On coming to watch a couple of movies I've recorded on my Sky+ Box
recently I was surprised to see they have a signing language window
super-imposed, bottom right. (One was 'Under the Skin', recorded 2nd
October. I *think* the other was 'Clockwork Orange'.) I found them
unwatchable. I assume they were special versions of these films for
the deaf, and I just wasn't observant enough when I looked at the Sky+
programme. (It does seem a high proportion by mere chance though, that
2 of about 5 movies recorded over the month or two had this feature. I
can't recall the last time I ever saw such a movie on TV previously!)

When I backed out and viewed the movie details from Planner, it was
annotated with 'SL', which I'm guessing stands for 'Signing Language'?
Presumably this is also indicated on the top right section of the
information panel from the programme viewer? Yet after a quick browse
just now of about 20 imminent movies, I couldn't find a single one
with 'SL'. After exploring I've now also found AD, DD, DW, W, and S.
Where are the meanings of all these codes documented please?

I checked Settings to see if I could somehow switch this SL window
off, but saw nothing about it. While there I also saw an option called
'Audio Description'. I'll record one to see for myself, but meanwhile
can someone tell me what it means please. Is that perhaps a similar
thing for the blind?

Finally, changing topic a bit, I see that the information window for a
recording (and a programme) doesn't show the *channel*. Seems a
significant omission?

-- 
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

In message ffeei3l74lekgecnpr8hr4ihqk747bofsm@4ax.com,
Terry Pinnell  Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> On coming to watch a couple of movies I've recorded on my Sky+ Box
> recently I was surprised to see they have a signing language window
> super-imposed, bottom right. (One was 'Under the Skin', recorded 2nd
> October. I *think* the other was 'Clockwork Orange'.) I found them
> unwatchable. I assume they were special versions of these films for
> the deaf, and I just wasn't observant enough when I looked at the Sky+
> programme. (It does seem a high proportion by mere chance though, that
> 2 of about 5 movies recorded over the month or two had this feature. I
> can't recall the last time I ever saw such a movie on TV previously!)
>
> When I backed out and viewed the movie details from Planner, it was
> annotated with 'SL', which I'm guessing stands for 'Signing Language'?
> Presumably this is also indicated on the top right section of the
> information panel from the programme viewer? Yet after a quick browse
> just now of about 20 imminent movies, I couldn't find a single one
> with 'SL'. After exploring I've now also found AD, DD, DW, W, and S.
> Where are the meanings of all these codes documented please?
>
> I checked Settings to see if I could somehow switch this SL window
> off, but saw nothing about it. While there I also saw an option called
> 'Audio Description'. I'll record one to see for myself, but meanwhile
> can someone tell me what it means please. Is that perhaps a similar
> thing for the blind?
>
> Finally, changing topic a bit, I see that the information window for a
> recording (and a programme) doesn't show the *channel*. Seems a
> significant omission?

I understand and appreciate that deaf people want to be able to enjoy films 
too, but what's wrong with subtitles?
I'm not just having a moan, I'm genuinely interested; can sign language 
express things better than simple text? Surely you can get moods and 
emotions by watching the actors on screen?
Just wondered why you need a distracting little bloke waving his hands round 
at the bottom of the screen when you could provide the same information(?) 
with normal subtitles...

Any deaf people on here care to help me understand this?

-- 
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

I'm not deaf, but I have friends and a partner who are, and have been 
learning BSL for a few years now...


ChrisM wrote:
> I understand and appreciate that deaf people want to be able to enjoy films 
> too, but what's wrong with subtitles?

Sign languages, such as BSL (British Sign Language) are languages in 
their own right, with completely different grammar rules etc - not 
simply a visual transliteration of a spoken language (although it is 
possible to do this, it is inelegant and used mainly as a teaching aid).

Interestingly, ASL (American Sign Language) has more in common with LSF 
(French Sign Language) than it does with BSL, whereas the reverse is 
true with the spoken languages.

If a Deaf person's native language is BSL, they may not have a good 
enough understanding of English to follow subtitles, in the same way 
that an English speaker might not understand French subtitles.

Many Deaf people (generally the younger generation) do have good 
English, and will often prefer subtitles as they are closer to the 
original script (translating to BSL tends to change the order and 
timing, which can be a issue in comedy or drama), but for some sign 
interpretation is their only reasonable option for decent access to TV.


> I'm not just having a moan, I'm genuinely interested; can sign language 
> express things better than simple text?

Some things can be expressed more elegantly in sign (for example, when 
giving directions in sign, you literally draw a map), and some things 
can be expressed more elegantly in English.  But in this context, an 
important point is that the subtitles are not a complete substitute for 
the audio, and subtle tone of voice can be missed.  Sign language 
conveys such subtleties in a visual way (using facial expressions, speed 
and size of signing space, that sort of thing), so for a profoundly deaf 
person, the signing can be clearer.

Subtitles are of course invaluable for the large numbers of people who 
have a mild or moderate hearing loss, who just need the occasional cue 
to disambiguate the audio.


> Any deaf people on here care to help me understand this?

I hope that gives you some idea on why sign interpretation is needed. 
Unfortunately, the current standards do not allow for the interpreter to 
be turned on and off in the same way subtitles and audio description (as 
you say, this is an alternative audio track containing an additional 
commentary for the blind - "$character tears up the photograph, stands 
up and storms out of the room." that sort of thing) can.

As a general rule, broadcasters put interpreted programmes on late at 
night for recording.

The problem comes when your PVR doesn't realise there's a difference 
between the signed and normal showing of a programme, and sensibly opts 
for the late-night repeat in order to reduce tuner clashes.  This is of 
course a software/listings issue.


Kim.

ChrisM wrote:
>>When I backed out and viewed the movie details from Planner, it was
>>annotated with 'SL', which I'm guessing stands for 'Signing Language'?
>>Presumably this is also indicated on the top right section of the
>>information panel from the programme viewer? Yet after a quick browse
>>just now of about 20 imminent movies, I couldn't find a single one
>>with 'SL'. 

The signed ones tend, at least on ordinary channels, to be broadcast 
late at night.

>>After exploring I've now also found AD, DD, DW, W, and S.
>>Where are the meanings of all these codes documented please?

AD - audio description (for blind people)
DD - dolby digital?
W - widescreen
S - stereo

>>I checked Settings to see if I could somehow switch this SL window
>>off, but saw nothing about it. While there I also saw an option called
>>'Audio Description'. I'll record one to see for myself, but meanwhile
>>can someone tell me what it means please. Is that perhaps a similar
>>thing for the blind?

Yes. It's a voice-over saying things like "she takes her dress off and 
waves her nipples in his face" which may not be adequately conveyed by a 
soundtrack of "ooh, oooh, oooh, yess, ooooh"

> I understand and appreciate that deaf people want to be able to enjoy films 
> too, but what's wrong with subtitles?

Subtitles require a person to be able to read English fluently and 
quickly. For many deaf people, sign language is their first language and 
they may find following a conversation in printed English difficult or 
tiring.

Owain

See in-line comments.


