Forum: Subtitling
Topic: Rates for subtitling work
Poster: José Henrique Lamensdorf
Post title: Too many variables to oversimplify into 'rates'
[quote]Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Serious clients and serious language experts will always agree on adequate pricing. That goes for creating subtitles in any language as well. You need to know how much work is involved to be able to charge adequately. For that, you need to have all the info (video, transcripts if available, format and software requirements, etc.). Imagine you have 200 words per minute. And that's just the text. That's without even thinking of watching the video again and again, translating within the given time frames, special language, use of special software. Quoting/accepting flat rates per video minute because someone suggests that isn't a professional approach at all. On the contrary, it's for people willing to be exploited. It doesn't matter if that's what certain agencies want you to do. Don't do it.[/quote]
Bernhard,
With all due respect, subtitling work has just too many critical, cost-influencing variables at play to be oversimplified like this. Your approach above attempts to draw a parallel from the translation of a complex PRINTED publication, which could be broken down into independent stages.
Under the risk of merely scratching the surface, I'll try to point a few variables.
First, a snapshot of a few features in that printed pub translation job that don't have equivalent in subtitling:
[*] If the text (script) is not provided, OCR can automate human transcription much better than any voice recognition contrivance.
[*] Translation of the pub will be complete, unabridged; while subtitling calls for utmost conciseness.
[*] While it is possible to proofread and fix DTP as much as a subtitles file, while DTP is WYSIWYG, subtitling isn't always so.
To illustrate, the funniest type of request I get from video-unsavvy clients goes like this:[quote]"We need you to transcribe a video."
"Okay, I can do it. Any particular file format you prefer, or will a *.doc work for you?"
"We want you to transcribe it on the video itself."
"I beg your pardon, but I don't get the idea."
"You see, the video is spoken in English. We want you to transcribe (sic!) it in Portuguese."
"Ah, you mean you want it translated!"
"Yes, if you say so."
"All right, I can do that. Do you want the full script translated, the video translated for dubbing, or do you want it translated for subtitles?"
"I want it transcribed in Portuguese."
"I think I've lost you again."
"I want it transcribed in a way that, as people onscreen say their lines in English, the corresponding transcription in Portuguese comes up written at the bottom of the screen while they are saying them."
"That's called subtitling."
"I've read somewhere that subtitling is much more expensive that transcription, so we'd like to save as much as possible."
"Yes, indeed. However transcription will give you pages of plain text, no longer a video. Subtitling is that text coming up onscreen in chunks, in sync with the video."
"If you say so... that's what we want!"[/quote]
Nevertheless, transcription may have its role in the subtitling workflow.
Even if it's subtitling into ONE language, when the content involves "complex wording" (e.g. chemical compounds, hard-to-spell names, etc.), transcription by a source language expert is worth the expense.
When a video is to be translated and subtitled in several different languages, it is more economical [u](though odten detrimental to the overall quality, to some extent)[/u] to have the original script transcribed, chopped into subtitles, and pre-timed ONCE, so that several translators working into different target languages may work mostly on TEXT (using the audio track for guidance).
First, these translators are much easier to find in all language pairs to be covered. Top-flight video translators who can work script-less, directly from the audio file are not so many, comparatively. Second, any translator will work much faster, if relieved from the transcribing task within the direct-from-audio translation work. Third, the work becomes less tiresome, so the same translator can offer not only lower rates, but also faster turnaround.
Taking my personal case as an example (since I wouldn't know any other), the difference in cost between subtitling directly from audio and working on pre-timed templates is striking. Of course, in the latter case, my client will have invested in transcribing, spotting and timing the templates. However to translate on templates, as compared to direct from audio, I'll charge one-third of my rate per minute of playing time, and will endure producing 3x-4x in the same period of time.
Leaving production volume aside, generalizing my figures, and assuming that transcribing, spotting and timing a template should cost 2/3 of the straight-from-audio translation, cost calculations are simplified:
- cost of translating straight from audio = $9 (assumption)
- cost of transcribing into timed templates = $6 (2/3)
- cost of translating templates = $3 (1/3)
So for ONE target language it's the same, $6 + $3 = $9.
However doing it straight from audio for, say, 5 languages, would cost $9 x 5 = $45.
On the other hand, using templates to translate into 5 languages would cost $6 + (5 x $3) = $21, saving ~50% overall.
A DVD can hold up to 32 different subtitle files (= languages). So the maximum savings there could be:
32x video translations from audio = $288
One template + 32 translations = $6 + (32 x $ $3) = $102, ~65% savings.
Of course, these figures aren't accurate, but they show the way for the client to calculate the break even point of transcribing & spotting first.
