Occasional subtitle glitches on BBC One Freesat

[davidr...@postmaster.co.uk]

I have a Humax Freesat PVR. I don't normally use the subtitles, but
the sound mix on The Body Farm was so bad (speech often indistinct)
that I switched them on.

Occasionally a screen of subtitles would be missing - so if a sentence
was split over two screens, half the sentence was missing - the
previous half just stayed on screen. That's how I know it wasn't an
intentional editorial decision to leaves bits out of the subtitles:
because the result made no sense! Very occasionally the subtitles
would appear and then very quickly disappear.

I've now seen this on other programmes, both recorded and live.

I asked on Digital Spy, and one person claimed to have seen the same
thing, but on BBC channels only.

Anyone else experienced this? Anyone know whether I should be
contacting Humax or the BBC?

Cheers,
David.

[Another John]

On 21/10/2011 16:47, davidr...@postmaster.co.uk wrote:
> I don't normally use the subtitles, but
> the sound mix on The Body Farm was so bad (speech often indistinct)
> that I switched them on.

Same here.

>Occasionally a screen of subtitles would be missing - so if a sentence
>was split over two screens, half the sentence was missing - the
>previous half just stayed on screen.

That's how it was on my Technika Freeview PVR, so it's not your Humax.

John.

[Jerry]

"Another John" <m...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:WZgoq.3296$V_3....@newsfe06.ams2...

:

The BBC are reportedly having a lot of trouble with their voice
recognition subtitling software, apparently some pigs on a recent
(IIRC) Country File some pigs had a tendency to "nibble on
peoples willies" rather that the /wellies/ the presenter was
actually talking about! :~o
--
Regards, Jerry.

[Peter Duncanson]

There's nothing wrong with the voice recognition software. The
presenters need elocution lessons to teach them to speak properly so
that the software can understand them. :-)

Where's Professor Higgins when we need him?



--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

[Brian Gaff]

I don't think its just sat, as somone mntiioned it to me about a week ago.
also I've noticed AD where they fade down and up are out of sequence cutting
off the AD. Does anyone at the BBC watch or listen to these extra services,
or do they rely on complaints to fix problems perhaps.










?

Brian

--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
<davidr...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote in message
news:fb099b66-d3bb-4153...@fk25g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

[Bill Wright]

Peter Duncanson wrote:

> Where's Professor Higgins when we need him?

Personally my attitude to people who say 'universi-y' and
'inteligibili-y' is such that I ask them to either speak properly or
shut up.

Bill

[Jerry]

"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:j7t6qr$mn0$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

:

I hope that you do so in "Standard (Queens) English" and not your
more usual broad Yorkshire accent, otherwise you will just come
over as a bit of a prat at best and a bigoted old fool at
worse...
--
Regards, Jerry.

[Bill Wright]

There's a difference between a regional accent and sloppy speech.

Bill

[charles]

In article <j7uiee$l8b$2...@speranza.aioe.org>,

but when you add regional dialect words .........

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

[Andy Champ]

True.

But there's an argument that replacing a T with a glottal stop _is_ a
regional accent. Unlike, for example, saying "free" for three.

Andy

[Bill Wright]

Where it's a regional accent it's fine. But kids all over the country
affect it.

Bill

[Jerry]

"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message

news:j7uiee$l8b$2...@speranza.aioe.org...

:

Rubbish

[Bill Wright]

Jerry wrote:

> : There's a difference between a regional accent and sloppy
> speech.
> :
>
> Rubbish

There's no way I can counter an argument of such depth and power.

Bill

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message <j7t6qr$mn0$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Bill Wright

You've got to tell 'em to Shu' Up if they're going to understand you
(-:. [Or F*ing shu' up, probably.]
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

If a cluttered desk is characteristic of a cluttered mind, what does an empty
desk mean ?

[Jerry]

"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message

news:j7vhed$3qu$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

:

Ok if you really need to have it spelt out...

How is a unintellable regional accent any different to
unintellable pronunciation - its not called "Standard English"
(sometimes also known as 'Queens' or 'BBC' English) for nothing
you know.
--
Regards, Jerry.

[Jerry]

"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message

news:j7vhed$3qu$1...@speranza.aioe.org...

[Graham.]

Also Received Pronunciation or RP,
But perhaps it would be better not to lecture us about it until you
master the difference between its and it's.


--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

[S Viemeister]

"Unintellable"?

[Bill Wright]

J. P. Gilliver (John) wrote:
> In message <j7t6qr$mn0$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Bill Wright

>> Personally my attitude to people who say 'universi-y' and
>> 'inteligibili-y' is such that I ask them to either speak properly or
>> shut up.
>>
>> Bill
>
> You've got to tell 'em to Shu' Up if they're going to understand you
> (-:. [Or F*ing shu' up, probably.]

That's a good idea, although when the 't' is at the end of the word they
generally sound it.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

Educated regional accents aren't unintelligible. Consider Kathy
Clugston, Wilfred Pickles. Of course RP, 'Standard English' is a
regional accent anyway, no different to any other. The fact that the
London-centric middle-class-centric BBC make out that it is superior to
all others accents doesn't make it so. To those of us who don't speak it
it sounds very odd, tortured almost. Why on earth say 'baaaaarth' when
you can say 'bath'?

You are confusing regional accents with sloppy speech.

Anyway Jerry, what's your accent? Like many others who don't have the
courage of your convictions you post here under a cloak of anonymity,
but you could at least spill the beams on your vowel sounds.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

Graham. wrote:

>> How is a unintellable regional accent any different to
>> unintellable pronunciation - its not called "Standard English"
>> (sometimes also known as 'Queens' or 'BBC' English) for nothing
>> you know.
>
> Also Received Pronunciation or RP,
> But perhaps it would be better not to lecture us about it until you
> master the difference between its and it's.
>

He could do with learning to spell 'unintelligible' as well.

Bill

[Peter Duncanson]

Ah, but... the difference between its and it's is not a matter of
pronuncification.

[Jerry]

"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message

news:j814mo$jtg$1...@speranza.aioe.org...


<snip>
: You are confusing regional accents with sloppy speech.

No Bill, it is you who seem to be mixing up regional accents
(different Pronunciations [1]) with regional dialects (different
words [1]) that share the same meaning, the former is, to those
who do not speak or understand the accent, sloppy speech whilst
the latter is just plain 'quaint.

