Question time.
Aktan just explained me in the IRC that the point of using hardsubs is to put them during action, to avoid the TASes to be stolen.
After I saw that I thought.... How about our HD encodes? Why are we using softsubs for YouTube? People can download the encodes using sites like KeepVid!
So, after reading this, do you think it's a good idea to use hardsubs in HD encodes as well?
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
The argument that was presented to me at the time is that it's more difficult to download and redistribute a large file size HD encode from a streaming site than it is to download and redistribute our normal encodes.
That having been said, I would prefer that future HD encodes are hard-subtitled.
It's a good idea to put them in the video file itself. You are right Mister Epic, the encode can be stolen! And who care if they are sub at the beginning of the video anyway.
The problem is not that it's stolen, it's in the fact that the information about what is being seen has a much harder way to reach the viewer if subtitles are not present for whatever reason. I normally prefer softsubs wherever possible, but this is one of those cases where the otherwise is better.
Those of you who weren't around in 2003–2006 may not know, but TASVideos and TASing in general often suffered ostracism from people who thought TASers don't put enough effort into making clear that runs were not done normally as an unprepared person would expect. "Stealing" a published run (as in reposting it elsewhere without author's explicit consent) was never a huge problem as long as it still had author information, explanation that it was a TAS, and a link to this site.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 11/4/2007
Posts: 1772
Location: Australia, Victoria
Honestly, most of the reason I never did it was because I was trying to churn out encodes in nearly a factory line fashion (And that it's generally more difficult to download them), but I'm getting the feeling I'm going to have to set up some subs in AviSynth again.
The fact that my flow of HD encodes is beginning to choke up will probably give me more motivation to chuck in some subtitles.
"Stealing" a published run (as in reposting it elsewhere without author's explicit consent) was never a huge problem as long as it still had author information, explanation that it was a TAS, and a link to this site.
It might not been a huge problem, but it has happened. For example that infamous relatively recent case where someone was uploading TASes to YouTube, and deliberately stripping the "this is a tool-assisted recording" message and the reference to tasvideos.org from the beginning. I don't know if the motivation was to steal credit (IIRC he didn't explicitly claim he the run, unassisted or not, but at the very least it was implied by not telling anything explicit about the source of the video), to sabotage TASing by spreading misinformation, or just pure vandalism (which is probably the most likely reason).
For example that infamous relatively recent case where someone was uploading TASes to YouTube, and deliberately stripping the "this is a tool-assisted recording" message and the reference to tasvideos.org from the beginning. I don't know if the motivation was to steal credit (IIRC he didn't explicitly claim he the run, unassisted or not, but at the very least it was implied by not telling anything explicit about the source of the video), to sabotage TASing by spreading misinformation, or just pure vandalism (which is probably the most likely reason).
It could also be that he thought it's interesting to see how people will react if they don't know how it's done. People who haven't heard about TASing would be amazed and write "wtf, how did you do that" in the comments... but when there's a disclaimer that says it's tool-assisted with a link that explains it all, it can spoil it for some people and they will go "ah, it's just a hax/cheat video, how boring".