> If a Deaf person's native language is BSL, they may not have a good
> enough understanding of English to follow subtitles, in the same way
> that an English speaiker might not understand French subtitles.


This didn't occur to me, but now that you've said it, makes sense, though 
surely most English deaf people get taught the written English language? 
Never really thought of sign language as a DIFFERENT language, just as a way 
of expressing English (or whatever language you want). Quite interesting to 
hear it is different to English in much the same way as English is different 
to (say) French!!

> Some things can be expressed more elegantly in sign (for example, when
> giving directions in sign, you literally draw a map), and some things
> can be expressed more elegantly in English.  But in this context, an
> important point is that the subtitles are not a complete substitute
> for the audio, and subtle tone of voice can be missed.  Sign language
> conveys such subtleties in a visual way (using facial expressions,
> speed and size of signing space, that sort of thing), so for a
> profoundly deaf person, the signing can be clearer.

This is kind of what I thought, that signing is better at conveying emotions 
and moods. It must be quite hard though to watch both the action on the 
screen and the signing guy at the same time, wheras, I find that if I'm 
watching a good subtitled movie, I hardly notice I'm reading the subtitles 
after a while. (though I suppose I'm picking up mood/emotion from the way 
things on screen are being said even though I can't understand them; a deaf 
person wouldn't pick up these clues if they couldn't hear...)

> I hope that gives you some idea on why sign interpretation is needed.

Yes, thanks it does. Thanks for taking the time to explain.

> Unfortunately, the current standards do not allow for the interpreter
> to be turned on and off in the same way subtitles and audio
> description

That would be the ideal, then anyone that wanted the signing could turn it 
on, everyone else would not need to have the distraction.


Thanks, once again!



-- 
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

ChrisM wrote:
>> If a Deaf person's native language is BSL, they may not have a good
>> enough understanding of English to follow subtitles, in the same way
>> that an English speaiker might not understand French subtitles.
> 
> This didn't occur to me, but now that you've said it, makes sense, though 
> surely most English deaf people get taught the written English language? 

Yes, though at risk of opening an enormous can of worms, the quality of 
education for deaf people - especially signing deaf people - in this 
country has historically been (and in some cases still is) rather 
suboptimal.


Kim.

ChrisM wrote:
> That would be the ideal, then anyone that wanted the signing could turn it 
> on, everyone else would not need to have the distraction.

Apparently, one of the stated reasons why in-vision signing is out in 
the open (and hence can't be shut off) is that it enforcably highlights 
and educates others about its existance (BSL) and the necessary needs of 
the Deaf - which is seen as a way of helping social inclusion and also 
showing necessary compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act.

It may sounds a draconian 'nanny knows best' decision for some - but 
that's the advisors of our blessed government...

-- 
Adrian C

Terry Pinnell  wrote:

>On coming to watch a couple of movies I've recorded on my Sky+ Box
>recently I was surprised to see they have a signing language window
>super-imposed, bottom right. (One was 'Under the Skin', recorded 2nd
>October. I *think* the other was 'Clockwork Orange'.) I found them
>unwatchable. I assume they were special versions of these films for
>the deaf, and I just wasn't observant enough when I looked at the Sky+
>programme. (It does seem a high proportion by mere chance though, that
>2 of about 5 movies recorded over the month or two had this feature. I
>can't recall the last time I ever saw such a movie on TV previously!)
>
>When I backed out and viewed the movie details from Planner, it was
>annotated with 'SL', which I'm guessing stands for 'Signing Language'?
>Presumably this is also indicated on the top right section of the
>information panel from the programme viewer? Yet after a quick browse
>just now of about 20 imminent movies, I couldn't find a single one
>with 'SL'. After exploring I've now also found AD, DD, DW, W, and S.
>Where are the meanings of all these codes documented please?
>
>I checked Settings to see if I could somehow switch this SL window
>off, but saw nothing about it. While there I also saw an option called
>'Audio Description'. I'll record one to see for myself, but meanwhile
>can someone tell me what it means please. Is that perhaps a similar
>thing for the blind?
>
>Finally, changing topic a bit, I see that the information window for a
>recording (and a programme) doesn't show the *channel*. Seems a
>significant omission?

Many thanks for all the helpful replies.

Anyone with thoughts on that final query please? When viewing a
recording, surely one of the important facts you want to know is what
channel you recorded it from? 

-- 
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

In message , Adrian C 
<email@here.invalid> writes
>ChrisM wrote:
>> That would be the ideal, then anyone that wanted the signing could 
>>turn it  on, everyone else would not need to have the distraction.
>
>Apparently, one of the stated reasons why in-vision signing is out in 
>the open (and hence can't be shut off) is that it enforcably highlights 
>and educates others about its existance (BSL) and the necessary needs 
>of the Deaf - which is seen as a way of helping social inclusion and 
>also showing necessary compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act.
>
>It may sounds a draconian 'nanny knows best' decision for some - but 
>that's the advisors of our blessed government...
>
So is there any reason, this all can't be accessible via the red button? 
Then any deaf people that want it can watch it, whilst not spoiling 
things for everyone else.
-- 
Sean Black

Sean Black wrote:

> So is there any reason, this all can't be accessible via the red button? 
> Then any deaf people that want it can watch it, whilst not spoiling 
> things for everyone else.

Lack (read cost) of transmission bandwidth, and the difficulty of merging two 
MPEG streams (clean programme + signer) within a 20 quid STB.

There's always been the panacea one day of an electronically generated signer 
(within a suitable STB) controlled by relatively small packets of data, that 
would be optional under viewer control, but that still seems some way off ?

-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

AD is audio described and uses the narrative channel of the sound.

Sl could be signing language, i know bsl is British sign language. it may 
well be that like AD you can select it off if you want to.

Brian

-- 
Brian Gaff - briang1@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!
"Terry Pinnell"  wrote in message 
news:ffeei3l74lekgecnpr8hr4ihqk747bofsm@4ax.com...
> On coming to watch a couple of movies I've recorded on my Sky+ Box
> recently I was surprised to see they have a signing language window
> super-imposed, bottom right. (One was 'Under the Skin', recorded 2nd
> October. I *think* the other was 'Clockwork Orange'.) I found them
> unwatchable. I assume they were special versions of these films for
> the deaf, and I just wasn't observant enough when I looked at the Sky+
> programme. (It does seem a high proportion by mere chance though, that
> 2 of about 5 movies recorded over the month or two had this feature. I
> can't recall the last time I ever saw such a movie on TV previously!)
>
> When I backed out and viewed the movie details from Planner, it was
> annotated with 'SL', which I'm guessing stands for 'Signing Language'?
> Presumably this is also indicated on the top right section of the
> information panel from the programme viewer? Yet after a quick browse
> just now of about 20 imminent movies, I couldn't find a single one
> with 'SL'. After exploring I've now also found AD, DD, DW, W, and S.
> Where are the meanings of all these codes documented please?
>
> I checked Settings to see if I could somehow switch this SL window
> off, but saw nothing about it. While there I also saw an option called
> 'Audio Description'. I'll record one to see for myself, but meanwhile
> can someone tell me what it means please. Is that perhaps a similar
> thing for the blind?
>
> Finally, changing topic a bit, I see that the information window for a
> recording (and a programme) doesn't show the *channel*. Seems a
> significant omission?
>
> -- 
> Terry, East Grinstead, UK