[1] for example dropping ones "H's" or "T's"

[2] for example, "Twitten" vs. path or alleyway.
--
Regards, Jerry.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <cu58a7dfr336kj3su...@4ax.com>, Peter Duncanson
<ma...@peterduncanson.net> writes

But hardly anyone at the BBC (even those employed in the Pronunciation
Department) can pronounce "pronunciation" correctly - let alone
"pronuncification".
--
Ian

[Ian Jackson]

In message <j814c0$il2$2...@speranza.aioe.org>, Bill Wright
<bi...@invalid.com> writes

Is it just me, or do others also find that the singer "Dido" never ends
any of her words (no matter what letter they end in)?
--
Ian

[Bill Wright]

Peter Duncanson wrote:

>> But perhaps it would be better not to lecture us about it until you
>> master the difference between its and it's.
>
> Ah, but... the difference between its and it's is not a matter of
> pronuncification.
>

No but it's evidence of a lack of education and/or intelligence.

Bill

[J G Miller]

On Sunday, October 23rd, 2011 at 14:26:50h +0100, Bill Wright wrote:

> Of course RP, 'Standard English' is a regional accent anyway

It would be more accurate to call it an artificial, non-natural,
non-organic accent, rather like the language Esperanto.

Standard English is spoken by the BBC Broadcasting House appartchiks,
but it is most certainly not the Queen's English as spoken by Brenda
who says eg "haise" not "house" and who tends to miss the "g" off
words such as "goin rowin?", "reinin monarch" etc.

[Bill Wright]

Jerry wrote:

> No Bill, it is you who seem to be mixing up regional accents
> (different Pronunciations [1]) with regional dialects (different
> words [1]) that share the same meaning, the former is, to those
> who do not speak or understand the accent, sloppy speech whilst
> the latter is just plain 'quaint.
>
> [1] for example dropping ones "H's" or "T's"
>
> [2] for example, "Twitten" vs. path or alleyway.

Anyway Jerry, what's your accent? Like many others who don't have the
courage of your convictions you post here under a cloak of anonymity,

but you could at least spill the beans on your vowel sounds.

Bill

[Bill Wright]

I actually did meet a chap the other week who said 'goff' for 'golf'.

Bill

[Jerry]

"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message

news:j81dar$9sc$5...@speranza.aioe.org...

:

Or just a typo.

[Jerry]

"Bill Wright" <bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message

news:j81ddm$9sc$6...@speranza.aioe.org...
: Jerry wrote:
:
<snipped>
: >
: > [2] for example, "Twitten" vs. path or alleyway.

:
: Anyway Jerry, what's your accent? Like many others who don't
have the

I have told you but you're to ignorant to realise!...

[Graham.]

I'm guessing that "ginnel" might be the word of choice in Bill's part of
Yorkshire.



--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

[Bill Wright]

Graham. wrote:

>> [2] for example, "Twitten" vs. path or alleyway.
> I'm guessing that "ginnel" might be the word of choice in Bill's part of
> Yorkshire.

It's more familiar than 'twitten', and would be recognised and not
commented upon, but I think most people would say 'back alley', or if it
went between the houses, 'passage'.

As in the very old joke, "Doctor, I put the stuff in my back passage and
left it there overnight like you said, but I'm no better."

Bill

[Graham.]

No, not in this case, it's incorrect English usage though.

Yorkshire folk make a big distinction in the way they pronounce "to" and
"two/too"

Now much of the BBC is moving to Salford, I suppose the rest of us will
be talking like the Gallaghers within 10 years.


--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

[Graham.]

Wicked I know, but I can never resist not putting an extra l in her name.

--

Graham.

%Profound_observation%

[Dave Liquorice]

On Sun, 23 Oct 2011 16:01:08 +0100, Ian Jackson wrote:

> But hardly anyone at the BBC (even those employed in the Pronunciation
> Department)

Does that still exist? When I was there (20 years ago) it had become
an internal chargeable service so productions stopped using it.
Before you just rang 'em up if you had a query and you got an answer.
After the internal costings came in you had to provide a
programme/charge number before you got anywhere. Don't you just love
accountants...

--
Cheers
Dave.

[Roderick Stewart]

In article <j81dk4$9sc$7...@speranza.aioe.org>, Bill Wright wrote:
> > Standard English is spoken by the BBC Broadcasting House appartchiks,
> > but it is most certainly not the Queen's English as spoken by Brenda
> > who says eg "haise" not "house" and who tends to miss the "g" off
> > words such as "goin rowin?", "reinin monarch" etc.
> I actually did meet a chap the other week who said 'goff' for 'golf'.

I thought it was only Betjeman that did that. Perhaps he was a fan.

One of my pet irritations in the way a lot of southerners pronounce words
is the spurious interspersed "R" when one word ends and the next begins
with a vowel. It's even more irritating when you realise these are the
same people who don't pronounce the letter R when it legitimately does
occur at the end of a word, for example "car", which they pronounce
"caa". Clearly they do know how to say the sound, because they say it
when it isn't there, so why don't they say it when it is?

Rod.
--
Virtual Access V6.3 free usenet/email software from
http://sourceforge.net/projects/virtual-access/

[MB]

Surely none of us have an accent, it is everyone else who has an accent.

[Jerry]

"MB" <M...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message
news:bKGdncxoUrN7xTjT...@bt.com...

<snip>
:
: Surely none of us have an accent, it is everyone else who has
an accent.

Exactly! So when someone makes a comment like Bill did the only
person who will come over as a pizzle [1] is the person
complaining, unless someone else is also called Richard...

[1] farmers should understand that, townies probably not :~)
--
Regards, Jerry.

[David Kennedy]

Jerry wrote:
> "Bill Wright"<bi...@invalid.com> wrote in message
> news:j814mo$jtg$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
>
>
> <snip>
> : You are confusing regional accents with sloppy speech.
>
> No Bill, it is you who seem to be mixing up regional accents
> (different Pronunciations [1]) with regional dialects (different
> words [1]) that share the same meaning, the former is, to those
> who do not speak or understand the accent, sloppy speech whilst
> the latter is just plain 'quaint.
>

Then those people who do not understand the accent are at fault. What
about people who find /your/ accent confusing Jerry?

> [1] for example dropping ones "H's" or "T's"
>
> [2] for example, "Twitten" vs. path or alleyway.


--

David Kennedy

http://www.anindianinexile.com

[David Kennedy]

But is he /too/ ignorant to spell correctly?

