- From: Luke-Jr <Luke7Jr@yahoo.com>
- Date: Wed, 12 Feb 2003 12:19:24 -0500
- To: public-tt@w3.org
- Message-ID: <3E4A821C.4060403@yahoo.com>
I haven't had much time to read/contribute to this ML yet, but I just thought it would be important to point out that using a time standard (such as English time) would be a mistake since there are more than one time standard (I myself have been recently switching over to use the hexadecimal time standard). Yet using frame numbers would also be a problem as the TT script might be used with different video files/streams which have different framerates. I'm not sure what alternative is left over, but those are two important things to consider... lists@wiltgen.net wrote: >Johnb@screen.subtitling.com wrote... > > > >>FileX is indexed against the timecode that is stored as VBI data on TapeX. >>So unlike SMIL - the media are separate - subtitles in one - video and >>audio on another. >> >> > >You can forget about SMIL, although I think that understanding what it is >a useful prerequisite for anyone who wants to contribute. > >Unless I'm missing something, Proposal 0.0 works just the way you would like >-- subtitles in one file, video and audio in another. > > > >>In practice, the broadcaster will want to show adverts. These can occur >>at **any time** during the broadcast, and may differ from showing to >>showing... >> >> > >In my previous post I described how this would work. (Please let me know >if the explanation didn't make seise.) > > > >>Subtitles are frame accurate for lip synching. >> >> > >I've explained a few times why time (rather than frame-based timecode) >must be used. As two examples, the TT should still work when taking a >24fps film source to NTSC, or to the web via a QuickTime movie with a >default timebase of 600 units/second whose video content is encoded at >12fps. > > > >>I can conceive of other situations where the assumption of 1 sec per sec >>is invalid. >> >> > >I know you're not serious, but I don't get the joke. > > > >>...timebases can always be converted into a single format. >> >> > >Exactly, and that single format is time. > >-- Charles Wiltgen > <http://playbacktime.com/> > > > > > >
Received on Wednesday, 12 February 2003 12:20:23 UTC