On 30 Oct, 14:44, Terry Pinnell  wrote:
> On coming to watch a couple of movies I've recorded on my Sky+ Box
> recently I was surprised to see they have a signing language window
> super-imposed, bottom right. (One was 'Under the Skin', recorded 2nd
> October. I *think* the other was 'Clockwork Orange'.) I found them
> unwatchable. I assume they were special versions of these films for
> the deaf, and I just wasn't observant enough when I looked at the Sky+
> programme. (It does seem a high proportion by mere chance though, that
> 2 of about 5 movies recorded over the month or two had this feature. I
> can't recall the last time I ever saw such a movie on TV previously!)
>
> When I backed out and viewed the movie details from Planner, it was
> annotated with 'SL', which I'm guessing stands for 'Signing Language'?
> Presumably this is also indicated on the top right section of the
> information panel from the programme viewer? Yet after a quick browse
> just now of about 20 imminent movies, I couldn't find a single one
> with 'SL'. After exploring I've now also found AD, DD, DW, W, and S.
> Where are the meanings of all these codes documented please?
>
> I checked Settings to see if I could somehow switch this SL window
> off, but saw nothing about it. While there I also saw an option called
> 'Audio Description'. I'll record one to see for myself, but meanwhile
> can someone tell me what it means please. Is that perhaps a similar
> thing for the blind?
>
> Finally, changing topic a bit, I see that the information window for a
> recording (and a programme) doesn't show the *channel*. Seems a
> significant omission?
>
> --
> Terry, East Grinstead, UK


Just my tuppence worth. On several occasions I've recorded late night
signed repeats of programmes (both drama and documentary) that I
missed the first time round, and whilst this isn't an optimal
situation I haven't really found the presence of a signer a great
distraction at all, you just get used to it.

That said these have been programmes I really wanted to watch, so
perhaps the quality of the underlying material might make a difference
to how distracting an in-vision signer might be!

I can of course see that it could well be a bit too much to watch a
feature film like that though!

>> On coming to watch a couple of movies I've recorded on my Sky+ Box
>> recently I was surprised to see they have a signing language window
>> super-imposed, bottom right. (One was 'Under the Skin', recorded 2nd
>> October. I *think* the other was 'Clockwork Orange'.) 

Is the film of Clockwork Orange in the same language as the book?  I 
would imagine that would be quite tricky to interpret strickly.  A bit 
like dubbing Teletubbies into other languages.

In article , Terry Pinnell 
wrote:
> Anyone with thoughts on that final query please? When viewing a
> recording, surely one of the important facts you want to know is what
> channel you recorded it from? 

Why? When I'm watching a programme I'm watching the programme, not the 
channel. I couldn't give a monkey's what route it took to get to me, any 
more than I care which bookshop supplied a book I'm reading or where I 
bought a CD. If there are still more episodes to record, the details will 
be in the on-screen guide or Digiguide, or the one I'm watching will be 
so recent I'll remember having done it.

Rod.

In article , 
Mizter T wrote:
> Just my tuppence worth. On several occasions I've recorded late night
> signed repeats of programmes (both drama and documentary) that I
> missed the first time round, and whilst this isn't an optimal
> situation I haven't really found the presence of a signer a great
> distraction at all, you just get used to it.

No more annoying than an extra animated DOG you mean...?

If a programme is sufficiently interesting I'll watch it despite quite 
serious intrusions, but I'd still rather they weren't there. The 
knowledge that this particular intrusion has been applied deliberately 
and that we have the technology to achieve the same end in a better way 
but have not done so is not reassuring.

Rod.

Roderick Stewart  wrote:

>In article , Terry Pinnell 
>wrote:
>> Anyone with thoughts on that final query please? When viewing a
>> recording, surely one of the important facts you want to know is what
>> channel you recorded it from? 
>
>Why?

1. To check back on the published programme details, for a whole bunch
of possible reasons. In this particular case, I've already mentioned
the key one: to see if the fact that it was 'signed' was mentioned,
and I'd missed it, so that I can avoid doing so in future. But I might
also want to read what if anything the critics said, etc. Knowing the
channel greatly helps find it.

2. To determine if (say) the 140 minute movie includes commercials or
not. A significant factor here if we have a max of 2 hours to watch
it.

>When I'm watching a programme I'm watching the programme, not the 
>channel. I couldn't give a monkey's what route it took to get to me, any 
>more than I care which bookshop supplied a book I'm reading or where I 
>bought a CD. If there are still more episodes to record, the details will 
>be in the on-screen guide or Digiguide, or the one I'm watching will be 
>so recent I'll remember having done it.
>
>Rod.


-- 
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Mark Carver wrote:
> Sean Black wrote:
> 
>> So is there any reason, this all can't be accessible via the red 
>> button? Then any deaf people that want it can watch it, whilst not 
>> spoiling things for everyone else.
> 
> Lack (read cost) of transmission bandwidth, and the difficulty of 
> merging two MPEG streams (clean programme + signer) within a 20 quid STB.
> 
> There's always been the panacea one day of an electronically generated 
> signer (within a suitable STB) controlled by relatively small packets of 
> data, that would be optional under viewer control, but that still seems 
> some way off ?
> 
When I left in Nov 2004 R & D were working on it.  There were a couple 
of ways of doing it as I recall.  As with AD and subtitles it would be 
bitstream efficient.

Problem was to persuade the other broadcasters to join in!  As with AD.
BBC AD uses the concept of "user defined" levels.  The background and AD 
levels set by the user on  their STB.

All the other broadcasters wanted to use "broadcaster defined" where a 
preset AD level was mixed in to the main audio and sent as an extra stream.

On 31 Oct, 07:15, Roderick Stewart 
wrote:
> In article ,
>
> Mizter T wrote:
> > Just my tuppence worth. On several occasions I've recorded late night
> > signed repeats of programmes (both drama and documentary) that I
> > missed the first time round, and whilst this isn't an optimal
> > situation I haven't really found the presence of a signer a great
> > distraction at all, you just get used to it.
>
> No more annoying than an extra animated DOG you mean...?

Ha! Well, in-vision singing is serving a good purpose.

>
> If a programme is sufficiently interesting I'll watch it despite quite
> serious intrusions, but I'd still rather they weren't there. The
> knowledge that this particular intrusion has been applied deliberately
> and that we have the technology to achieve the same end in a better way
> but have not done so is not reassuring.
>
> Rod.

As has already been stated, it would appear that we don't have the
technology - or rather, the current DTT standards do not appear to
allow for one video feed to be overlaid on top of another.

Plus I don't begrudge the inclusion of in-vision signing on late
repeats of programmes.

In article , Mizter T 
wrote:
> > If a programme is sufficiently interesting I'll watch it despite quite
> > serious intrusions, but I'd still rather they weren't there. The
> > knowledge that this particular intrusion has been applied deliberately
> > and that we have the technology to achieve the same end in a better way
> > but have not done so is not reassuring.
> >
> > Rod.
> 
> As has already been stated, it would appear that we don't have the
> technology - or rather, the current DTT standards do not appear to
> allow for one video feed to be overlaid on top of another.

