Case study
Three years of subtitling and QC for Tamil and Hindi streaming.
A streaming platform needed continuous Tamil and Hindi subtitling and QC across a growing catalog, where timing and readability are judged by every viewer, not a spec sheet.
3,100+ minutes - 2,000+ episodes - 8.5–9 / 10 on this engagement
110,000+
verified language specialists
Language specialist network
300+
languages across active service lines
4,500+
dialects and regional variants
110+
rare and indigenous language pairs
1,000+
projects delivered since 2015
Measured outcomes
Streaming subtitling and QC
Project overview
What landed, and what made it hard.
A streaming platform needed Tamil and Hindi subtitling and QC on a continuous cadence as its regional catalog grew, delivered through a top-100 LSP under their brand.
Delivery snapshot
Streaming subtitling and QC
- Client
- A streaming platform (via a top-100 LSP)
- Service
- Subtitling and subtitle QC
- Languages
- Tamil, Hindi
- Volume
- 3,100+ minutes subtitled, 2,000+ episodes QC
- Duration
- Three years, continuous
Why this mattered
Outcome before process.
Subtitling lives or dies on timing and readability: a late cue or an awkward line is visible to every viewer, and a three-year engagement only holds if quality survives the early feedback cycles.
The problem to solve
Why the work was difficult, and what MoniSa changed in-flight.
Continuous subtitling fails when reviewers rotate, when timing and language are checked separately, or when QC drifts as episode volume climbs.
The challenge
The problem to solve
Continuous subtitling fails when reviewers rotate, when timing and language are checked separately, or when QC drifts as episode volume climbs.
The platform needed subtitling and an independent QC pass held to one bar across three years, with the partner brand in front of the end client.
Operating response
What MoniSa changed
MoniSa ran subtitling and a separate QC lane as white-label production, with reviewer continuity and a fixed quality bar across the full engagement.
- Separate QC laneSubtitling and QC ran as distinct passes so timing and language errors were caught before delivery.
- Reviewer continuityStable reviewers across three years kept readability and timing consistent as the catalog grew.
- White-label deliveryWork shipped under the partner brand, with production handled invisibly behind it.
Results
Measured outcomes from this engagement.
The platform received 3,100+ minutes of subtitling and 2,000+ episodes of QC over three continuous years, at 8.5–9 / 10 subtitling and 9.5 / 10 QC on this engagement.
| Subtitling | 3,100+ minutes |
|---|---|
| QC | 2,000+ episodes |
| Subtitling quality | 8.5–9 / 10 on this engagement |
| QC quality | 9.5 / 10 on this engagement |
| Duration | Three years, continuous |
Selection logic
What protected the result.
Long-run subtitling needs a separate QC lane and stable reviewers, not a bench that re-learns timing and readability each season.
Why the fit was real
Why the fit was real
Long-run subtitling needs a separate QC lane and stable reviewers, not a bench that re-learns timing and readability each season.
What decided the result
What decided the result
Surviving the early feedback cycles and holding quality for three years mattered more than any single batch.
What buyers can reuse
What buyers can reuse
- Subtitling quality is a timing and readability problem that only a separate QC lane reliably catches.
- A three-year engagement is proof of sustained reliability, not a one-off pass that looked good once.
- The evidence keeps the client and partner details confidential and attributes the metrics only to this engagement.
Continue from this proof
Useful comparisons for the same problem.
Use these links to compare the case with the matching service, buyer guide, and language coverage.
Mapped context
Service and buyer context
Languages named
Examples referenced in the engagement.
- Tamil
- Hindi
- Subtitle timing and QC
More proof
Related proof
Compare this case with adjacent MoniSa proof before deciding whether the operating pattern fits your brief.
case evidence
Nearest proof pattern.
These related cases keep the next click close to the same kind of work.
AI evaluationFifty languages evaluated in a compressed sprint with reviewed quality, client details confidential.
LLM fine-tuning evaluation
The challenge. A model team needed 20,000 prompts evaluated across 50 languages under a compressed decision window for a fine-tuning decision.
What we did. MoniSa sourced five pre-calibrated evaluators per language across all 50 tracks in parallel.
The result. The team received ~20,000 evaluations across 50 languages during the compressed sprint with reviewed quality.
Translation and LSP supportA quarter-million words of legal Khmer, terminology held exact, client details confidential.
Legal translation into Khmer
Problem. A global marketplace needed 250,000 words of legal content translated into Khmer for market entry.
Action. MoniSa sourced legal-literate Khmer linguists with a separate review pass and terminology control.
Result. The marketplace received 250,000 words of legal Khmer translation and review.
Media and metadataDevice-aware subtitle QC across five screens with reviewed quality, client details confidential.
Multi-device subtitle QC
Problem. A media catalog needed subtitle QC verified across five device types and four languages.
Action. MoniSa ran QC against a per-device checklist with native reviewers per language.
Result. The catalog received 500+ hours of subtitle QC with reviewed quality across Mac, Windows, mobile, iPad, and OTT.
Buyer questions
Ask the questions weak vendors avoid.
Short answers for buyers checking fit, coverage, quality method, and next-step readiness.
What was delivered on this engagement?
Subtitling: 3,100+ minutes. QC: 2,000+ episodes. Subtitling quality: 8.5–9 / 10 on this engagement
What control kept the work stable?
Surviving the early feedback cycles and holding quality for three years mattered more than any single batch.
Where should similar work go next?
Use Multimedia services for the delivery model, the case studies hub for buyer-side evaluation, and the contact page for a scoped brief.
Similar brief
Send the constraint behind the metric.
A useful follow-up to a case study names the language mix, review model, deadline, and what proof your buyer team needs before approval.
Production-ready brief
01Closest matching challenge from this case02Language pair, dialect, and script coverage03Volume, cadence, or hours to deliver04Reviewer model and acceptance criteria05Security or platform constraints06Proof needed for stakeholder approval