:
Lets take a even 2hr Movie. 2hrs=7,200 seconds
No mater which format- film,video(PAL,NTSC) the viewer still sets and the movie runs 2hrs. what MoonRocks is incorrect about is the "running faster" it would piss everyone off, be different pitch,etc.
What he's right about: is the Frame the video stops on.. being different ..depending on the framerate...if stoped exactly 60seconds into these different framerates it stops on a different Numbered frame.
where he's messed up on is the concept of "pulldown"
Starting with the film maker;
when filming with 35mm film....the film is shot at 23.976 frames per second...so that 2hr Movie: has 7,200x23.976=172,627.20 frames from beginning to end.
When film is transfered TO NTSC- a method called "pulldown" is applied which "duplicates" certain frames in a repeated fashion 2:3 or 3:2 pattern...the same 2 hr movie now has 7,200x29.976=215,827.20 frames from beginning to end.
When converted to PAL: same 2hr movie has 7,200x25=180,000 frames.
After 60 seconds stop the movie-yes, they all stop on a different frame, BUT if converted Right- that video frame is the exact same frame(image).
read these:
http://www.zerocut.com/tech/pulldown.html
http://users.raketnet.nl/bobv/ntsc2pal/
http://24p.com/conversion.htm
http://www.zerocut.com/tech/2_3_audio.html
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. August 2006 @ 14:35
|
|
moonrocks
Member
|
8. August 2006 @ 15:29 |
Link to this message
|
Hi Headborg :)
"No mater which format- film,video(PAL,NTSC) the viewer still sets and the movie runs 2hrs"
Well again, this is where we disagree. The runtimes of PAL and NTSC DVD's movies from the same film source are different. This is the heart of our disagreement. But as an aside, despite our framerate discussion on this, check IMDB and runtimes for various NTSC and PAL versions of DVD's. It's easy to see that they are different.
"when filming with 35mm film....the film is shot at 23.976 frames per second"
Again, I would have to respectfully disagree. Film is shot at 24 fps.
The problem I see with your calculations is that you're starting with an incorrect assumption (that film/NTSC/PAL all have the same runtime) and then your working your calculations back from there. You should start at the beginning, with the film source, and work the calculations forwards.
Start with the 24 fps film source. Let's take your example of a 120 minute film. This would be a film with 172800 frames. 24 fps x 60 sec. = 1440 fpminute x 120 minutes = 172800 frames for the original film source.
When applying 3:2 pulldown to transfer to NTSC every 4 frames of film source yields 5 frames of NTSC video. The first link in your last post states this as well. So after transferring our 172800 film frames to NTSC video using 3:2 pulldown We then have 216000 frames in our NTSC video.
216000 / 29.976fps = 7205.7646 sec. / 60 = 120.09 minutes runtime. An imperceptible difference by any human being.
The PAL transfer would not use 3:2 pulldown. Original frame number then remains the same.
172800 frames / 25 fps = 6912 sec. / 60 = 115.2 minutes runtime. A noticeable difference to many people. I can't notice the difference though.
"Det blåser også her." - Erik den røde
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. August 2006 @ 17:35
|
|
Headborg
Member
|
8. August 2006 @ 19:41 |
Link to this message
|
Remind me not to Rent my favorite movies In Europe again. If they really run slower 25fps than the same movie in US 29.976 fps then I would really be upset.
Film is not shot at exactly 24fps...it's shot at 23.976 fps....currently there are only about 2 types of HD video camera's that have the shutterspeed to shot at 24fps...this is what everyone wants...closer to film style.
Just google: 23.976 fps and you're get alot better info than the online encyclopedia.
take a look at this:
http://www.equipmentemporium.com/23_976_timecode.htm
and there's two ways to convert Film to 25fps(PAL) the easy way is the way you mentioned and the Wikipedia and then the right way (which is much more involved)
Cheers!
Sorry, I need to edit/retract that statement...Film is shot at 24fps but screens at 23.976 fps...and the data on the 24fps HD cameras is old...guess there are a lot more HD cameras avail now that shoot at 24fps.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 8. August 2006 @ 19:58
|
|
moonrocks
Member
|
8. August 2006 @ 22:06 |
Link to this message
|
Well, that guy is talking about syncing audio with Hi-def cameras.
"High Definition Cameras are in fact capable of running 24 fps Progressive scan. This is different than NTSC, which is 29.970 interlaced. If you use 24P (P = Progressive), it must be down converted to 29.97 fps NTSC for video assist or editing on an Avid."
"Another option is to ignore the 23.976 on the camera completely. Run your audio recorder with Time of Day (29.97fps) and jam sync your slate as usual."
I'm not sure how that even remotely relates to how film is transferred to commercial DVD's.
At least he explains the film to NTSC transfer correctly: "When 24 frame film is transferred to NTSC, the first film image is placed in three successive video fields and the second frame image is placed in the next two successive video fields. This process is repeated until the end of the film"
Let's backup a bit and see where we can agree, or perhaps not. One step at a time. All theory, and citing links aside, do you agree or not, that when a film is transferred to video the PAL transfer has a shorter runtime than the NTSC transfer? Simple question, let's start there.
"Det blåser også her." - Erik den røde
|
|
Headborg
Member
|
9. August 2006 @ 00:09 |
Link to this message
|
No the Runtime should be the same...otherwise you have "slow motion" or "fast motion" camera work going on. And the viewers of the same movie/ music are very upset.
The reason europeans love their 25fps is it's just 4% faster than Film..so when you do a transfer to video...using the quick&dirty method..it's very easy. And perhaps, as you pointed out above 120.09 or 5.4 seconds is hardly noticable...or is it? adding just alittle over a frame each second...does add up.