In other words, all it would take would be a decision. It's not a 
limitation of the technology.

Existing digiboxes may not have the capability, but it would be easy to 
manufacture new ones that did. They'd contain about the same amount of 
electronics and would be in every way compatible with existing 
transmissions, so wouldn't need to be sold in specialist outlets and could 
therefore be about the same price. The overlaid signing function could be 
an option you could switch on or ignore as you wished, and in all other 
respects the box would simply be an ordinary digibox. It could use one of 
the red button channels, of which there seem to be several that are not in 
use at any time.

They really should have thought of this when digital TV was being designed. 
It's not as if optional piggyback services are a new concept; we've had 
teletext since the 1970s, and the Americans have had piggyback audio on FM 
broadcasts for a great deal longer than that. We've managed to implement 
RDS, a service nobody asked for and which is probably ignored by more 
people than use it, or even know they've got it. It's just another 
opportunity missed through lack of thought - something that could have been 
actually useful, which is what public service broadcasting is supposed to 
be about.

Rod.

...snip...
> We've managed to implement
> RDS, a service nobody asked for and which is probably ignored by more
> people than use it, or even know they've got it. It's just another
> opportunity missed through lack of thought - something that could have 
> been
> actually useful, which is what public service broadcasting is supposed to
> be about.

I wonder how much of the design of RDS was fixing the "moving target" 
problem with FM in cars followed by a period of "right, we can send digital 
data and we've got spare bandwidth - what do we do with it?"

Paul DS.

I actually quite like RDS, I enjoy seeing what the station name is when
I'm travelling without having to wait until an ident or the news break,
and I do use the TA and TP (EON-TP is very useful if you're doing a long
car journey!)

I know these days you can just ring up the RAC and ask them, but back in
the 90s when none of that was available, it was dead handy sometimes
when you'd be doing the family trip up to Cumbria to see the
grandparents.

Mizter T wrote:

> As has already been stated, it would appear that we don't have the
> technology - or rather, the current DTT standards do not appear to
> allow for one video feed to be overlaid on top of another.

I think we have.  MHEG could do a crude overlay, but AIUI, the avatar 
method is preferred and needs rather a lot of bitstream.  Thus it would 
probably mean another stream.  As to whether current STBs can select a 
second stream is something the experts can comment on.

kimble  wrote:

> Subtitles are of course invaluable for the large numbers of people who
> have a mild or moderate hearing loss, who just need the occasional cue
> to disambiguate the audio.

Indeed, though these days the subtitlers seem to have worse hearing than
mine, and I find myself distracted by clearly incorrect captions. I
dread to think how 'disambiguate' would turn out.

-- 
Alan Pemberton
Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England
To e-mail me directly, please visit
<http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/index.html#Mail-me>

Paul D.Smith wrote:

> I wonder how much of the design of RDS was fixing the "moving target" 
> problem with FM in cars followed by a period of "right, we can send digital 
> data and we've got spare bandwidth - what do we do with it?"

I think the driving force (ha, note the pun !) was auto re-tuning for national 
networks. I recall a Philips car radio, pre RDS days, where you'd program in 
the frequencies for R2 etc on the route of your intended journey, and it would 
auto switch as you progressed.

-- 
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.

In article <001901c81bdc$5e183920$6501a8c0@mofolaptop>, Christopher Woods 
wrote:
> I actually quite like RDS, I enjoy seeing what the station name is when
> I'm travelling without having to wait until an ident or the news break,
> and I do use the TA and TP (EON-TP is very useful if you're doing a long
> car journey!)

I'm sure some people will have found a use for it, but since the station 
name is pretty much constant in my case, and the display is shared with 
the satnav, RDS is completely ignored in my car, and I suspect by most 
people who have it - if they even know they have it, or what it is. It 
does what it is supposed to do, but to me it looks like a solution that 
never found a really worthy problem.

Rod.

True, I suppose... I think I just love it because I'm a geek ;)

What I did always think was a bit pointless though were the TA and TP
buttons on home mini hifi systems that had RDS-compatible tuners in...

> Yes, though at risk of opening an enormous can of worms, the quality of 
> education for deaf people - especially signing deaf people - in this 
> country has historically been (and in some cases still is) rather 
> suboptimal.

you make a very valid point there...

Unfortunately from a born deaf child's point of view, where you are born 
makes a massive difference to the educational upbringing that is recieved.

If you were born in Wales or Durham or or some other places you recieved an 
education conducted in BSL. The trouble with BSL is that it does not 
encourage deaf children to hear, listen or speak at all. In addition, there 
is no written form of BSL so the deaf child is not encouraged to read or 
write let alone spell or learn grammar.

However, if you were born in Oxfordshire or Leicestershire, you'd be fitted 
with hearing aids, and you would hear with hearing aids, and hopefully 
listen, and hopefully catch language just like the other hearing children 
do. This of course sets you up for learning the abilities to read, write, 
spell, grammar rules and of course to speak.

I was very fortunate that despite being born profoundly deaf, I was fitted 
up with hearing aids at age 3, sent to hearing schools, where I was the 
first and only deaf child each school I went to ever had. I had the support 
of a visiting teacher of the deaf who looked after my best interests....

This set me up to attend University, not once, not twice but 3 times as I 
gained a bachelors, a masters and a doctorate degree. It is very sad to note 
that a deaf child is 16 times less likely to go to university to for a 
undergraduate degree than a hearing child. The figures are of course worse 
for masters and doctoral degrees.

It would be fair to say that deaf children who recieved an education in BSL 
will have found their opportunities for career advancement severely 
curtailed.

According to the RNID, 1 in 6 people have a hearing loss, and there are only 
4 profoundly deaf adults in the whole of the UK with doctoral 
qualifications.......

Regards

Stephen

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:03:10 +0000, Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid (Alan Pemberton) wrote:

>kimble  wrote:
>
>> Subtitles are of course invaluable for the large numbers of people who
>> have a mild or moderate hearing loss, who just need the occasional cue
>> to disambiguate the audio.
>
>Indeed, though these days the subtitlers seem to have worse hearing than
>mine, and I find myself distracted by clearly incorrect captions. I
>dread to think how 'disambiguate' would turn out.

Is it real people doing the subtitling? The quality is so poor I had assumed that they had some
automated voice recognition system nowadays. It's often almost impossible to make out any sense from
the subtitles.
--

Cheers

Nigel Barker
Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur

"Mallory"  wrote in message 
news:13ii4ropq851c1c@corp.supernews.com...


