Home› Archived Forums› General Discussion
Options

BBC Subs fails

Comments

  • Options
    fleabeefleabee Posts: 1,852
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #2
    That is fantastic!
  • Options
    DMN1968DMN1968 Posts: 2,875
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #3
    Go on then, I give up - what on earth was this supposed to be?

    :confused::confused::confused::)
  • Options
    NilremNilrem Posts: 6,940
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #4
    That is pretty awesome, I wonder if it was an automated subtitling system.
    I know every time I try voice recognition (I've been dabbling with it on and off for about 12 years), it has trouble with common words, which can be quite funny if you catch it before you send it, and embarrassing if you don't.

    IIRC youtube uses an automated one for some things, and it comes up with some real howlers.
  • Options
    crunchienutcrunchienut Posts: 885
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #5
    HA. Subtitles aren't very good tbh. I have deaf family members so basically grew up with subtitles on everything. They are regularly so slow that the picture is about 5 minutes before the words, or they make no sense. Or of course they say '****' by accident ;)
  • Options
    pickwickpickwick Posts: 25,739
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #6
    Nilrem wrote: »
    That is pretty awesome, I wonder if it was an automated subtitling system.
    I know every time I try voice recognition (I've been dabbling with it on and off for about 12 years), it has trouble with common words, which can be quite funny if you catch it before you send it, and embarrassing if you don't.

    IIRC youtube uses an automated one for some things, and it comes up with some real howlers.
    Nah, it's real people, but they are using voice recognition software (mostly - there are some stenographers still, but very few.) They train it to recognise their voice/ way of speaking, then repeat everything that's said on TV into it, adding punctuation and so on. You can see with the YouTube stuff that voice recognition software isn't ready to do it fully automated yet - the quality of it is a lot worse than TV subtitles!
  • Options
    pickwickpickwick Posts: 25,739
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #7
    DMN1968 wrote: »
    Go on then, I give up - what on earth was this supposed to be?

    :confused::confused::confused::)
    Year of the Horse, the new Chinese year.
  • Options
    technologisttechnologist Posts: 13,383
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    #8
    Ofcom is on the case see http://stakeholders.ofcom.org.uk/consultations/subtitling/

    And they are requiring the broadcasters to report on accuracy and timing.

    Generally during the day. The viewers need accuracy and in the evening speed which is typically
    Under 6 secs

    But see what the BBC is doing http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/projects/live-subtitle-quality
    Which matters to them because they subtitle 100% ..
    But homophones are a nightmare !!!
    See http://www.redbeemedia.com/blog/subtilting
    And http://www.redbeemedia.com/blog/subtitling
  • Options
    karapote monkeykarapote monkey Posts: 3,688
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    #9
    My favourite one was when an old lady was being patriotic saying "I love Libya" but the subtitles said "I love the beer" :D
  • Options
    CryolemonCryolemon Posts: 8,670
    Forum Member
    ✭
    #10
    A US station once managed to do the same with the word "Hawks" (as in the Black Hawks ice hockey team IIRC). "Black ****" indeed lol.
Sign In or Register to comment.