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
  #1  
Old December 27th 17, 10:45 AM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,040
Default A discussion in that D-I-Y group

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.
Brian

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

Blind user, so no pictures please!


  #2  
Old December 27th 17, 01:49 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Max Demian
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,895
Default A discussion in that D-I-Y group

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.

--
Max Demian
  #3  
Old December 27th 17, 04:24 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Mark Carver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,608
Default A discussion in that D-I-Y group

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.


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
  #4  
Old December 27th 17, 05:15 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Peter Duncanson
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 4,236
Default A discussion in that D-I-Y group

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.

--
Peter Duncanson
(in uk.tech.digital-tv)
  #5  
Old December 27th 17, 05:17 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,040
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.
Brian

--
----- -
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
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.

--
Max Demian



  #6  
Old December 27th 17, 05:20 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Brian Gaff
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,040
Default A discussion in that D-I-Y group

I think more can be conveyed by signing and facial expressions. Someone I
used to know loved signed programs as her reading was not that good and she
was slightly autistic.
I'm sure there are a lot of other reasons.

Brian

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

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Martin" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Dec 2017 13:49:18 +0000, 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 aren't subtitles sufficient?
--

Martin in Zuid Holland





  #7  
Old December 27th 17, 05:21 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Jeff Layman[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 682
Default A discussion in that D-I-Y group

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
  #8  
Old December 27th 17, 05:46 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Mark Carver
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 7,608
Default A discussion in that D-I-Y group

On 27/12/2017 17:21, Jeff Layman wrote:

Why should signing use any more bandwidth than a picture without?


It doesn't. However to add an optional (for the viewer) signing
picture/signal to the original video stream, will increase bandwidth,
as will two versions of a given channel, one sans signing, the other
with it.

Yonks ago BBC R&d were working on a low bandwidth cgi style style signer
as an option. I don't know what happened to that idea ?


--
Mark
Please replace invalid and invalid with gmx and net to reply.
  #9  
Old December 27th 17, 07:02 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Graham.[_12_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 446
Default A discussion in that D-I-Y group

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%
  #10  
Old December 27th 17, 11:35 PM posted to uk.tech.digital-tv
Bill Wright[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,206
Default A discussion in that D-I-Y group

On 27/12/2017 19:02, Graham. wrote:

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...


You'd soon get used to it.

Bill
 




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 11:38 AM.


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