> If you were born in Wales or Durham or or some other places you recieved 
> an education conducted in BSL. The trouble with BSL is that it does not 
> encourage deaf children to hear, listen or speak at all. In addition, 
> there is no written form of BSL so the deaf child is not encouraged to 
> read or write let alone spell or learn grammar.
>
> However, if you were born in Oxfordshire or Leicestershire, you'd be 
> fitted with hearing aids, and you would hear with hearing aids, and 
> hopefully listen, and hopefully catch language just like the other hearing 
> children do. This of course sets you up for learning the abilities to 
> read, write, spell, grammar rules and of course to speak.
>
> I was very fortunate that despite being born profoundly deaf, I was fitted 
> up with hearing aids at age 3, sent to hearing schools, where I was the 
> first and only deaf child each school I went to ever had. I had the 
> support of a visiting teacher of the deaf who looked after my best 
> interests....
>
> This set me up to attend University, not once, not twice but 3 times as I 
> gained a bachelors, a masters and a doctorate degree. It is very sad to 
> note that a deaf child is 16 times less likely to go to university to for 
> a undergraduate degree than a hearing child. The figures are of course 
> worse for masters and doctoral degrees.
>
> It would be fair to say that deaf children who recieved an education in 
> BSL will have found their opportunities for career advancement severely 
> curtailed.
>
> According to the RNID, 1 in 6 people have a hearing loss, and there are 
> only 4 profoundly deaf adults in the whole of the UK with doctoral 
> qualifications.......
>




from the little i've seen of programs like see hear, there seems to be quite 
a few people who i'd call 'militant' deaf.
asking them to do what you have would seem to offend them as much as asking 
a black person to pretend they are white - it's really hard for me to 
understand - they see being deaf not as something that just happened to 
their body, but as their actual identity.


-- 
Gareth.

That fly... is your magic wand.
http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/

Nigel Barker wrote:
> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:03:10 +0000, Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid (Alan Pemberton) wrote:
> 
>> kimble  wrote:
>>
>>> Subtitles are of course invaluable for the large numbers of people who
>>> have a mild or moderate hearing loss, who just need the occasional cue
>>> to disambiguate the audio.
>> Indeed, though these days the subtitlers seem to have worse hearing than
>> mine, and I find myself distracted by clearly incorrect captions. I
>> dread to think how 'disambiguate' would turn out.
> 
> Is it real people doing the subtitling? The quality is so poor I had assumed that they had some
> automated voice recognition system nowadays. It's often almost impossible to make out any sense from
> the subtitles.
> --
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Nigel Barker
> Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur
Yes I think it is Voice Recognition, with the subtitler sometimes 
voicing over the words, certainly with pre-recorded stuff.
Before I left we used to get the odd call from a subtitler at home in 
the wilds of Cumbria or somewhere referring to the poor quality of an 
ISDN link.

Dickie mint  wrote:

> Mizter T wrote:
> 
> > As has already been stated, it would appear that we don't have the
> > technology - or rather, the current DTT standards do not appear to
> > allow for one video feed to be overlaid on top of another.
> 
> I think we have.  MHEG could do a crude overlay, but AIUI, the avatar
> method is preferred and needs rather a lot of bitstream.  Thus it would
> probably mean another stream.  As to whether current STBs can select a
> second stream is something the experts can comment on.

Well, some satellite boxes can inlay a small picture from a second
channel, and NRK in Norway use that fact to enable deaf viewers to cut
their dedicated signing channel into whatever programme the signing is
for.
 
-- 
Alan Pemberton
Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England
To e-mail me directly, please visit
<http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/index.html#Mail-me>

Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid (Alan Pemberton) writes:

> Well, some satellite boxes can inlay a small picture from a second
> channel

As can some Freeview boxes.

On 30/10/2007, Sean Black wrote in message
:
 
> So is there any reason, this all can't be accessible via the red button? 
> Then any deaf people that want it can watch it, whilst not spoiling 
> things for everyone else.

It would take up the bandwidth of another channel.  And it would be one
where additional adverts had no effect.  Which means that the broadcaster
would be halving their profit.

Simon.
-- 
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk

> from the little i've seen of programs like see hear, there seems to be 
> quite a few people who i'd call 'militant' deaf.

Yes I know what you mean......

> asking them to do what you have would seem to offend them as much as 
> asking a black person to pretend they are white - it's really hard for me 
> to understand - they see being deaf not as something that just happened to 
> their body, but as their actual identity.

Yes I know what you mean...

What really gets me going is the "deaf militants" views on cochlear implants

They say that fitting cochlear implants to deaf children before they are at 
a suitable age to give informed consent to the cochlear implant is akin to 
Hitler's practice of drilling holes into defenceless childrens heads and 
forcing deaf children to hear against their own free choice or free will.

The point I make here is that if you wait for children to grow up until age 
18 so that they can make an informed choice whether to proceed with a 
Cochlear implant or continue to communicate in sign language, its already 
too late for them to acquire hearing. listening and speaking skills.

For deaf children to gain hearing, listening and speaking skills to a level 
comparable to their hearing peers, that cochlear implant needs to go in at 
an age before hearing children start acquiring speech naturally.

Regards

Stephen


>
>
> -- 
> Gareth.
>
> That fly... is your magic wand.
> http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/
>

Terry Pinnell  wrote:

>On coming to watch a couple of movies I've recorded on my Sky+ Box
>recently I was surprised to see they have a signing language window
>super-imposed, bottom right. (One was 'Under the Skin', recorded 2nd
>October. I *think* the other was 'Clockwork Orange'.) I found them
>unwatchable. I assume they were special versions of these films for
>the deaf, and I just wasn't observant enough when I looked at the Sky+
>programme. (It does seem a high proportion by mere chance though, that
>2 of about 5 movies recorded over the month or two had this feature. I
>can't recall the last time I ever saw such a movie on TV previously!)
>
>When I backed out and viewed the movie details from Planner, it was
>annotated with 'SL', which I'm guessing stands for 'Signing Language'?
>Presumably this is also indicated on the top right section of the
>information panel from the programme viewer? Yet after a quick browse
>just now of about 20 imminent movies, I couldn't find a single one
>with 'SL'. After exploring I've now also found AD, DD, DW, W, and S.
>Where are the meanings of all these codes documented please?
>
>I checked Settings to see if I could somehow switch this SL window
>off, but saw nothing about it. While there I also saw an option called
>'Audio Description'. I'll record one to see for myself, but meanwhile
>can someone tell me what it means please. Is that perhaps a similar
>thing for the blind?
>
>Finally, changing topic a bit, I see that the information window for a
>recording (and a programme) doesn't show the *channel*. Seems a
>significant omission?

The ideal solution IMO would be a switchable option, removing the
signing window on playback. Which I gather from the discussion has
technical or cost of implementation difficulties. But I'd settle for
simply seeing 'Signed' or 'SL' included in all schedules, so that I
could avoid recording it.

As mentioned, my source for those unwanted signed movies I recorded
was the Sunday Times. That does show 'Signed' for 'mainstream'
channels but not for others. (By 'mainstream' I just mean the 18 or so
that are given the same generous format in the listing, as opposed to
the similar number with a condensed format.)

For example, 'Top Gear' on BBC1 at 02:45 on 3rd Nov is annotated
'Signed'. But 'Afternoon Play' on 3rd Nov at 04:40 on UK TV Gold (in
last weekend's ST listings compact format as 04:45 under 2nd Nov, page
82) does not have any such indication (although online Digiguide tells
me it is).