NTSC video runs at 29.976fps the runtime of the movie is still the same...but More Frames have been passed during the same second-this is where the pulldown comes into play.
|
|
carlmart
Member
|
9. August 2006 @ 04:00 |
Link to this message
|
Well, I must say Moonrocks was right after all.
PAL countries are in fact seeing movies speeded up 4% during telecine. A thorough research in the web came with things in URLs like this:
http://www.answers.com/topic/pal-1
Look up in "PAL speed-up".
I think I pity PAL countries, because they have seen movies at a faster speed than what they were shot at. Though maybe that's a good thing for certain movies, which at least won't let them suffer as much looking at them...
Now I understand why European 16mm film cameras (like Bolex, Eclair or Arriflex) had a 25fps option. At least they were sure what they shot was to be telecined at the right speed.
But I wonder what happens now, because I think NTSC programs are converted to PAL with the same exact time, and viceversa. If a film that was telecined in NTSC is then transferred to PAL there won't be any speed up.
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 9. August 2006 @ 04:38
|
|
moonrocks
Member
|
9. August 2006 @ 07:48 |
Link to this message
|
@Headborg
"No the Runtime should be the same".
If you have time, go to Amazon.uk and check the runtime for the PAL version of "Gregory's Girl", you'll see it listed as 87 minutes. Then go to Amazon.com and check the runtime for the NTSC version, it's 91 minutes. At Amazon.uk the runtime for the PAL version of "My Life as a Dog" is 97 minutes. At Amazon.com the NTSC version is 101 minutes.
The shorter run times on the PAL versions of the movie are from PAL speed-up. If you still believe that PAL and NTSC versions of films run at the same time... then we'll just have agree to disagree and leave the conversation there.
Occassionaly you'll see an NTSC DVD and PAL DVD with the same runtime. For example I own the NTSC "Flickering Lights" and the Danish PAL version "Blinkende Lygter". They both have a run time of 109 minutes. But after you watch the NTSC version it's very easy to see what they did. The NTSC version was not transferred from the original film. It was simply transferred from the PAL version, so it ends up with the same runtime, and a horrible image as well.
@carlmart
Welcome to the world of PAL-speedup :)
"Det blåser også her." - Erik den røde
|
|
Headborg
Member
|
9. August 2006 @ 10:23 |
Link to this message
|
PAL
PAL (25fps) is normally converted to Film (24fps) by slowing down the video by about 4% to make it run at 24fps, and printing each frame of video to a frame of film. The reverse conversion is done by speeding up the film about 4% and matching so that it's now running at 25fp and printing each frame of film to video. these methods provide a very high standard of conversion, but the 4% speed up or down means that the audio must also be adjusted to match, and the running time of the finished program will be slightly different. This has often caused confusion to PAL movie viewers who thought that their DVD or VHS copy of the movie was cut by a few minutes compared to the cinema version. This was not the case - it's just that the movie runs 4% fast on video because of the conversion method.<---This is the PAL speed up techique...refered to as the "quick and dirty" method by myself above....try it on a 3.5-4 hr "Epic" and do you're calculations and that 4% speedup is very unexceptable.
Another method of converting PAL to and from film involves NO SPEED UP, but uses the addition or subtraction of 1 frame every second to make up for the 24fps to 25fps difference. This method preserved timings, but will introduce a "jump" in the video every second when the extra frame is added in as a duplication of the previous frame. On talking heads shots, this is barely noticeable, but on action it looks really bad.<<-- method 2.
A variant on this adds or subtracts 1 field every half second. This involves more complicated processing to make sure the field ordering remains correct, but produces a much smoother result that is very acceptable.<----BEST and the Runtime MATCHES.
|
|
moonrocks
Member
|
9. August 2006 @ 10:42 |
Link to this message
|
Yes, that second method you mention results in no speed up. Thing is though, that's not the technique used when creating commercial PAL DVD's. They're all transferred to video using the speed-up.
"Det blåser også her." - Erik den røde
|
|
carlmart
Member
|
9. August 2006 @ 10:46 |
Link to this message
|
Yes, the subtracting method is the preferred one for transferring PAL video to film.
The correction software involved has to solve many less problems than those converting 30 video frames onto 24 film frames.
But if you do not have music involved, the PAL>film one frame per frame is the cheaper process of choice. No software involved to correct anything means less lab cost.
Even if you have music, you can correct it later on, assembling the music after video transfer and going back to the editing room just for that. It's also advised to make a mix after that video transfer.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
moonrocks
Member
|
27. August 2006 @ 17:46 |
Link to this message
|
Sorry for the delayed reply, I haven't been watching this thread lately. Just wanted to add a few thoughts though.
carlmart responded:
"Yes, the subtracting method is the preferred one for transferring PAL video to film."
But, this thread was about what happens when transferring film to PAL video, not the other way around. Completely different process in reverse.
Also, it's by no means a consensus that the alternate methods of transferring film to PAL video (which avoid speedup) are preferred. There are tradeoffs (jumpiness) with each of the alternatives.
The 4% speedup method of transferring film to PAL video is what's universally used for commercial DVD's. For better or for worse, that's what we live with.
headborg's statement:
"it's just that the movie runs 4% fast on video because of the conversion method.<---This is the PAL speed up techique..."
Thank you. That was my whole point in this thread, from beginning to end. PAL transfers run faster than their NTSC counterparts.
That a technique exists of transferring film to PAL video which avoids the 4% speedup is fantastic. But, the fact that in the real world no one uses it, leaves us back at square one. PAL transfers from film run faster (shorter runtime, higher audio pitch) than NTSC transfers.
"Det blåser også her." - Erik den røde
|
|