[davidr...@postmaster.co.uk]

On Oct 21, 5:21 pm, Another John <m...@invalid.com> wrote:
> On 21/10/2011 16:47, davidrobin...@postmaster.co.uk wrote:
>
> > I don't normally use the subtitles, but
> > the sound mix on The Body Farm was so bad (speech often indistinct)
> > that I switched them on.
>
> Same here.
>
>  >Occasionally a screen of subtitles would be missing - so if a sentence
>  >was split over two screens, half the sentence was missing - the
>  >previous half just stayed on screen.
>
> That's how it was on my Technika Freeview PVR, so it's not your Humax.

Does anyone know how to report a technical fault to the BBC?

Going from the complaints website, "report a technical fault", just
takes you to a website where they tell you what you're doing wrong.
Most of the advice is relevant to analogue teletext subtitles! The
newer advice is basically "buy a new STB - yours must be old and
crap"...
http://faq.external.bbc.co.uk/questions/help_receiving/subtitle_problems
...If you click through and say "did this advice work? No, I need
help" you get a form for reporting reception problems, with the
ominous warning that you probably won't get a reply!

I've tried it anyway, but does anyone know of a better route to get
this fixed?

Cheers,
David.

[Alan White]

On Tue, 25 Oct 2011 02:18:56 -0700 (PDT),
"davidr...@postmaster.co.uk" <davidr...@postmaster.co.uk> wrote:

>I've tried it anyway, but does anyone know of a better route to get
>this fixed?

mark.t...@bbc.co.uk perhaps.

Worth a try?

--
Alan White
Mozilla Firefox and Forte Agent.
By Loch Long, twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow, Scotland.
Webcam and weather:- http://windycroft.co.uk/weather

[MB]

You have to fill in a long form - make you say that your neighbours have
the same fault.

They don't copy the text of the message back to you so often you get a
reply a month or so later (literally) which tells you there has been no
fault but you can't remember what you reported!

It's a very poor system now, if the fault affects all channels
(Freeview) I find it more effective to go through STV or CH4.

Fortunately Arquiva gave me their phone number earlier in the year.

[tony sayer]

>> Does anyone know how to report a technical fault to the BBC?
>>
>> Going from the complaints website, "report a technical fault", just
>> takes you to a website where they tell you what you're doing wrong.
>> Most of the advice is relevant to analogue teletext subtitles! The
>> newer advice is basically "buy a new STB - yours must be old and
>> crap"...
>> http://faq.external.bbc.co.uk/questions/help_receiving/subtitle_problems
>> ...If you click through and say "did this advice work? No, I need
>> help" you get a form for reporting reception problems, with the
>> ominous warning that you probably won't get a reply!
>>
>> I've tried it anyway, but does anyone know of a better route to get
>> this fixed?
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David.
>
>
>
>
>You have to fill in a long form - make you say that your neighbours have
>the same fault.
>
>They don't copy the text of the message back to you so often you get a
>reply a month or so later (literally) which tells you there has been no
>fault but you can't remember what you reported!
>
>It's a very poor system now, if the fault affects all channels
>(Freeview) I find it more effective to go through STV or CH4.
>
>Fortunately Arquiva gave me their phone number earlier in the year.
>

If.. It is transmission related you can try Arqiva if you get hold of
the right person and you can convince them your not some idiot wanting
perfick reception on an indoor aerial then yes, they are quite good.
Look up Emley moor service centre its on their website somewhere...

Complaining to the broadcasters is about as productive as hitting your
head 'agin the wall;(...
--
Tony Sayer

[Jerry]

"MB" <M...@nospam.nospam> wrote in message

news:E4SdnTVCPImrMDvT...@bt.com...

[ re BBC compaints system ]

<snipped for brevity>
: It's a very poor system now, if the fault affects all channels

: (Freeview) I find it more effective to go through STV or CH4.

:

There whole complaints system, either postal, web, or phone, is
poor, almost certainly designed to annoy people to the point of
giving up. :~(
--
Regards, Jerry.

[MB]

The problem is that Arquiva has no contract with the listeners and
viewers so no direct responsibility to them. I would think they do not
want to get involved in individual listeners and viewers contacting them
direct unless it is someone they have given their number as a reliable
contact.

In my problem earlier in the year I found that CH4 replied and asked for
more information, after a bit of confusion I think this was passed to
Arquiva.

STV also asked for more information, there were a few silly questions
but soon convinced them there was a problem and it was passed to Arquiva.

BBC seemed to do nothing, might have passed to Arquiva but it did not
have any effect. I mentioned a previous case where I know there was a
loss of sound (pre-DSO) for a substantial period and they just denied it
a couple of months later. It was so long that I had difficulty
remembering what the fault had been and had to speak to the local dealer
who remembered it.

[charles]

In article <K92dnX1_YsBCfjvT...@bt.com>,
MB <M...@nospam.nospam> wrote:

[Snip]

> BBC seemed to do nothing, might have passed to Arquiva but it did not
> have any effect. I mentioned a previous case where I know there was a
> loss of sound (pre-DSO) for a substantial period and they just denied it
> a couple of months later.

The BBC, when it owned transmitters, used to rely on local dealers for
monitoring the smaller relays. I can remember a situation regarding R3
from a relay in West Wales where a listener complained it wasn't there,
but the dealer said it was fine. It turned out there was carrier with no
modulation - the dealer hadn't actually bothered to listen.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

[tony sayer]

In article <5227cbe3...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
<cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus

Yes a very long time ago we used to monitor the olde Cambridge Gasworks
transmitter (CH-2 VHF 405 lines) that they couldn't receive at
Peterborough.

From what I remember of it they didn't like being disturbed there;!...

In later years we got the number of Sandy heath and did they go up the
wall to find that had leaked out !
--
Tony Sayer

[charles]

In article <cm4UH9M+...@bancom.co.uk>,

tony sayer <to...@bancom.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <5227cbe3...@charleshope.demon.co.uk>, charles
> <cha...@charleshope.demon.co.uk> scribeth thus
> >In article <K92dnX1_YsBCfjvT...@bt.com>,
> > MB <M...@nospam.nospam> wrote:
> >
> >[Snip]
> >
> >> BBC seemed to do nothing, might have passed to Arquiva but it did not
> >> have any effect. I mentioned a previous case where I know there was a
> >> loss of sound (pre-DSO) for a substantial period and they just denied it
> >> a couple of months later.
> >
> >The BBC, when it owned transmitters, used to rely on local dealers for
> >monitoring the smaller relays. I can remember a situation regarding R3
> >from a relay in West Wales where a listener complained it wasn't there,
> >but the dealer said it was fine. It turned out there was carrier with no
> >modulation - the dealer hadn't actually bothered to listen.
> >

> Yes a very long time ago we used to monitor the olde Cambridge Gasworks
> transmitter (CH-2 VHF 405 lines) that they couldn't receive at
> Peterborough.