The 'Frasier' series apart, most of my recordings at present are
movies. Signed versions of these appear to be almost entirely confined
to the non-mainstream channels. So in future I'll go upstairs to check
Digiguide on my PC before hitting the R button based merely on a
browse of the TV mag in the lounge.

-- 
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

Dickie mint wrote:
> Mizter T wrote:
> 
>> As has already been stated, it would appear that we don't have the
>> technology - or rather, the current DTT standards do not appear to
>> allow for one video feed to be overlaid on top of another.
> 
> I think we have.  MHEG could do a crude overlay, but AIUI, the avatar 
> method is preferred and needs rather a lot of bitstream.  Thus it would 
> probably mean another stream.  As to whether current STBs can select a 
> second stream is something the experts can comment on.

I knew BBC R & D had done a paper on signing, by one of the beeb's ace 
brains and his colleagues.  It's a bit old, and AIRI Avatars are now 
being considered.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/rd/pubs/papers/pdffiles/ibc00net.pdf

Here's some more links.  Evidently there's a UK University that's done 
stuff on Avatar Signing.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6993326.stm

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/05/04/sign_language_avatar/

http://www.rnid.org.uk/howwehelp/research_and_technology/communication_and_broadcasting/virtual_signing/

http://www.visicast.cmp.uea.ac.uk/

Mallory wrote:
> What really gets me going is the "deaf militants" views on cochlear implants
> 
> They say that fitting cochlear implants to deaf children before they are at 
> a suitable age to give informed consent to the cochlear implant is akin to 
> Hitler's practice of drilling holes into defenceless childrens heads and 
> forcing deaf children to hear against their own free choice or free will.

That's not really the issue - but an extremist manufactured "excuse". 
The root cause of their descent is jealousy. The fact that someone else 
has the means/luck to escape the disability where others suffer their own.

We are human after all, every one wants to better themselves given the 
chance, and there are those who would rather they didn't.

-- 
Adrian C

In message 13ikt8t4rck82ed@corp.supernews.com,
Mallory  Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

>> from the little i've seen of programs like see hear, there seems to
>> be quite a few people who i'd call 'militant' deaf.
>
> Yes I know what you mean......
>
>> asking them to do what you have would seem to offend them as much as
>> asking a black person to pretend they are white - it's really hard
>> for me to understand - they see being deaf not as something that
>> just happened to their body, but as their actual identity.
>
> Yes I know what you mean...
>
> What really gets me going is the "deaf militants" views on cochlear
> implants
> They say that fitting cochlear implants to deaf children before they
> are at a suitable age to give informed consent to the cochlear
> implant is akin to Hitler's practice of drilling holes into
> defenceless childrens heads and forcing deaf children to hear against
> their own free choice or free will.

eh? Who on earth would CHOOSE to be deaf? Is there are side effects of 
issues caused by these implants? If there is then I guess there is a case 
for the argument that they should eb able to make an informed choice. If the 
only effect is that they help you to hear better what on earth is the 
problem?

I'm not arguing that being deaf makes you an 2nd class citizen or anything 
like that, but surely given a choice most people would prefer to be able to 
hear??

btw, I realise you are only quoting this point of view, and it obvioulsy is 
not your own, so I'm not having a go at you!

-- 
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

In message FpSdnQebv4Iao7banZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com,
ChrisM  Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> In message 13ikt8t4rck82ed@corp.supernews.com,
> Mallory  Proclaimed from the tallest
> tower:
>>> from the little i've seen of programs like see hear, there seems to
>>> be quite a few people who i'd call 'militant' deaf.
>>
>> Yes I know what you mean......
>>
>>> asking them to do what you have would seem to offend them as much as
>>> asking a black person to pretend they are white - it's really hard
>>> for me to understand - they see being deaf not as something that
>>> just happened to their body, but as their actual identity.
>>
>> Yes I know what you mean...
>>
>> What really gets me going is the "deaf militants" views on cochlear
>> implants
>> They say that fitting cochlear implants to deaf children before they
>> are at a suitable age to give informed consent to the cochlear
>> implant is akin to Hitler's practice of drilling holes into
>> defenceless childrens heads and forcing deaf children to hear against
>> their own free choice or free will.
>
> eh? Who on earth would CHOOSE to be deaf? Is there are side effects of
> issues caused by these implants? If there is then I guess there is a
> case for the argument that they should eb able to make an informed
> choice. If the only effect is that they help you to hear better what
> on earth is the problem?
>
> I'm not arguing that being deaf makes you an 2nd class citizen or
> anything like that, but surely given a choice most people would
> prefer to be able to hear??
>
> btw, I realise you are only quoting this point of view, and it
> obvioulsy is not your own, so I'm not having a go at you!

Sorry for the above gibberish!!
'Is there are side effects of issues' = "are there any side effects or 
issues'
as for the rest, hopefully my point is clear, even if my English is not...

-- 
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

Delving into the now fully-open can of worms...

ChrisM wrote:
> eh? Who on earth would CHOOSE to be deaf?

To put this in context, and set myself up for a good flaming, there's a 
general paradox whereby the Deaf community like to think of themselves 
as a linguistic and cultural minority - comparable to Welsh or Gaelic 
speakers - while frequently using audiological deafness as an implied 
measure of one's status within such community.  No, it doesn't make 
sense, but such is politics.

Bear in mind that there are also people with perfectly normal hearing 
who's native language is sign, and have grown up in the Deaf community, 
by nature of being children of Deaf families.  It doesn't seem 
unreasonable that they would have a Deaf identity.


> Is there are side effects of 
> issues caused by these implants? If there is then I guess there is a case 
> for the argument that they should eb able to make an informed choice. If the 
> only effect is that they help you to hear better what on earth is the 
> problem?

Yes, it's a very invasive surgery, with risks of nasty side-effects from 
infection etc.  It's also very expensive, and good results are far from 
guaranteed.  Bear in mind also that the current state-of-the-art means 
that 'good results' for a cochlea implant are, to drag the thread back 
on topic, comparable to acoustic coded audio at bitrates so low that 
even the most frugal broadcasting bean-counter would object because the 
poor quality was driving the advertisers away.

I'm not saying that children shouldn't be given cochlea implants, but I 
think it's perfectly reasonable to want to make an informed choice, 
especially in circumstances where the child will have access to a rich 
signing environment in which to develop language in the normal way.


> I'm not arguing that being deaf makes you an 2nd class citizen or anything 
> like that, but surely given a choice most people would prefer to be able to 
> hear??

To hear... a bit.  At risk of losing status within one's community.  See 
above.


Kim.

In message j1jfgf.6a5.ln@willow,
kimble  Proclaimed from the tallest tower:

> Delving into the now fully-open can of worms...
>
> ChrisM wrote:
>> eh? Who on earth would CHOOSE to be deaf?
>
> To put this in context, and set myself up for a good flaming, there's
> a general paradox whereby the Deaf community like to think of
> themselves as a linguistic and cultural minority - comparable to
> Welsh or Gaelic speakers - while frequently using audiological
> deafness as an implied measure of one's status within such community.
> No, it doesn't make sense, but such is politics.
>

So a slightly deaf person would be of a 'lower status' than a profoundly 
deaf person...?
Ok, like you say, doesn't make sense, but I think I  understand the 
situation.