Topic: Rates for subtitling work
Poster: José Henrique Lamensdorf
Post title: Too many variables to oversimplify into 'rates'
[quote]Bernhard Sulzer wrote:
Serious clients and serious language experts will always agree on adequate pricing. That goes for creating subtitles in any language as well. You need to know how much work is involved to be able to charge adequately. For that, you need to have all the info (video, transcripts if available, format and software requirements, etc.). Imagine you have 200 words per minute. And that's just the text. That's without even thinking of watching the video again and again, translating within the given time frames, special language, use of special software. Quoting/accepting flat rates per video minute because someone suggests that isn't a professional approach at all. On the contrary, it's for people willing to be exploited. It doesn't matter if that's what certain agencies want you to do. Don't do it.[/quote]
Bernhard,
With all due respect, subtitling work has just too many critical, cost-influencing variables at play to be oversimplified like this. Your approach above attempts to draw a parallel from the translation of a complex PRINTED publication, which could be broken down into independent stages.
Under the risk of merely scratching the surface, I'll try to point a few variables.
First, a snapshot of a few features in that printed pub translation job that don't have equivalent in subtitling:
[*] If the text (script) is not provided, OCR can automate human transcription much better than any voice recognition contrivance.
[*] Translation of the pub will be complete, unabridged; while subtitling calls for utmost conciseness.
[*] While it is possible to proofread and fix DTP as much as a subtitles file, while DTP is WYSIWYG, subtitling isn't always so.
To illustrate, the funniest type of request I get from video-unsavvy clients goes like this:[quote]"We need you to transcribe a video."
"Okay, I can do it. Any particular file format you prefer, or will a *.doc work for you?"
"We want you to transcribe it on the video itself."
"I beg your pardon, but I don't get the idea."
"You see, the video is spoken in English. We want you to transcribe (sic!) it in Portuguese."
"Ah, you mean you want it translated!"
"Yes, if you say so."
"All right, I can do that. Do you want the full script translated, the video translated for dubbing, or do you want it translated for subtitles?"
"I want it transcribed in Portuguese."
"I think I've lost you again."
"I want it transcribed in a way that, as people onscreen say their lines in English, the corresponding transcription in Portuguese comes up written at the bottom of the screen while they are saying them."
"That's called subtitling."
"I've read somewhere that subtitling is much more expensive that transcription, so we'd like to save as much as possible."
"Yes, indeed. However transcription will give you pages of plain text, no longer a video. Subtitling is that text coming up onscreen in chunks, in sync with the video."
"If you say so... that's what we want!"[/quote]
Nevertheless, transcription may have its role in the subtitling workflow.
Even if it's subtitling into ONE language, when the content involves "complex wording" (e.g. chemical compounds, hard-to-spell names, etc.), transcription by a source language expert is worth the expense.
When a video is to be translated and subtitled in several different languages, it is more economical [u](though odten detrimental to the overall quality, to some extent)[/u] to have the original script transcribed, chopped into subtitles, and pre-timed ONCE, so that several translators working into different target languages may work mostly on TEXT (using the audio track for guidance).
First, these translators are much easier to find in all language pairs to be covered. Top-flight video translators who can work script-less, directly from the audio file are not so many, comparatively. Second, any translator will work much faster, if relieved from the transcribing task within the direct-from-audio translation work. Third, the work becomes less tiresome, so the same translator can offer not only lower rates, but also faster turnaround.
Taking my personal case as an example (since I wouldn't know any other), the difference in cost between subtitling directly from audio and working on pre-timed templates is striking. Of course, in the latter case, my client will have invested in transcribing, spotting and timing the templates. However to translate on templates, as compared to direct from audio, I'll charge one-third of my rate per minute of playing time, and will endure producing 3x-4x in the same period of time.
Leaving production volume aside, generalizing my figures, and assuming that transcribing, spotting and timing a template should cost 2/3 of the straight-from-audio translation, cost calculations are simplified:
- cost of translating straight from audio = $9 (assumption)
- cost of transcribing into timed templates = $6 (2/3)
- cost of translating templates = $3 (1/3)
So for ONE target language it's the same, $6 + $3 = $9.
However doing it straight from audio for, say, 5 languages, would cost $9 x 5 = $45.
On the other hand, using templates to translate into 5 languages would cost $6 + (5 x $3) = $21, saving ~50% overall.
A DVD can hold up to 32 different subtitle files (= languages). So the maximum savings there could be:
32x video translations from audio = $288
One template + 32 translations = $6 + (32 x $ $3) = $102, ~65% savings.
Of course, these figures aren't accurate, but they show the way for the client to calculate the break even point of transcribing & spotting first.