> From what I remember of it they didn't like being disturbed there;!...

that was the team involved when someone (whom I believed) reported that the
services from Peterborough & Cambridge were 10dB low on Wrotham and
Tacolneston.

" Oh, we didn't know how far round the sites were were when we found our
PPM was faulty".

[davidr...@postmaster.co.uk]

On Oct 25, 12:36 pm, MB <M...@nospam.nospam> wrote:

> On 25/10/2011 10:18, davidrobin...@postmaster.co.uk wrote:

> > On Oct 21, 5:21 pm, Another John<m...@invalid.com>  wrote:
> >> On 21/10/2011 16:47, davidrobin...@postmaster.co.uk wrote:
>
> >>> I don't normally use the subtitles, but
> >>> the sound mix on The Body Farm was so bad (speech often indistinct)
> >>> that I switched them on.
>
> >> Same here.
>
> >>   >Occasionally a screen of subtitles would be missing - so if a sentence
> >>   >was split over two screens, half the sentence was missing - the
> >>   >previous half just stayed on screen.
>
> >> That's how it was on my Technika Freeview PVR, so it's not your Humax.
>
> > Does anyone know how to report a technical fault to the BBC?

[snip]

> You have to fill in a long form - make you say that your neighbours have
> the same fault.
>
> They don't copy the text of the message back to you so often you get a
> reply a month or so later (literally) which tells you there has been no
> fault but you can't remember what you reported!

I put as much information as I could into the form (there's a limit of
a few hundred characters). They asked for more details. I then put as
much information as I should into the form again, because that's the
only way to reply!

I've received this reply...

Dear Dr Robinson
Reference [removed]
Thank you for your further contact in relation to problems with
subtitling.
We forwarded your correspondence to our engineers who responded with
the following information:
"This problem is usually attributable to three areas:
1. This could be as a result of live subtitling where complete
accuracy is very difficult to achieve. For subtitles on live
programmes (or on programmes completed very close to transmission - or
for programmes recorded well in advance that we haven't be able to
subtitle fully beforehand for technical reasons, etc) we employ a
technique known as broadcast stenography or stenocaptioning, a type of
machine-written shorthand based on phonetics which is also used to
record proceedings at high speed in Court and for Parliamentary
committees.
We also use a speech recognition system whereby a subtitler listens to
the live output and "respeaks" it via a microphone into specially
designed software which recognises the speech and translates it into
subtitles on the screen. Stenographers possess rare skills and are
difficult to recruit and usually require a minimum of three years’
training. As broadcast professionals, they aim for and generally
achieve the highest standards - we do not allow them to broadcast
until they can achieve accuracy levels of at least 97%.
Live subtitles will usually be identified by their “scrolling” nature
where words or sentences appear individually as they are being typed
and scroll up the screen (rather than appearing as complete “blocks”
of pre-prepared text).
The majority of pre-recorded programmes will be broadcast with pre-
recorded subtitles which are 100% accurate and carefully timed on-
screen. That said, some pre-recorded programmes have to be subtitled
live because the completed programme is delivered too close to
transmission to allow the many hours required to create pre-prepared
subtitles. However, any such programme when repeated in the future
would then be broadcast with proper subtitles.
2. It could also be an issue with the satellite receiver so try a
manual reset following the advice on our website:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/reception/digitaltv/resetting.shtml#reboot
3. It could also be a receiving equipment issue whereby the set-top-
box or receiver is having problems decoding and displaying subtitles.
Check with the manufacturers support section of their website, or
contact them to advise as this may be a problem that they are unaware
of, and is usually addressed by a software upgrade."
We're grateful to you for taking the time to raise your concerns with
us and we'd like to assure you that we value your feedback highly. The
comments we receive from our audience help to inform decisions and go
towards improving our services.
Thanks once again for taking the time to contact us.
Kind Regards
Peter Thompson
BBC Audience Services
www.bbc.co.uk/reception
NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored.
You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact
us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.

Given it wasn't live, and others have reported it on other boxes, I
can't see it's 1, 2 or 3. However, as I know I've got a rock solid
signal (and others may not have - or at least the BBC may claim this),
I'm going to borrow a different Freesat STB and watch some live BBC
One.

The Humax HDR has received another software update in the mean time,
so I'll see if it's improved this. Others are reporting a few crashes
with the new software, though I've not seen any problems yet.

Cheers,
David.

[Ian Jackson]

In message
<ff49648b-5fd0-4bca...@o14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
"davidr...@postmaster.co.uk" <davidr...@postmaster.co.uk> writes

>The majority of pre-recorded programmes will be broadcast with pre-
>recorded subtitles which are 100% accurate and carefully timed on-
>screen. That said, some pre-recorded programmes have to be subtitled
>live because the completed programme is delivered too close to
>transmission to allow the many hours required to create pre-prepared
>subtitles. However, any such programme when repeated in the future
>would then be broadcast with proper subtitles.
>

They failed miserably with last night's 'Britain On The Fiddle' (BBC1,
8pm). Completely recorded, but the subtitles were lagging behind the
video by up to 15 seconds. It was absolutely appalling. ITV programmes
are never like this.
>
>

--
Ian

[Zero Tolerance]

On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 03:26:55 -0700 (PDT),
"davidr...@postmaster.co.uk" <davidr...@postmaster.co.uk>
wrote:

>Given it wasn't live, and others have reported it on other boxes, I
>can't see it's 1, 2 or 3.

If the BBC are just going to fob you off, try Ofcom. Don't report it
as a reception issue - if you complain about the QUALITY of the
subtitles they'll have to pull their logging tapes and look at it
properly.

(Broadcast licencees which are required to broadcast subtitles are
also required to ensure that they are fit for purpose - illegible and
partial sentences, howsoever caused, won't meet that standard.)