>
>> Is there are side effects of
>> issues caused by these implants? If there is then I guess there is a
>> case for the argument that they should eb able to make an informed
>> choice. If the only effect is that they help you to hear better what
>> on earth is the problem?
>
> Yes, it's a very invasive surgery, with risks of nasty side-effects
> from infection etc.  It's also very expensive, and good results are
> far from guaranteed.  Bear in mind also that the current
> state-of-the-art means that 'good results' for a cochlea implant are,
> to drag the thread back on topic, comparable to acoustic coded audio
> at bitrates so low that even the most frugal broadcasting
> bean-counter would object because the poor quality was driving the
> advertisers away.
> I'm not saying that children shouldn't be given cochlea implants, but
> I think it's perfectly reasonable to want to make an informed choice
> especially in circumstances where the child will have access to a rich
> signing environment in which to develop language in the normal way.
>

So it's not a case of the procedure allowing people to have normal hearing, 
just a case of making them slightly less deaf... in exchange for a fairly 
major operation... and also reducing their 'status' in the deaf community, 
Ok, I can see there is an argument for...
Oh heck, I'm just going to stop digging now, this is a far more complex and 
tricky subject than I thought it was. Not one to make ill-informed or 
un-considered opinons/statements about...


>
>> I'm not arguing that being deaf makes you an 2nd class citizen or
>> anything like that, but surely given a choice most people would
>> prefer to be able to hear??
>
> To hear... a bit.  At risk of losing status within one's community. See 
> above.
>
>

Hmmm, nothing is ever as simple as it seems, is it?

-- 
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)

"ChrisM"  wrote in message 
news:FpSdnQebv4Iao7banZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...


>> What really gets me going is the "deaf militants" views on cochlear
>> implants
>> They say that fitting cochlear implants to deaf children before they
>> are at a suitable age to give informed consent to the cochlear
>> implant is akin to Hitler's practice of drilling holes into
>> defenceless childrens heads and forcing deaf children to hear against
>> their own free choice or free will.
>
> eh? Who on earth would CHOOSE to be deaf? Is there are side effects of 
> issues caused by these implants? If there is then I guess there is a case 
> for the argument that they should eb able to make an informed choice. If 
> the only effect is that they help you to hear better what on earth is the 
> problem?



from their view, you are in denial as to who and what you are, and are 
trying to pretend you are something you are not - a member of the hearing 
community,
daft i know but there you go.... you have to wonder what they would choose 
if born with a hole in their heart or non working liver etc.



-- 
Gareth.

That fly... is your magic wand.
http://www.last.fm/user/dsbmusic/

Dickie mint  wrote:

> Nigel Barker wrote:

> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:03:10 +0000,
> Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid (Alan Pemberton) wrote:
> > 
> >> kimble  wrote:
> >>
> >>> Subtitles are of course invaluable for the large numbers of people who
> >>> have a mild or moderate hearing loss, who just need the occasional cue
> >>> to disambiguate the audio.
> >> Indeed, though these days the subtitlers seem to have worse hearing than
> >> mine, and I find myself distracted by clearly incorrect captions. I
> >> dread to think how 'disambiguate' would turn out.
> > 
> > Is it real people doing the subtitling? The quality is so poor I had
> > assumed that they had some automated voice recognition system nowadays.
> > It's often almost impossible to make out any sense from the subtitles.
> > --
> > 
> > Cheers
> > 
> > Nigel Barker
> > Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur
> Yes I think it is Voice Recognition, with the subtitler sometimes 
> voicing over the words, certainly with pre-recorded stuff.

Aren't scripts available to subtitlers in electronic form? Surely
editing the text of a script would be easier than the manglings that
come out of a voice recognition application.

-- 
Alan Pemberton
Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England
To e-mail me directly, please visit
<http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/index.html#Mail-me>

In article
<1i6wwaq.1cpr9lw1rezb30N%Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid>,


> Aren't scripts available to subtitlers in electronic form? Surely
> editing the text of a script would be easier than the manglings that
> come out of a voice recognition application.

but, when the computer created subtitles are used it's because it's a live
(ie unscripted) programme.

-- 
From KT24 - in "Leafy Surrey"

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.11

Alan Pemberton wrote:
> Dickie mint  wrote:
....
>> Yes I think it is Voice Recognition, with the subtitler sometimes 
>> voicing over the words, certainly with pre-recorded stuff.
> 
> Aren't scripts available to subtitlers in electronic form? Surely
> editing the text of a script would be easier than the manglings that
> come out of a voice recognition application.
> 

I think the idea is that the subtitler doesn't have to be a stenographer 
and that, by voicing the script/whatever, the computer used by the 
subtitler has a greater degree of accuracy.

Merely typing up the words is too slow as they then have to be synched 
up to the pictures?

In other words the subtitler talks over the programme whilst watching 
it.  Hey, my wife's good at that!

On 01/11/2007, Nigel Barker wrote in message
:
 
> Is it real people doing the subtitling?

Depends what you're watching.  If it's the news, the initial parse is done
automatically, and a human corrects it as quickly as they can.

Simon.
-- 
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk

Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid (Alan Pemberton) wrote:

>Dickie mint  wrote:
>
>> Nigel Barker wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:03:10 +0000,
>> Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid (Alan Pemberton) wrote:
>> > 
>> >> kimble  wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> Subtitles are of course invaluable for the large numbers of people who
>> >>> have a mild or moderate hearing loss, who just need the occasional cue
>> >>> to disambiguate the audio.
>> >> Indeed, though these days the subtitlers seem to have worse hearing than
>> >> mine, and I find myself distracted by clearly incorrect captions. I
>> >> dread to think how 'disambiguate' would turn out.
>> > 
>> > Is it real people doing the subtitling? The quality is so poor I had
>> > assumed that they had some automated voice recognition system nowadays.
>> > It's often almost impossible to make out any sense from the subtitles.
>> > --
>> > 
>> > Cheers
>> > 
>> > Nigel Barker
>> > Live from the sunny Cote d'Azur
>> Yes I think it is Voice Recognition, with the subtitler sometimes 
>> voicing over the words, certainly with pre-recorded stuff.
>
>Aren't scripts available to subtitlers in electronic form? Surely
>editing the text of a script would be easier than the manglings that
>come out of a voice recognition application.

I reckon a film we watched a few nights ago must have been subject to
some such 'mangling'. I've started switching on sub-titles as I'm so
fed up with being unable to hear the narrative, buried as it is behind
deafening music and effects tracks. Often this works well, and key
plot points are revealed that would otherwise leave me growling that I
haven't a clue what' going on!

But this time the subtitles were dreadful - out of sync with the
video. Particularly annoying when there were subtitles on screen for
speech that hadn't yet started! Not 100% sure, but I think it was
called 'The Long Riders'.

-- 
Terry, East Grinstead, UK

> haven't a clue what' going on!
> 
> But this time the subtitles were dreadful - out of sync with the
> video. Particularly annoying when there were subtitles on screen for
> speech that hadn't yet started! Not 100% sure, but I think it was
> called 'The Long Riders'.
> 

I am reminded of an incident a number of years back.  It was in Sweden 
and I happened across a showing of an episode of "Jude Judy" - with 
subtitles to "All rise for Julian Clary".  It took them a few minutes to 
  notice the mistake and stop the broadcast.

Terry Pinnell  wrote:

> But this time the subtitles were dreadful - out of sync with the
> video. Particularly annoying when there were subtitles on screen for
> speech that hadn't yet started! Not 100% sure, but I think it was
> called 'The Long Riders'.

Similar problem with 'Help!' the other week. The first subtitle was in
sync but they immediately began lagging the dialogue more and more. At
the end there seemed to be one or two attempts to achieve sync, but they
all failed.

Particularly annoying as I was recording burned-in subtitles from DTT
onto my DVR. If I use the satellite PVR at least I can ditch them if
something like that goes wrong (as it often does on the continental
stations that I most use the satellite box for).

-- 
Alan Pemberton
Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England
To e-mail me directly, please visit
<http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/index.html#Mail-me>

The only medical side effects I am aware of from the implantation of 
cochlear implants are:

1. Risk of accidentally cutting the facial nerves on one side of the head, 
hence making you look like you've had a stroke

2. The middle ear has to be removed in order to accommodate the cochlear 
implant, this means that when the cochlear implant is turned off, that ear 
is COMPLETELY TOTALLY deaf. Even in the very deafest of people without 
cochlear implants, they can still hear something if the sound is loud enough

3. The sound of a cochlear implant is very similar to that of Donald Duck, 
so the sound from a cochlear implant sounds very electronic. The Implantee 
then has to spend typically a few years getting acclimatised to the sounds 
experienced from a cochlear implant inorde to actually make sense of the 
sounds around them

Mallory.

"ChrisM"  wrote in message 
news:FpSdnQebv4Iao7banZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com...
> In message 13ikt8t4rck82ed@corp.supernews.com,
> Mallory  Proclaimed from the tallest tower:
>
>>> from the little i've seen of programs like see hear, there seems to
>>> be quite a few people who i'd call 'militant' deaf.
>>
>> Yes I know what you mean......
>>
>>> asking them to do what you have would seem to offend them as much as
>>> asking a black person to pretend they are white - it's really hard
>>> for me to understand - they see being deaf not as something that
>>> just happened to their body, but as their actual identity.
>>
>> Yes I know what you mean...
>>
>> What really gets me going is the "deaf militants" views on cochlear
>> implants
>> They say that fitting cochlear implants to deaf children before they
>> are at a suitable age to give informed consent to the cochlear
>> implant is akin to Hitler's practice of drilling holes into
>> defenceless childrens heads and forcing deaf children to hear against
>> their own free choice or free will.
>
> eh? Who on earth would CHOOSE to be deaf? Is there are side effects of 
> issues caused by these implants? If there is then I guess there is a case 
> for the argument that they should eb able to make an informed choice. If 
> the only effect is that they help you to hear better what on earth is the 
> problem?
>
> I'm not arguing that being deaf makes you an 2nd class citizen or anything 
> like that, but surely given a choice most people would prefer to be able 
> to hear??
>
> btw, I realise you are only quoting this point of view, and it obvioulsy 
> is not your own, so I'm not having a go at you!
>
> -- 
> Regards,
> Chris.
> (Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
>

On 07/11/2007, Alan Pemberton wrote in message
<1i7651p.12epodr1s8ho72N%Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid>:
 
> Similar problem with 'Help!' the other week. The first subtitle was in
> sync but they immediately began lagging the dialogue more and more. At
> the end there seemed to be one or two attempts to achieve sync, but they
> all failed.

This is a side-effect of one of the formats used for supplying subtitles. 
It uses frame numbers to tell when each subtitle should appear and
disappear.  Unfortunately, many films get converted between 24 and 25
frames per second sometime in the process and the frame numbers don't get
changed.

Simon.
-- 
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk

On Fri, 09 Nov 2007 23:30:57 +0000, Simon Slavin
 wrote:

>This is a side-effect of one of the formats used for supplying subtitles. 
>It uses frame numbers to tell when each subtitle should appear and
>disappear.  Unfortunately, many films get converted between 24 and 25
>frames per second sometime in the process and the frame numbers don't get
>changed.

Surely someone checks that before transmission, though?

--

If a programme comes on with SL I just turn it off and do without, I just
loose concentation of the programme as\my brain is distracted.

It seems more and more programmes on digital TV have this SL.  When the
analogue is switched off I can see the complaints rising against it.   Yes
I'm sure those need SL will greatly appreciate it, but the broadcasters
should do it in a way not to annoy the rest of us.

We can choose to see or not see the written sub titles, so come on BBC etc
do the same with SL.

Regards
david

Simon Slavin 
wrote:

> On 07/11/2007, Alan Pemberton wrote in message
> <1i7651p.12epodr1s8ho72N%Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid>:
>  
> > Similar problem with 'Help!' the other week. The first subtitle was in
> > sync but they immediately began lagging the dialogue more and more. At
> > the end there seemed to be one or two attempts to achieve sync, but they
> > all failed.
> 
> This is a side-effect of one of the formats used for supplying subtitles.
> It uses frame numbers to tell when each subtitle should appear and
> disappear.  Unfortunately, many films get converted between 24 and 25
> frames per second sometime in the process and the frame numbers don't get
> changed.

Yes, it seemed like a 24/25fps thing, but I couldn't imagine how that
could happen operationally with a top-flight, internationally respected
broadcaster of some years' standing. Ah, wait a minute, I'm mistaken; it
was the BBC, wasn't it? 

-- 
Alan Pemberton
Sheffield, South Yorkshire, England
To e-mail me directly, please visit
<http://www.pembers.freeserve.co.uk/index.html#Mail-me>

[in reply to this and zero tolerance]

On 10/11/2007, Alan Pemberton wrote in message
<1i7cx1c.164ersa1h7nykgN%Spambox@pembers.freeserve.co.uk.invalid>:
 
> Simon Slavin 
> wrote:
> 
> > This is a side-effect of one of the formats used for supplying
> > subtitles. It uses frame numbers to tell when each subtitle should
> > appear and disappear.  Unfortunately, many films get converted between
> > 24 and 25 frames per second sometime in the process and the frame
> > numbers don't get changed.
> 
> Yes, it seemed like a 24/25fps thing, but I couldn't imagine how that
> could happen operationally with a top-flight, internationally respected
> broadcaster of some years' standing. Ah, wait a minute, I'm mistaken; it
> was the BBC, wasn't it?

Heh.  Many programmes go through a number of versions -- two or three on average -- as various things like captioning are added, and the BBC doesn't have a screening room with people watching the finished versions of everything before they're broadcast.  It would cost too much and add too much time to the production schedule.  In all honesty, when you're transmitting six channels 24 hours a day, and you're funded in a ... unique ... way, things occasionally slip through the net.

Simon.
-- 
http://www.hearsay.demon.co.uk