View Single Post
Old December 27th 17, 04:17 PM posted to
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
Posts: 7,250
Default A discussion in that D-I-Y group

Yes, but why was this not built in at the time. Now its the worst of both
worlds really.

----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Max Demian" wrote in message
.. .
On 27/12/2017 10:45, Brian Gaff wrote:
Has probably deliberately been winding me up as several folk over there
not like AD subtitles or in the case in point, signing.

The problem as I see it from reading some web sites is this. If bandwidth
were not an issue, it would be easy to add a signed video track to the
output of a channel and hide it when its not wanted, but because these
at least, bandwidth is seemingly cut to the bone, this is not done so one
gets the ludicrous situation where its actually cheaper on bandwidth to
leave the signer on screen all the time!
IE its part of the transmission much as AD is on the I player etc,but of
course this would not be tolerated by the average viewer, so any viewer
needs the signing has to wait for the repeat to see the signed version,
which also ****es of the viewer who finds the signer distracting.
There really should be enough bandwidth headroom given for signing in

Signing is bound to use a lot of bandwidth, unless a simplified silhouette
of a pair of hands is used, which can be superimposed on the existing
video as it is with subtitles. I suspect that people who use sign language
are used to have an actual person in front of them and rely on facial

Max Demian