You are not logged in.

  • "brunodc" is male
  • "brunodc" started this thread

Posts: 2,261

Date of registration: May 31st 2011

Language Team: French

Focus Group: Translator
Translation Proofreader
Language Coordinator
LTI Administration Group
LTI Development Group

Location: France

Thanks: 64758 / 739

  • Send private message

21

Wednesday, December 7th 2011, 8:11am

Yay! Now we're going to go through this transcription with a fine comb and see what kind of guidelines we can get out of it. I'm preparing a list of changes from the previous version of these subtitles so we can see what we're facing here :)

4 registered users and 29 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

gentlejewel, Di Anna, Borislav/lizardman, Ray

  • "gentlejewel" is female

Posts: 205

Date of registration: Sep 11th 2011

Language Team: English

Focus Group: English Transcriber
English Proofreader
Translator
Translation Proofreader

Location: Amsterdam and Rhodes, Greece

Thanks: 7530 / 19

  • Send private message

22

Wednesday, December 7th 2011, 8:27am

OK, great! Look forward to it! hear from you xx
Signature from »gentlejewel« All for 1, and 1 for all...

1 registered user and 26 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Ray

  • "brunodc" is male
  • "brunodc" started this thread

Posts: 2,261

Date of registration: May 31st 2011

Language Team: French

Focus Group: Translator
Translation Proofreader
Language Coordinator
LTI Administration Group
LTI Development Group

Location: France

Thanks: 64758 / 739

  • Send private message

23

Wednesday, December 7th 2011, 1:56pm

OK, the link is ready, let me explain what this is about.

The link above leads to a tool that is not developed by us, nor does the team who made this tool have any relationship with us. They do know about us because I offered them some help to translate the tool, but they haven't given me any updates. I don't know whether they are currently allowing the tool to be translated or not, but I'm monitoring the project and I'm ready to jump in, in case a favorable update comes along.

Regardless, the tool is in French for now, but that isn't a problem for our intents and purposes, because we're going to focus on the contents of the strings themselves.

What you see are the differences (either in timing, contents or both) between the timeshifted version of the transcription (done by me) and its proofread version (done by Julie).

The timeshifted version is the line on top, the proofread version is at the bottom. In red are the portions of the original transcription that have been modified, in green are the changes that were made. At times you'll see some very confusing information like what you see at 49:03 where both timings and text have been changed, but we'll all agree that it's a little hard to convey those changes in an understandable way!! Also at times you'll see things like "A bit slow → Good". That indicates how the timing of the string changed as a result of the edit. For example in this case, the timing of the string was "A bit slow", and we added info so the timing is now "Good".

The scales in terms of adequacy of the timing go as follows:
  • TOO SLOW!
  • Slow, acceptable
  • A bit slow
  • Good
  • A bit fast
  • Fast, acceptable
  • TOO FAST!


The goal when we timeshift is of course to never have strings that are TOO FAST! You'll note that the algorithm that's used to calculate the timings is common to this tool and the tool that we timeshifters use. (VisualSubSync)

Let me remind you that the goal of the operation is to come up with guidelines that we can all follow, so that our "final product" is identical regardless of who is proofreading, which means that we have to agree on every single point. And this project is ideal for this purpose, since I think it has a bit of everything.

I locked the project so that we can agree on every single point before we make the actual changes.


This project still hasn't been transcribed until a few weeks ago, so a few more days won't hurt :D

You can write notes directly into the link that I've given by following these steps:
  • You have to write down your nickname before the tool allows you to comment on anything. You do that by clicking on the "+ d'options" (more options) button on the top right side of the page.
  • You can then go over the string you want to comment, and as you hover over it, you'll see three icons. You can click on the one on the left, which looks like a person talking (with a speech bubble)

Let's see how this goes!

[EDIT] I forgot to mention, I haven't gone through all the changes, I stopped at 19:00 or something. I'll continue tonight.