--

[davidr...@postmaster.co.uk]

On Nov 4, 1:07 pm, Z...@0spam.want.no.spam.zzz (Zero Tolerance) wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 03:26:55 -0700 (PDT),

> "davidrobin...@postmaster.co.uk" <davidrobin...@postmaster.co.uk>

> wrote:
>
> >Given it wasn't live, and others have reported it on other boxes, I
> >can't see it's 1, 2 or 3.
>
> If the BBC are just going to fob you off, try Ofcom. Don't report it
> as a reception issue - if you complain about the QUALITY of the
> subtitles they'll have to pull their logging tapes and look at it
> properly.
>
> (Broadcast licencees which are required to broadcast subtitles are
> also required to ensure that they are fit for purpose - illegible and
> partial sentences, howsoever caused, won't meet that standard.)

If I find it on a different STB, I'll compare the two back-to-back. I
could even PVR them from different dishes in different locations! If
they both show the same errors, it's case closed as far as I'm
concerned, and I'll try that.

However, if it is widespread, I'm surprised people who rely on these
things more haven't complained.

Cheers,
David.

[J. P. Gilliver (John)]

In message
<fb6dcde8-2e03-4707...@hc5g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
"davidr...@postmaster.co.uk" <davidr...@postmaster.co.uk>
writes:
[]

>However, if it is widespread, I'm surprised people who rely on these
>things more haven't complained.

[]
Why do you think they haven't?
--
J. P. Gilliver. UMRA: 1960/<1985 MB++G.5AL-IS-P--Ch++(p)Ar@T0H+Sh0!:`)DNAf

"We're Americans - with a capital `A'! And do you know what that means? Do you?
It means that our forefathers were kicked out of every decent country in the
world." - Bill Murray

[J G Miller]

On Friday, November 4th, 2011 at 22:16:46 +0100, our favorite Martin observed:

> Most of the subtitles that accompany the news on any channel are utter
> nonsense.

How would they cope with that correspondent with a Northern Irish
accent that reported (politics or maybe economics) items on the
BBC state news propagand bulletins during the 1990s?

(I am having trouble remembering his name, but he was so difficult to
understand that some of the BBC tv comedy shows used to make fun of his
accent.)

[J G Miller]

On Friday, November 4th, 2011 at 22:04:57h +0000, J G Miller asked:

> On Friday, November 4th, 2011 at 22:16:46 +0100, our favorite Martin
> observed:
>
>> Most of the subtitles that accompany the news on any channel are utter
>> nonsense.
>
> How would they cope with that correspondent with a Northern Irish accent
> that reported (politics or maybe economics) items on the BBC state news
> propagand bulletins during the 1990s?

John Cole, BBC Political Correspondent 1981 - 1992

<http://www.youtube.COM/watch?v=Elrv7DJFsoY>

<http://www.youtube.COM/watch?v=czdSny-dFmg>

[Peter Duncanson]

On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 22:36:50 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
wrote:

As an inhabitant of Northern Ireland I can say that there are many
locally-born reporters who would be even more incomprehensible than John
Cole if they didn't seriously tone down their accents for professional
purposes.

John Cole was unusual in that he didn't seem to modify his accent.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)

[J G Miller]

Op zaterdag, 5 november, 2011 om 10:47:48u +0100, schreef Martin van Nederlands:

> On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 22:36:50 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
> wrote:
>

>>On Friday, November 4th, 2011 at 22:04:57h +0000, J G Miller asked:
>>
>>> On Friday, November 4th, 2011 at 22:16:46 +0100, our favorite Martin
>>> observed:
>>>
>>>> Most of the subtitles that accompany the news on any channel are
>>>> utter nonsense.
>>>
>>> How would they cope with that correspondent with a Northern Irish
>>> accent that reported (politics or maybe economics) items on the BBC
>>> state news propagand bulletins during the 1990s?
>>
>>John Cole, BBC Political Correspondent 1981 - 1992
>

> I didn't have problems understanding him.

You have missed the point completely -- I was not raising the issue
of his intelligibility but how well or poorly would the subtitling
system cope.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <ms9ab75a9pae5eo9m...@4ax.com>, Martin
<m...@address.invalid> writes
>On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 12:06:52 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>

>wrote:
>
>>Op zaterdag, 5 november, 2011 om 10:47:48u +0100, schreef Martin van
>>Nederlands:
>>
>>> On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 22:36:50 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Friday, November 4th, 2011 at 22:04:57h +0000, J G Miller asked:
>>>>
>>>>> On Friday, November 4th, 2011 at 22:16:46 +0100, our favorite Martin
>>>>> observed:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Most of the subtitles that accompany the news on any channel are
>>>>>> utter nonsense.
>>>>>
>>>>> How would they cope with that correspondent with a Northern Irish
>>>>> accent that reported (politics or maybe economics) items on the BBC
>>>>> state news propagand bulletins during the 1990s?
>>>>
>>>>John Cole, BBC Political Correspondent 1981 - 1992
>>>
>>> I didn't have problems understanding him.
>>
>>You have missed the point completely -- I was not raising the issue
>>of his intelligibility but how well or poorly would the subtitling
>>system cope.
>

>Irrespective of the speaker and his/her accent it can't cope.

When the programme is live, you can understand there being problems in
keeping up with the subtitles. But even then, why not make things easier
for the stenographer by delaying things by (say) 30 seconds? Or are they
totally relying on automatic voice recognition?
--
Ian

[Peter Duncanson]

The latter, I suspect.

[J G Miller]

On Saturday, November 5th, 2011 at 13:11:22h +0100, our favorite Martin wrote:

> Irrespective of the speaker and his/her accent it can't cope.

True it is not coping, but again the question is, is it
even less capable with speakers with accents and dialects
differing strongly from the software's notion of standard English?

[Zero Tolerance]

On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 21:11:06 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"
<G6...@soft255.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Why do you think they haven't?

Given the number of channels that broadcast consistently broken or
otherwise unsuitable subtitles, day in, day out, it's reasonable to
assume that either people don't notice, or the people who do notice
don't care, or the people who do notice and care don't actually
complain... And the ones that do probably get fobbed off and give it
up as a bad job.

--

[Ian Jackson]

In message <4eb57115....@enews.newsguy.com>, Zero Tolerance
<Ze...@0spam.want.no.spam.zzz> writes

At least tonight's 'Dad's Army' seems OK - even though, occasionally,
the subtitles don't quite match what is being said. Maybe they are from
the script, and are what the cast SHOULD have said?
--
Ian

[Jerry]

"Zero Tolerance" <Ze...@0spam.want.no.spam.zzz> wrote in message
news:4eb57115....@enews.newsguy.com...
: On Fri, 4 Nov 2011 21:11:06 +0000, "J. P. Gilliver (John)"

:

There is another possibility, with the dire dross that is on
almost all channels, people are simply not using TV, after all
most DVD's now have proper and decent subtitles and then there is
the Internet for anything else...
--
Regards, Jerry.

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 13:53:26 +0000, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> When the programme is live, you can understand there being problems in
> keeping up with the subtitles. But even then, why not make things easier
> for the stenographer by delaying things by (say) 30 seconds? Or are they
> totally relying on automatic voice recognition?

How does delaying anything help? The words still come in at the same
*rate*, so will go out at the same rate, with the same number of errors.

[Ian Jackson]

In message <c4tcb7l8rg06n66vf...@4ax.com>, Martin
<m...@address.invalid> writes

>There's at least one person in our house who thinks the subtitle cock
>ups in the news are the best comedy programme on offer.

I suppose it is - unless you're deaf.
--
Ian

[Ian Jackson]

In message <slrnjbcvrd...@news.pr.network>, Paul Ratcliffe
<ab...@orac12.clara34.co56.uk78> writes

Surely it would give the stenographer time to do the typing properly,
and for them (or an assistant) to correct the errors?
--
Ian

[Paul Ratcliffe]

On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 13:39:55 +0000, Ian Jackson

<ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>>> When the programme is live, you can understand there being problems in
>>> keeping up with the subtitles. But even then, why not make things easier
>>> for the stenographer by delaying things by (say) 30 seconds? Or are they
>>> totally relying on automatic voice recognition?
>>
>>How does delaying anything help? The words still come in at the same
>>*rate*, so will go out at the same rate, with the same number of errors.
>
> Surely it would give the stenographer time to do the typing properly,

You obviously don't understand the concept of rate.

> and for them (or an assistant) to correct the errors?

Assistant? <laugh>
They haven't got time to do it properly in the first place, so how would
they have time to correct the errors?

[Bill Wright]

Paul Ratcliffe wrote:
> On Sun, 6 Nov 2011 13:39:55 +0000, Ian Jackson
> <ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>>> When the programme is live, you can understand there being problems in
>>>> keeping up with the subtitles. But even then, why not make things easier
>>>> for the stenographer by delaying things by (say) 30 seconds? Or are they
>>>> totally relying on automatic voice recognition?
>>> How does delaying anything help? The words still come in at the same
>>> *rate*, so will go out at the same rate, with the same number of errors.
>> Surely it would give the stenographer time to do the typing properly,
>
> You obviously don't understand the concept of rate.

Paul, I think the idea is that the people doing the subtitles would see
the programme 30 secs before it was transmitted, so they could correct
errors in that time. The throughput would be the same but last-second
alterations would be possible.

Bill

[Terry Casey]

In article <qLe1+ZC2...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk says...

>
> At least tonight's 'Dad's Army' seems OK - even though, occasionally,
> the subtitles don't quite match what is being said. Maybe they are from
> the script, and are what the cast SHOULD have said?

Do you mean that they allowed someone with a brain near the subtitling
unit?

Most people can hear[1] faster than they can read so, if there is a lot
of rapid dialogue, the sensible approach to subtitling is to précis the
script which, if done correctly, will paraphrase the script in fewer
words without losing any of the pertinent detail.

The alternative is a rapid spate of subtitles that nobody has a chance
to read - and don't forget that subtitle users would also appreciate the
opportunity to follow the visual action as well!

I haven't tried watching anything subtitled for ages - my wife can't
stand them - but I do sometimes take note of the Dutch subtitles on
Belgian/Dutch TV when on holiday.

Often, a long sentence in English will appear as a one-line subtitle in
Dutch and, when this is within the range of my limited Dutch vocabulary,
I can see that it an accurate translation of the sense of the original.

Of course, many Dutch/Flemish understand English well and many ignore
the subtitles and listen to the original dialogue. There will possibly
be a similar scenario here where the profoundly deaf may prefer to lip
read as far as possible, using the subtitles to fill in the gaps where
this is not possible - a very good reason for getting the subtitling
synchronised with the original dialogue.

Those who lose their hearing late in life are less likely to be able to
lip read, putting them in a similar situation to Belgian/Dutch viewers
who do not have a good grasp of spoken English.

[1] Obviously, this does not apply to the profoundly deaf or those who
have lost their hearing but I think you know what I mean!

--

Terry

[Terry Casey]

In article <ms9ab75a9pae5eo9m...@4ax.com>,
m...@address.invalid says...

>
> On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 12:06:52 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
> wrote:
>
> >Op zaterdag, 5 november, 2011 om 10:47:48u +0100, schreef Martin van Nederlands:
> >

> >>>John Cole, BBC Political Correspondent 1981 - 1992
> >>
> >> I didn't have problems understanding him.
> >
> >You have missed the point completely -- I was not raising the issue
> >of his intelligibility but how well or poorly would the subtitling
> >system cope.
>

> Irrespective of the speaker and his/her accent it can't cope.

I watched the first(?) public test of live subtitling which was, I
believe, a collaboration between the University of Southampton and LWT.

Unfortunately, they chose the inauguration of President Reagan for this
purpose! All went well until Reagan spoke, at which point it became
apparent that the phonetic translation system was only programmed for
English English, not American English, so the subtitles start mimicking
Reagan's pronunciation with words like 'noo' for new, etc.

I'm sure I remember seeing "yoo knighted states" ...

--

Terry

[Ian Jackson]

In message <MPG.2921c5021...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Terry Casey <kt...@example.invalid> writes

>In article <qLe1+ZC2...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
>ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk says...
>>
>> At least tonight's 'Dad's Army' seems OK - even though, occasionally,
>> the subtitles don't quite match what is being said. Maybe they are from
>> the script, and are what the cast SHOULD have said?
>
>Do you mean that they allowed someone with a brain near the subtitling
>unit?
>
>Most people can hear[1] faster than they can read so, if there is a lot
>of rapid dialogue, the sensible approach to subtitling is to précis the
>script which, if done correctly, will paraphrase the script in fewer
>words without losing any of the pertinent detail.
>

These days, I prefer to have the subtitles 'on'. That way, I find it
easier to multitask (eg, watch TV, and read newsgroups). Provided the
subtitles aren't too long and complicated, I find that I can glance at
the TV, and instantly get the next ten seconds of dialogue - especially
as the words often appear BEFORE they are spoken. [A side-effect is
that, when watching quizzes, I get the answer too early!!]

