Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

BBC Subtitle Guidelines

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 88 posts

Re: BBC Subtitle Guidelines

#21

Post by kvm000 »

zinekeller wrote: post #15
kvm000 wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The older “608”[1] system in North America was much simpler but the current “708”[2] standard does support specifying colours and fonts, but in my experience in the industry nobody uses those functions at all and just uses the 708 function to embed the older 608 payload data within the newer 708 data structure. In UK/Europe the older/simpler format would be OP-42/OP-47 Teletext[3] which can be used for captions inste…

Yeah, I know of the "708" captioning system but it is surprisingly underutilized* by broadcasters. I think that they don't see any use for e.g. color? * in terms of 708-only features, not on the pedantic "ATSC uses the 708 system"

There are very strong lobbying groups that push for accessibility in terms of captions (as well as the “DV” described video audio track) but my impression is that their focus is on the quantity of content that’s covered, and the quality (spelling, time-alignment), and I guess they don’t care as much about text styling.

The requirements are quite high in Canada[1] and have been expanding in the US as well[2].

The company I work for makes products for broadcast customers, around asset management, linear playout automation, and the playout servers that insert the captions (from files or live data sources) so working out how that all happens is part of every big project.

[1] https://crtc.gc.ca/eng/info_sht/b321.htm [2] https://www.fcc.gov/consumers/guides/closed-captioning-telev...

Re: BBC Subtitle Guidelines

#22

Post by kvm000 »

zinekeller wrote: post #3

One of those big difference between UK subtitling and US captioning is the use of colo(u)r or the absence of it ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/accessibility/forproducts/guides/subti... ), which I believe boils down to technological differences between television systems in the '80s. While the UK-developed teletext system is also available in NTSC (in fact CBC have deployed it), the US opted out to develope a separate captio…

In my experience with a few big broadcasters like Paramount (previously Viacom) and Discovery, for broadcast in Europe/UK the signal they generate often has a mix of Teletext and/or DVB inserted based on the channel since those signals are distributed to a LOT of partners like local satellite and cable companies who can decide which parts of the signal to map into their system.

In that context, “teletext” just works the same as the North American 608 captions and has nothing to do with the older full-screen data stuff. There are no restrictions around authority for “teletext equipment” - for those channels they actually use systems fully based in AWS with the playout engine running on an EC2 instance so all software-only to generate the single MPEG transport stream with video/graphics + audio + captions + subtitles.

It’s also common to send a DVB subtitle multiplex that has a number of languages (up to 20+) embedded in the same signal.

Re: BBC Subtitle Guidelines

#23

Post by marbletiles »

crazygringo wrote: post #20
rwmj wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I think you're missing the grandparent's point. Inflection in spoken language "translates" to facial expression in sign language.

No I'm getting that completely. But inflection in spoken language is redundant to a large degree with facial expression. If you're watching the original speaker, you're already getting that. For example, if we ask a question, it's not just that our voice goes up at the end. Our eyes move in a certain way too, slightly more opened and our eyebrows and sometimes cheeks raise.

And you’re seeing this nuance while simultaneously reading subtitles? From a speaker at a distance? GP is correct, sign is a fully expressive language, far richer than subtitles.

Re: BBC Subtitle Guidelines

#25

Post by sigwinch28 »

crazygringo wrote: post #11
sigwinch28 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's more to speaking than just the words. Sign language can convey inflection and emotion in ways that closed captions cannot. Watch someone signing: they use their face and body to convey emotions like anger, confusion, hesitation, love, joy, and the rest of the human range.

But if you're watching the politician speak, you can already see all of the emotion in their facial expression and body movement. And that's the "original" emotion, it's not filtered through another human being. When you watch a movie without audio and with subtitles (like in a bar or on a bus), the emotions of the speakers are already awfully clear from the visuals.

> But if you're watching the politician speak, you can already see all of the emotion in their facial expression and body movement.

Yes, but a deaf person has trouble hearing how the speaker is speaking. They're missing out on the emotion in the voice.

Consider all of the emotion that can be conveyed in an audiobook, or on a phone call, or through music. Humans convey a lot of emotion in sound that is not represented visually. Part of sign language is conveying the emotion usually present in speech.

Re: BBC Subtitle Guidelines

#26

Post by thrdbndndn »

marbletiles wrote: post #23
crazygringo wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No I'm getting that completely. But inflection in spoken language is redundant to a large degree with facial expression. If you're watching the original speaker, you're already getting that. For example, if we ask a question, it's not just that our voice goes up at the end. Our eyes move in a certain way too, slightly more opened and our eyebrows and sometimes cheeks raise.

And you’re seeing this nuance while simultaneously reading subtitles? From a speaker at a distance? GP is correct, sign is a fully expressive language, far richer than subtitles.

Not who you replied to, but weren't we talking about televised speech? (We're talking about adding subtitles.) So the "at distance" really isn't an issue. And yes I can watch subtitle and speaker's face at the same time and get their expression.

Re: BBC Subtitle Guidelines

#27

Post by sircastor »

I recently went through Netflix's subtitle guidelines when I was trying to figure out how to alter a subtitle file that I'd found that was pretty barebones. One of the interesting things about it was reading a rule, and then understanding the justification associated with the decision. Some of it is relatively arbitrary, but after you give it a bit of thought it makes sense.

Re: BBC Subtitle Guidelines

#28

Post by dragonwriter »

crazygringo wrote: post #11
sigwinch28 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's more to speaking than just the words. Sign language can convey inflection and emotion in ways that closed captions cannot. Watch someone signing: they use their face and body to convey emotions like anger, confusion, hesitation, love, joy, and the rest of the human range.

But if you're watching the politician speak, you can already see all of the emotion in their facial expression and body movement. And that's the "original" emotion, it's not filtered through another human being. When you watch a movie without audio and with subtitles (like in a bar or on a bus), the emotions of the speakers are already awfully clear from the visuals.

> But if you're watching the politician speak, you can already see all of the emotion in their facial expression and body movement.

No, you can’t; how much emotion is shown via those things vs. tone, volume, and other auditory cues varies from speaker to speaker and speech to speech; sometimes, speakers demonstrate one emotion through gestures but indicate that it is insincere/being mocked/etc. via vocal cues, even.

Not to mention the degree to which simultaneously tracking face and subtitles makes you likely to miss parts of either or both.

Re: BBC Subtitle Guidelines

#29

Post by bloak »

kvm000 wrote: post #12
SanjayMehta wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess that the sign language interpreter is translating in near real time in live speeches.

Live closed captions (text only) is very common and standard. Usually those are done by an external company listening in to an audio feed, and sending the data back. It used to be done with regular POTS lines and telnet, but now it’s obviously more common to use public internet based services like EEG iCap[1] I don’t know too much about it but I had read recently that ASL sign language can be thought of as a differen…

> I had read recently that ASL sign language can be thought of as a different language

Yes, it is a different language. I've heard that ASL is rather similar to French Sign Language and quite different from BSL (British Sign Language). If someone were to translate something from English into ASL, and someone else were to translate the ASL back into English, I'd expect the result to be as different from the original as if they'd gone via some other language, like Italian, for example.

Re: BBC Subtitle Guidelines

#30

Post by zinekeller »

kvm000 wrote: post #22
zinekeller wrote: post #3

One of those big difference between UK subtitling and US captioning is the use of colo(u)r or the absence of it ( https://www.bbc.co.uk/accessibility/forproducts/guides/subti... ), which I believe boils down to technological differences between television systems in the '80s. While the UK-developed teletext system is also available in NTSC (in fact CBC have deployed it), the US opted out to develope a separate captio…

In my experience with a few big broadcasters like Paramount (previously Viacom) and Discovery, for broadcast in Europe/UK the signal they generate often has a mix of Teletext and/or DVB inserted based on the channel since those signals are distributed to a LOT of partners like local satellite and cable companies who can decide which parts of the signal to map into their system. In that context, “teletext” just works…

To be fair, I'm talking about the old PAL-based teletext and not about DVB teletext. Also, computers are now everywhere so the 888 page can be inserted with minimal effort unlike back then that it requires coordination with different teams.
Post reply on HN