4 registered users and 22 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Di Anna, Borislav/lizardman, rock3r, Ray

  • "Di Anna" is female

Posts: 871

Date of registration: Jun 12th 2011

Language Team: ENGLISH

Focus Group: English Proofreader
Final Reviewer

Location: Efland, NC

Thanks: 28575 / 980

  • Send private message

24

Wednesday, December 7th 2011, 3:16pm

This is cool. I'm excited! 8o
Signature from »Di Anna« Important: The forum can send you an email for each post that you are interested in.
Please follow these directions to adjust your settings so that you receive communications.

1 registered user and 28 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Ray

  • "gentlejewel" is female

Posts: 205

Date of registration: Sep 11th 2011

Language Team: English

Focus Group: English Transcriber
English Proofreader
Translator
Translation Proofreader

Location: Amsterdam and Rhodes, Greece

Thanks: 7530 / 19

  • Send private message

25

Wednesday, December 7th 2011, 5:22pm

Looks very interesting and a great way to see how the changes have been made... Some things confuse me though, for example:
[-0.030] 01:43:30,119 --> 01:43:34,370 [=] Perfect→TOO FAST
So the string below (which I made into 2 so as to accommodate showing the speaker) went from being perfect to being too fast.

Timeshifters - You might want to ask yourself why the entire culture is utterly saturated
Proofreaders - (P. Joseph) You might want to ask yourself ] new string [ why the entire culture is utterly saturated


The rule, woops! guideline :) is one string should be a minimum of 1.5 seconds with a maximum of 70 characters, isn't it?

01:43:30,119 --> 01:43:34,370 = 4.251 for 2 strings, so per string, minus the rest 150 milliseconds in between, there's an average of 2.050 seconds per string (of course there not exactly the same but I'm pretty sure that they're at least the 1.5 second minimum). The first string is 42 characters, the second is 43, so how is this too fast? Forgive my blondness!

And in regards to this: "He says the reality, but it's the general concept of reality he's talking about, so I'd remove "the"... I thought it best to write what was said? See under:

00:01:44,662 --> 00:01:49,008 A bit slow→Good
TS - that you are constantly interacting with reality
PR - that you are constantly interacting with the reality

And in regards to this:
00:00:10,911 --> 00:00:16,347
TS - is a particular term which actually means
PR - is a particular term, which actually means

Di : Don't put a comma after the main clause when a dependent (subordinate) clause follows it (except for cases of extreme contrast). This example would
be better without the comma.
Di : Incorrect: She was late for class, because her alarm clock was broken. Incorrect: The cat scratched at the door, while I was eating.

For Di - I thought it was simply standard to write a comma before the word 'which'. Are there exceptions to this rule? Can you show me some examples please so that I know for next time? and PS - I have no idea what a dependent or subordinate clause is and I don't think my brains are open to these words for some reason :) - just some examples (if you can think of some quickly) of when and when not to use a comma when 'which' is being used.

Hope everything's clear!
Kisses!
Signature from »gentlejewel« All for 1, and 1 for all...

1 registered user and 26 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Ray

  • "lizardman" is male

Posts: 579

Date of registration: Jun 3rd 2011

Language Team: Bulgarian

Focus Group: Translation Proofreader
LTI Administration Group

Location: Plovdiv, Bulgaria

Thanks: 23759 / 483

  • Send private message

26

Wednesday, December 7th 2011, 5:37pm

I applaud you for your efforts! This is real an RBE-like approach.

One point of consideration from me: I haven't seen any movie that has all the speakers denoted. I know that the subtitling 'standarts', if you will, vary from country to country, and that every language should strive to comply with the local established practices (that's why they call it localization ), and that's why it might be more appropriate to delete all the speaker denotations when translating (localizing) to Bulgarian. I have no idea what the practices are in other countries, however. It'd be good if we can gather some statistics on this.

3 registered users and 27 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

gentlejewel, Di Anna, Ray

  • "gentlejewel" is female

Posts: 205

Date of registration: Sep 11th 2011

Language Team: English

Focus Group: English Transcriber
English Proofreader
Translator
Translation Proofreader

Location: Amsterdam and Rhodes, Greece

Thanks: 7530 / 19

  • Send private message

27

Wednesday, December 7th 2011, 6:01pm

Hey Lizardman!

