A Sky, cable and digital tv forum. Digital TV Banter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » Digital TV Banter forum » Digital TV Newsgroups » uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

uk.tech.digital-tv (Digital TV - General) (uk.tech.digital-tv) Discussion of all matters technical in origin related to the reception of digital television transmissions, be they via satellite, terrestrial or cable. Advertising is forbidden, with no exceptions.

A discussion in that D-I-Y group



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old December 27th 17, 11:48 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Johnny B Good[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 513
Default A discussion in that D-I-Y group

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 22:05:50 +0100, Martin wrote:

====snip====


My wife and I both use subtitles. We don't have a problem.


That made me think of the Spike Milligan Q series. :-)

--
Johnny B Good
Ads
  #12  
Old December 28th 17, 04:07 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Phi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 318
Default A discussion in that D-I-Y group


"Graham." wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 16:24:20 +0000, Mark Carver
coalesced the vapors of human experience
into a viable and meaningful comprehension...

On 27/12/2017 14:58, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:49:18 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:


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 expressions.

Why aren't subtitles sufficient?

Someone asked that question in here a few years ago, and I think the
answer remains the same, some deaf people cannot read.


I am in no way qualified to give an answer, but after 30 seconds
thought I have came up with an analogy. Imagine how your concentration
on the road ahead would be affected if your rear-view mirror was
replaced with a screen that flashed helpful text messages about what's
happening behind you...
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%


You would need a 'headup display' to do that safely.

  #13  
Old December 28th 17, 09:46 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Phi
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 318
Default A discussion in that D-I-Y group


"Jeff Layman" wrote in message
news
On 27/12/17 13:49, Max Demian wrote:
On 27/12/2017 10:45, Brian Gaff wrote:
Has probably deliberately been winding me up as several folk over there
do
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
days
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
who
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
my
view.


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 expressions.


Why should signing use any more bandwidth than a picture without? The
screen has a certain number of pixels (whether SD or HD), and those pixels
will have a fixed number of bits applied to them. In fact, the "signed"
programmes I have seen have a smaller picture to accommodate the signer
and AFAIR there is a bit of wasted space at the bottom and RHS where the
signer appears. That is uniform in colour and brightness, so I assume
should lend it self to better compression than the rest of the picture, so
a signed programme should use fewer bits overall than a normal picture.

I'm sure I'm wrong - but would appreciate a clear explanation!

--

Jeff


AD and sound track could just be a .mp3

  #14  
Old December 28th 17, 02:42 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
johnt
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 27
Default A discussion in that D-I-Y group


"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 17:15:23 +0000, Peter Duncanson

wrote:

On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 16:24:20 +0000, Mark Carver
wrote:

On 27/12/2017 14:58, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:49:18 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

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 expressions.

Why aren't subtitles sufficient?
Someone asked that question in here a few years ago, and I think the
answer remains the same, some deaf people cannot read.


I've just done a bit of searching, and read a few articles about this. I
haven't read enough to come to a firm conclusion but one thing sticks
out: the signer can replicate the speaker's emotions as well as signing
the words.

A viewer reading subtitles won't get any idea of the tone of voice, and
can't at the same time watch the people to see their expressions and
gestures.

Signing conveys more than just the words spoken.


My wife and I both use subtitles. We don't have a problem.


As do I and I don't have a problem.

--
JohnT

  #15  
Old December 28th 17, 03:02 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Mark Carver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,633
Default A discussion in that D-I-Y group

On 27/12/2017 21:04, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 16:24:20 +0000, Mark Carver


Someone asked that question in here a few years ago, and I think the
answer remains the same, some deaf people cannot read.


The same ones who can't read sign language?


Apparently not. If you're deaf from birth, learning to read is difficult
AIUI, but sign language is easier ?

Interesting that in that 'sink or swim' culture USA, any safety related
community speech by a mayor, police chief, etc etc, there's also a
signer on the platform with them ?


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
  #16  
Old December 28th 17, 03:24 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Norman Wells[_6_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 984
Default A discussion in that D-I-Y group

On 27/12/2017 21:05, Martin wrote:

My wife and I both use subtitles. We don't have a problem.


That must be interesting over the breakfast table.


  #17  
Old December 28th 17, 04:20 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Johnny B Good[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 513
Default A discussion in that D-I-Y group

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 16:24:27 +0000, Norman Wells wrote:

On 27/12/2017 21:05, Martin wrote:

My wife and I both use subtitles. We don't have a problem.


That must be interesting over the breakfast table.


Are you a Spike Milligan fan, by any chance? :-)

--
Johnny B Good
  #18  
Old December 28th 17, 09:28 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 234
Default A discussion in that D-I-Y group

On Wednesday, 27 December 2017 10:45:29 UTC, Brian Gaff wrote:
There really should be enough bandwidth headroom given for signing in my
view.


British Deaf Association website says: British Sign Language (BSL) is the preferred language of over 87,000 Deaf people in the UK for whom English may be a second or third language (A total of 151,000 individuals in the UK who can use BSL.)

Wikipedia says 562,000 Welsh speakers and 57,375 Gaelic speakers in Scotland (only 32,400 could also read and write Gaelic, which might explain the lack of Gaelic subtitling on BBC Alba).

So the number of BSL-ers is about double the Gaelics, who get about 7 hours of broadcasting on their own channel each day in Scotland.

BBC Parliament used to be broadcast in quarter-screen, so it might be possible to carry 4 signers in the equivalent of one channel and overlay it if the receiver supported that.

Owain

  #19  
Old December 29th 17, 02:31 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Graham.[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 472
Default A discussion in that D-I-Y group

On Thu, 28 Dec 2017 05:07:31 -0000, "Phi"
coalesced the vapors of human experience into a viable and meaningful
comprehension...


"Graham." wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 16:24:20 +0000, Mark Carver
coalesced the vapors of human experience
into a viable and meaningful comprehension...

On 27/12/2017 14:58, Martin wrote:
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:49:18 +0000, Max Demian
wrote:

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 expressions.

Why aren't subtitles sufficient?
Someone asked that question in here a few years ago, and I think the
answer remains the same, some deaf people cannot read.


I am in no way qualified to give an answer, but after 30 seconds
thought I have came up with an analogy. Imagine how your concentration
on the road ahead would be affected if your rear-view mirror was
replaced with a screen that flashed helpful text messages about what's
happening behind you...
--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%


You would need a 'headup display' to do that safely.


A mirror might be considered the ultimate in headup displays, because
your eyes can remain focused at middle-distance.

Spectacle wearers may well have problems with head-up displays, I can
focus on my (head-down) dashboard only thanks to my varifocals.

--

Graham.
%Profound_observation%
  #20  
Old December 29th 17, 03:08 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Andy Burns[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 573
Default A discussion in that D-I-Y group

Graham. wrote:

Spectacle wearers may well have problems with head-up displays, I can
focus on my (head-down) dashboard only thanks to my varifocals.


Isn't the virtual image on car HUDs some way in front of the bonnet?
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.SEO by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2018 Digital TV Banter.
The comments are property of their posters.