>The alternative is a rapid spate of subtitles that nobody has a chance
>to read - and don't forget that subtitle users would also appreciate the
>opportunity to follow the visual action as well!
>

Oh, I appreciate that sometimes a bit of précis-ing is needed. However,
there are times when, for no obvious reason, the text diverges somewhat
from the words.

>I haven't tried watching anything subtitled for ages - my wife can't
>stand them - but I do sometimes take note of the Dutch subtitles on
>Belgian/Dutch TV when on holiday.
>
>Often, a long sentence in English will appear as a one-line subtitle in
>Dutch and, when this is within the range of my limited Dutch vocabulary,
>I can see that it an accurate translation of the sense of the original.
>

I too like to practice my 'linguistic skills'. As you say, some
long-winded speech is often contracted to a few words. I often wonder if
some of the more-subtle nuances get lost.

>Of course, many Dutch/Flemish understand English well and many ignore
>the subtitles and listen to the original dialogue. There will possibly
>be a similar scenario here where the profoundly deaf may prefer to lip
>read as far as possible, using the subtitles to fill in the gaps where
>this is not possible - a very good reason for getting the subtitling
>synchronised with the original dialogue.
>
>Those who lose their hearing late in life are less likely to be able to
>lip read, putting them in a similar situation to Belgian/Dutch viewers
>who do not have a good grasp of spoken English.
>

Some people with a knowledge of both languages (the one spoken, and the
one the subtitles are written in) actually find a certain problem with
subtitles. If the speech is not their native tongue, and the text is,
they find themselves listening to the words and trying to translate
them, and at the same time, trying to read the text. Because of this,
they tend to get mentally exhausted, and often miss both speech and
text. A Belgian colleague of mine from Brussels - who probably speaks
and understands English as well as wot me and you does (and Dutch and
French infinitely better) - once told me that he definitely found it
easier to watch English/French/Dutch programmes with the sound turned
down, and simply read the subtitles.

>[1] Obviously, this does not apply to the profoundly deaf or those who
>have lost their hearing but I think you know what I mean!
>

--

Ian

[charles]

In article <MPG.2921caa71...@news.eternal-september.org>,

Terry Casey <kt...@example.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ms9ab75a9pae5eo9m...@4ax.com>,
> m...@address.invalid says...
> >
> > On Sat, 5 Nov 2011 12:06:52 +0000 (UTC), J G Miller <mil...@yoyo.ORG>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >Op zaterdag, 5 november, 2011 om 10:47:48u +0100, schreef Martin van Nederlands:
> > >
> > >>>John Cole, BBC Political Correspondent 1981 - 1992
> > >>
> > >> I didn't have problems understanding him.
> > >
> > >You have missed the point completely -- I was not raising the issue
> > >of his intelligibility but how well or poorly would the subtitling
> > >system cope.
> >
> > Irrespective of the speaker and his/her accent it can't cope.

> I watched the first(?) public test of live subtitling which was, I
> believe, a collaboration between the University of Southampton and LWT.

The BBC used Loughborough Uni - I thought they were first, but perhaps not
with a public demo.

> I'm sure I remember seeing "yoo knighted states" ...

and I can remember "Bee, Bee, Sea"

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.16

[Max Demian]

"Terry Casey" <kt...@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:MPG.2921caa71...@news.eternal-september.org...

> I watched the first(?) public test of live subtitling which was, I
> believe, a collaboration between the University of Southampton and LWT.
>
> Unfortunately, they chose the inauguration of President Reagan for this
> purpose! All went well until Reagan spoke, at which point it became
> apparent that the phonetic translation system was only programmed for
> English English, not American English, so the subtitles start mimicking
> Reagan's pronunciation with words like 'noo' for new, etc.
>
> I'm sure I remember seeing "yoo knighted states" ...

Instead of "The Benighted States."

--
Max Demian

[Terry Casey]

In article <Er1+GvKa...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk>,
ianREMOVET...@g3ohx.demon.co.uk says...

>
> A Belgian colleague of mine from Brussels - who probably speaks
> and understands English as well as wot me and you does

+1 :)

> (and Dutch and French infinitely better) - once told me that he
> definitely found it easier to watch English/French/Dutch programmes
> with the sound turned down, and simply read the subtitles.
>

Interesting - I've spoken to others who say that they prefer to ignore
the subtitles and follow the English dialogue. Must be a case of
personal preference and probably made easier by the subtitles not being
'cut in' to the picture so that they are not so visually distracting if
one chooses to ignore them.

On the subject of subtitling, I was in the home of a factory manager
from Barco many years ago when a young lad raised the subject of the
difference between the Flemish and the Walloons!

Obviously taking a simple approach, Joel turned on the TV, pointing out
that the Flemish (and Dutch) broadcasters were content to show foreign
programmes in their original language with Dutch subtitles whereas the
Walloons (and French) insisted on all programming being dubbed into
French.

A quick scan of the Dutch language channels produced two examples, one
US and one UK, with subtitles. Joel then commenced a sweep of the French
language channels and found a Western.

We watched as Lee Marvin marched down the sidewalk and through the
batwing doors of the saloon before smashing his fist down on the bar and
opening his mouth ...

... whereupon a high pitched squeaky French voice started to speak ...

... being promptly drowned out by gales of laughter from us at the
incomprehensible mismatch!

--

Terry

[Bill Wright]

Ian Jackson wrote:

> Oh, I appreciate that sometimes a bit of précis-ing is needed. However,
> there are times when, for no obvious reason, the text diverges somewhat
> from the words.

Sometimes the words spoken are much ruder than the subtitle version.
This is known as 'patronising the disabled' and is quite acceptable on
the BBC. As long as the disabled people you're patronising aren't black.

Bill

PS a double amputee I know complained about this to the BBC and they
told him he didn't have a leg to stand on... b-boom!

[Ian Jackson]

In message <j98puk$jth$1...@speranza.aioe.org>, Bill Wright
<bi...@invalid.com> writes
>Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> Oh, I appreciate that sometimes a bit of pr�cis-ing is needed.

>>However, there are times when, for no obvious reason, the text
>>diverges somewhat from the words.
>
>Sometimes the words spoken are much ruder than the subtitle version.
>This is known as 'patronising the disabled' and is quite acceptable on
>the BBC. As long as the disabled people you're patronising aren't black.
>
>Bill
>
>PS a double amputee I know complained about this to the BBC and they
>told him he didn't have a leg to stand on... b-boom!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbnkY1tBvMU&feature=related
--
Ian

[J G Miller]

On Monday, November 7th, 2011 at 14:28:36h +0000, Bill Wright wrote:

> As long as the disabled people you're patronising aren't black.

