SL = Signing language?

In article
.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

lid (Alan Pemberton) wrote:

Dickie mint wrote:

Nigel Barker wrote:

On Wed, 31 Oct 2007 18:03:10 +0000,
lid (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.

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

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
...
In message ,
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
.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
. uk 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

[in reply to this and zero tolerance]

On 10/11/2007, Alan Pemberton wrote in message
.co.uk.invalid:

Simon Slavin . uk
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