Even the BBC Acknowledge that their Subtitles are Bad
Discussion
I am pleased that they populated this article with so many examples:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31035...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-31035...
So how much would you like the BBC to spend on developing better solutions? Live subtitling is a very tricky to achieve, especially as the vocabulary used in news is much greater than 'normal' speech.
The 'spokesman' quoted a figure of 1 in 6 having some form of hearing loss. Note he didn't care to quote the vastly smaller figure of how many have hearing loss great enough to mean they can only understand using the subtitles.
And don't get me started on how much Audio Description costs.
No doubt a post will be along in a minute b
hing about how much the BBC costs.
The 'spokesman' quoted a figure of 1 in 6 having some form of hearing loss. Note he didn't care to quote the vastly smaller figure of how many have hearing loss great enough to mean they can only understand using the subtitles.
And don't get me started on how much Audio Description costs.
No doubt a post will be along in a minute b
hing about how much the BBC costs. Edited by Mr Pointy on Friday 30th January 23:06
Mr Pointy said:
The 'spokesman' quoted a figure of 1 in 6 having some form of hearing loss. Note he didn't care to quote the vastly smaller figure of how many have hearing loss great enough to mean they can only understand using the subtitles.
Indeed, that's like saying what the percentage is of people with some form of visual impairment (i.e. anyone who wears glasses at least some of the time). I don't know what the percentage is, but it must be petty large. But as you say, it does not mean if your wear glasses you can't see. I hadn't realised it was an ongoing issue, but then I rarely watch with subtitles. I was watching my all-time favourite band of all time on Breakfast the other day when one of them pointed out there had been a spelling mistake on the subtitles while they were in the green room. However, they'd already got their own back on him, by spelling his name wrong on the overlay.
Piece in the paper on Friday suggested that recently it happened quite a lot while they were interviewing a subtitles editor.
Piece in the paper on Friday suggested that recently it happened quite a lot while they were interviewing a subtitles editor.
Morningside said:
I have subtitles on most of the time and what annoys me are complete chunks of missing dialog. Compressed dialog for example the wit of Blackadder missing too much text and destroying the comedy value and finally out of sync all together.
Unfortunately that's inevitable given the difference in speed our brains process spoken & written words; we simply cannot read as fast as we can speak. The subtitler cannot stretch the pictures & has to try & fit the words into the space/time available. As the words on screen cannot linger over a scene change (or sometimes a shot change) they have to paraphrase what is being said. It's difficult to do when the material is so wordy & complex. a lot of effort goes into preparing the subtitles so they convey as much as possible but don't jar the visual experience.majordad said:
I depend a lot on subtitles.
Many people do, which is why they are one of the few mandatory signal transmitted. There's no statutory requirement to transmit pictures or sound, but subtitles & AD (to a more limited extent) are mandatory. It's just that there is little appreciation of how difficult it is & the broadcasters aren't trying to get it wrong on purpose. It's annoying that the BBC put a lot of effort (& money) in & it's just used as another excuse to bash them.Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff