Skip to main content

Thoughts Regarding the Use of Subtitles in Videos

 

Videos are a great way of getting Bible stories out to people, including children. If the audience is literate, it is often a good idea to include subtitles with videos. Even if they are functionally illiterate, it might make sense to include them, so as to encourage growth in literacy amongst the group. In YouTube it is possible to add these later in YouTube Studio. You can also allow others to add subtitles for their language, if you wish. For social media platforms like Facebook it is often better to hardcode the subtitles onto the video. If you are using a program like Shotcut this is not possible. You have to download another program that has this option e.g. Filmora (though this needs to be paid for) and Kdenlive (free and open source). If you want a program that is easy to use, go for Filmora over Kdenlive, as the former has a really nice user interface.

The reason we want to include subtitles is that people sitting on a bus, or in a waiting room, or somewhere like that, want to watch short videos on YouTube and other platforms without having to listen to the audio. There is usually an option to turn sound off within the program, and many users have this set to no audio by default. If they get really interested in a video, they might plug in their ear buds and turn on the sound. Might. 

The received wisdom on length of videos is that longer ones need to go on YouTube. If you only have short videos, other platforms are fine. You can put them on YouTube as well.

It is possible to create the subtitles in YouTube, by copying and pasting from Paratext or similar Bible program, then editing them to get rid of punctuation marks. Videos with quote marks and so on are not popular with viewers. It is possible to download the subtitles and timings in a settings file such as an .srt file. This can then be imported into Kdenlive or Filmora to create a video with hardcoded subtitles. The reason to use YouTube is that Studio is a really convenient subtitle editor - much better than the ones you'll find in Filmora or Kdenlive. Shotcut doesn't allow subtitles, unfortunately.

The really useful feature in YouTube is that viewers can turn subtitles on and off at will, change the language, and even speed up the video, whether or not they are reading the subtitles or listening to the audio. This can probably be done in other programs but I haven't tried it myself.

All in all, try and make the videos appropriate for the chosen (target) audience. It's no good going to all the work of creating subtitles when 99% of your audience can't read.

Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Scripture Engagement for Translation Advisors

What do translation advisors need to know about Scripture engagement (SE), and why? Let's look at the 'why' first: Translation advisors (TAs) are often involved in day-to-day exegesis. They help mother-tongue translators (MTTs) prepare drafts. The MTTs they work with might not know Hebrew or Greek. The TAs then take part in the team check of that draft, which involves other MTTs in the project as well as the TA. Sometimes they are also involved in the coordination of the translation programme. They are very busy people. So why do they need to know about SE? Because: The translation is ultimately for an audience that has felt needs that are not being addressed by the translation programme. Analysing and meeting (or helping to meet) the felt needs of the audience should be the first priority of any mission worker, including TAs. Only about 30% of completed translations are well used. The initial set up of the programme needs to take SE into consideration (it's no good wai...
Post a Comment
Read more

One Person's Contextualisation is Another Person's Syncretism

I was in an interesting discussion full of anthropologists the other day. They were discussing syncretism. Most of them were of the view that outsiders cannot decide which practices are syncretistic and which are not. It has to be a decision made by local believers. This is because only local people can create indigenous theologies, that is, interpret Scripture according to the local worldview(s).  Not only that, some practices need to be tolerated in the short term, as we trust that new believers will gradually mature, and realise that those practices need to be weaned out of their lives. This can take time, perhaps years. Outsiders can, however, help local believers through the process of deciding for themselves which practices need to be rejected, which can be accepted, and which need to be modified according to (local formed) principles from Scripture. For example, ancestor practices, which my PhD thesis was on, are often continued by people after they have come to faith. They...
Post a Comment
Read more

The Problems and Pitfalls of Proof-Texting

Why is it wrong to proof-text when making an argument?  Proof-texting is when someone simply quotes a verse from the Bible, out of context, to make a point. This can be in a book, a conversation, an essay, or a sermon, to give some examples. I just did a quick read of some other blogs on this topic, and none of them wowed me, so I thought I'd write my own. Then I had an even better idea: why not get you to tell me why proof-texting is problematic? In other words, I want to crowd-source the problem, and get lots of input. Since it is my suggestion, and I already did some research, let me get the ball rolling. Proof-texting is problematic because: It ignores the original context of the verse. There are actually two types of context: The literary context of the verse, that is, the verse is situated in a passage (that might be making an entirely different point) of Scripture that has a certain genre. For instance, the book of Acts is narrative, which means it is descriptive of what hap...
3 comments
Read more