Afghanistani and Pakistani amputee veterans of fighting the
American and English imperialist invaders will not be too happy
at such discrimination.

Have you given to the Taleban Veterans fund this week?

[Jerry]

"J G Miller" <mil...@yoyo.ORG> wrote in message
news:j98tu4$lpj$2...@dont-email.me...
: On Monday, November 7th, 2011 at 14:28:36h +0000, Bill Wright

wrote:
:
: > As long as the disabled people you're patronising aren't
black.
:
: Afghanistani and Pakistani amputee veterans of fighting the
: American and English imperialist invaders will not be too happy
: at such discrimination.

Bloody hell, they must be very old by now, some must be well on
their way to 300 years old!
:
: Have you given to the Taleban Veterans fund this week?

Oh hang on, it was just another Mr Windy Miller communists rant
against those brave people whop are fighting so that chunt-face
liars like Mr Miller can carry on having the freedom to say what
he does. Perhaps if your communist friends from the old USSR had
not invaded Afghanistan in the late 1970s...
--
Regards, Jerry.

[Andy Champ]

On 07/11/2011 12:51, Terry Casey wrote:
> Interesting - I've spoken to others who say that they prefer to ignore
> the subtitles and follow the English dialogue. Must be a case of
> personal preference and probably made easier by the subtitles not being
> 'cut in' to the picture so that they are not so visually distracting if
> one chooses to ignore them.

Interesting. My French isn't very good - I have to really concentrate
to follow it when spoken and not aimed at a foreigner. My reading of
English, on the other had, is totally automatic. Which means I find it
almost impossible to listen to and concentrate on the spoken French when
written English is on the screen.

Andy

[J G Miller]

On Monday, November 7th, 2011 at 19:36:00h +0000, Andy Champ wrote:

> My French isn't very good - I have to really concentrate to follow
> it when spoken and not aimed at a foreigner. My reading of English,
> on the other had, is totally automatic.

It would not surprise me that if you were watching a film with an
Anglophone dialog, you would read the Francophone sub-titles with
ease.

[The Other Mike]

On Mon, 07 Nov 2011 14:28:36 +0000, Bill Wright <bi...@invalid.com>
wrote:

>Ian Jackson wrote:
>
>> Oh, I appreciate that sometimes a bit of précis-ing is needed. However,
>> there are times when, for no obvious reason, the text diverges somewhat
>> from the words.
>
>Sometimes the words spoken are much ruder than the subtitle version.
>This is known as 'patronising the disabled' and is quite acceptable on
>the BBC. As long as the disabled people you're patronising aren't black.

On Mastermind, many years ago when Magnus Magnusson still presided,
the correct answer provided by the contestant was "Never Mind the
Bollocks". It was beeped out by the beeb, but the subtitles were
perfect :)


--

[Terry Casey]

In article <dYqdnQk8S_O9riXT...@eclipse.net.uk>,
no....@nospam.invalid says...

I must admit that the people I've spoken to are extremely fluent in
English, so that may make a difference. The other factor, which I
mentioned before, is the visual presentation of the subtitles - it is
much easier to ignore a single line overlaid subtitle right at the
bottom of the screeen on Belgian TV than a two line 'teletext style'
text box obliterating 20% of the screen in the UK.

--

Terry

[Terry Casey]

In article <4guhb75pfc50f5f0f...@4ax.com>,
m...@address.invalid says...

>
> On Mon, 7 Nov 2011 12:51:11 -0000, Terry Casey <kt...@example.invalid>
> wrote:
>
> >On the subject of subtitling, I was in the home of a factory manager
> >from Barco many years ago when a young lad raised the subject of the
> >difference between the Flemish and the Walloons!
> >
> >Obviously taking a simple approach, Joel turned on the TV, pointing out
> >that the Flemish (and Dutch) broadcasters were content to show foreign
> >programmes in their original language with Dutch subtitles whereas the
> >Walloons (and French) insisted on all programming being dubbed into
> >French.
> >
> >A quick scan of the Dutch language channels produced two examples, one
> >US and one UK, with subtitles. Joel then commenced a sweep of the French
> >language channels and found a Western.
>

> It has nothing to do with difference between the Walloons and the
> Flemish, but everything to do with the potential audience for dubbed
> content.

I'm well aware of that! I DID say that he took a simple approach to what
is a very complex question. Actually, that's wrong - the question is
simple, it's the answer that's complex!

He chose TV, with which we all worked in way way or another, to
demonstrate a simple difference and could not possibly have predicted
the hilarious outcome. It was a simplistic approach but it did
demonstrate that the Flemish, in general, tended to be multi-lingual
compared with the predominantly mono-lingual Walloons.

I always use to say that the predominant difference between English and
French speaking people, when confronted by someone who does not speak
their language, is that the English speaker believes that, if you speak
LOUD enough, they will understand wheras the French speaker believes
that if they speak FAST enough, they will understand ...!

(I once asked a French woman "Repetez tres lentement, s'il'vous plait?"
and she reponded at double the speed she'd used previously!)

However, I've noticed a change in the last 30 years, both in Wallonia
and (northern) France, in the number of English speakers mainly, but not
exclusively, amongst the younger generation. This change does not seem
to be confined to 'tourist' areas, either.

I doubt that a francophone would notice any change this side of the
channel ...

--

Terry

[Ian Jackson]

In message <MPG.292315372...@news.eternal-september.org>,
Terry Casey <kt...@example.invalid> writes

I'd agree 100% with that. My experience of Belgium is that, almost
without exception, the Flemish could speak good English. They also
seemed perfectly at home in French which, even if they rarely had
occasion to use it all that often, I'm certain they had to learn it
properly at school. While I couldn't really judge how well some of them
spoke French, I can say that their French was a hell of a lot better
than mine!

As for the Walloons, even just south of Brussels, you might as well have
been in deepest, darkest France. Very few spoke any English, and I
suspect that many had even less understanding of Dutch than I did.

>

>


--
Ian

[Max Demian]

"Terry Casey" <kt...@example.invalid> wrote in message

news:MPG.29230c5d4...@news.eternal-september.org...

Does anyone know why they always use(d) double height text for subtitles on
TV? After all, you can always make the text double height by pressing the
F/T/B button twice if required. (This works on LaserDiscs, and in fact they
tell you how to do it.)

--
Max Demian