I personally find it really important to show the speaker in every place possible to distinguish just how diverse the information sources are, save that the listener or reader be lead to believe that it's only a few speakers. For example, if there was a Chinese version of Zeitgeist and all of these men were speaking Chinese, I would have a lot of difficulty distinguishing who is speaking. I don't know if it would be like this for someone who really is Chinese (and doesn't know a word of English) - only for how I experience it myself. I also would be concentrating on the text underneath reading the subtitles and not on the images flashing above that possibly signal a change of speaker. Uniformity is also a concern. Why would we show one and not the other? This would really lead a lot to believe (I think) that the information was only coming from a few sources.

Anyway - whatever the consensus is, I'm good with it! Anybody else going to weigh in?

Kisses!
Signature from »gentlejewel« All for 1, and 1 for all...

1 registered user and 24 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Ray

  • "Di Anna" is female

Posts: 871

Date of registration: Jun 12th 2011

Language Team: ENGLISH

Focus Group: English Proofreader
Final Reviewer

Location: Efland, NC

Thanks: 28575 / 980

  • Send private message

28

Wednesday, December 7th 2011, 6:16pm

Commas & which

Hey, Julie:

The mistake most folks make with subordinate (dependent) clauses is to use commas too much. It's tricky. It has to do with whether the clause is restrictive (necessary) or non-restrictive (not essential). Here's a good explanation. I would say, if in doubt, leave the comma out because in subtitles, it would look cleaner anyway. This is debated a lot in English, and I'm not sure it's worth our getting frustrated about it.

Question
When do you use a comma before which?

Here are my two sentences:

1. Also, the home page provides information about the last time revisions were made which was in March 2004.

2. Most of the teachers have their own Web page, which provides information about their classes and how to contact them, but there are no pictures of them.


Answer
1. Also, the home page provides information about the last time revisions were made, which was in March 2004. (Comma belongs here because the "which clause" is added on as an afterthought. It is NON-RESTRICTIVE.)

2. Most of the teachers have their own Web page, which provides information about their classes and how to contact them, but there are no pictures of them. (use a comma here also because the which clause can be removed from the sentence without hurting the basic meaning. Again, it is NON-RESTRICTIVE.

YOU DO NOT use a comma when the clause is restrictive. In other words it applies to something very specific in the sentence.

The clothes which (or that) have torn sleeves are on the dresser.

Note that I am only referring to the clothes on the dresser, the ones that have torn sleeves. It is restrictive because it refers to a specific noun 'clothes'.

Hope this helps some!
((((((hugs))))))))
Di
Signature from »Di Anna« Important: The forum can send you an email for each post that you are interested in.
Please follow these directions to adjust your settings so that you receive communications.

3 registered users and 31 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

gentlejewel, brunodc, Ray

  • "gentlejewel" is female

Posts: 205

Date of registration: Sep 11th 2011

Language Team: English

Focus Group: English Transcriber
English Proofreader
Translator
Translation Proofreader

Location: Amsterdam and Rhodes, Greece

Thanks: 7530 / 19

  • Send private message

29

Wednesday, December 7th 2011, 6:41pm

So, you're quick! Thanks for the examples Di! xxx
Signature from »gentlejewel« All for 1, and 1 for all...

1 registered user and 27 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Ray

  • "brunodc" is male
  • "brunodc" started this thread

Posts: 2,261

Date of registration: May 31st 2011

Language Team: French

Focus Group: Translator
Translation Proofreader
Language Coordinator
LTI Administration Group
LTI Development Group

Location: France

Thanks: 64758 / 739

  • Send private message

30

Wednesday, December 7th 2011, 7:21pm

Boy, those are awesome examples. You're awesome, Di!

I'm done with my comments, I see that we can add at least 2 or 3 guideline items from what I saw, yessss!

Also, from what I've seen about quotes, there's a lot of disagreements! hihi

I see that Di is going through the different changes. Di , are you using the video too, to see the context?

2 registered users and 25 guests thanked already.

Users who thanked for this post:

Di Anna, Ray

Used tags

2010, The Movie, Zeitgeist

© Linguistic Team International 2018
Context In Motion