my profile | my password | search | faq & rules | forum home

» Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE   » Operations   » Ground Level   » DOJ proposes requiring closed captions and audio description (Page 4)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Author Topic: DOJ proposes requiring closed captions and audio description Harold Hallikainen Jedi Master Film Handler Posts: 906 From: Denver, CO, USA Registered: Aug 2009 posted 07-09-2017 10:44 AM                        Nice to hear the QSC/USL system is working well for you. I try to keep it that way! Though dated, some info on various technologies is at http://ftp.uslinc.com/ftp/Products/IRC-28/Documents/AccessibilityBestPractices130425a.pdf . Also, a summary of the US DOJ requirements is at http://ftp.uslinc.com/ftp/Products/IRC-28/Documents/NewAccessibilityRequirements_170119.pdf . The system Carsten mentioned is interesting. It's a bit similar to MyLingo. The content is downloaded ahead of time and synced based on auditorium audio. I suspect that only the feature ends up getting captions since the user has to select the content to be captioned (and would have to select each trailer). These systems require the studios to deliver the soundtrack ahead of time so an audio signature can be developed (though it's possible for the vendor to supply the studio with software to generate the signature from the soundtrack). If the system is handling HI, the studio also has to either permit remix of the soundtrack to generate the HI audio or deliver the HI audio. There may be hesitation by studios to deliver this content outside a DCP. Further, the HI delivered by these systems does not get the auditorium specific forensic mark possibly allowing the audio to be used for pirated copies of movies. On Bring Your Own Device, it seems that as long as a theater has the US DOJ required equipment ("auxiliary aids") available, patrons are free to use their own devices. Some people have bought QSC/USL headphones for their own use. Also, there are also consumer devices (such as http://www.tvears.com/ ) that use the same 2.3 MHz FM over IR, so consumers can purchase their own HI receiver. For captioning, it would certainly be possible for a consumer to purchase their own receiver. However, use of a phone or similar is more practical than a specialized receiver. As mentioned above, I think a BYOD approach could be used in the US as long as the theater meets the minimum equipment requirement (having receivers that no one may ever use). Use of cellphones in theaters can be distracting due to the lit screen (cellphones thus far seem to use backlit LCD which emit a fair amount of light, even with a black screen, when compared with OLED displays used in dedicated caption receivers). Cellphone use in an auditorium makes it difficult to determine if the device is being used for captions, HI, VI, or movie piracy. It would be possible to make a "cup holder" mount that the phone would be mounted in that would block the camera lens. Closed captioning has thus far relied on text delivery to the user. Brazil will soon require use of sign language. It appears three methods of delivery are available, all using consumer devices like cell phones. 1. Download sign language video and sync based on auditorium sound. 2. Use SMPTE 430-10 interface to servers to get closed caption text, machine translate to sign language animation commands, send commands over wifi to phones in auditorium that run an application with an animated avitar that does the sign language. 3. Delivery of sign language video in the DCP. Eventually this would be an AuxData track, but to get started, it is proposed to encode the video as VP9 and put it on audio track 15. It can be delivered by existing servers out the AES/EBU outputs (with forensic marking disabled on that channel). The video would be transmitted (probably by wifi) to devices in the auditorium (probably cellphones). Somewhat related, there is also discussion of delivery of alternate language audio tracks. I suspect these will be stereo tracks to carry, for example, Spanish in US theaters. Currently, it is possible to devote a couple audio tracks in the DCP for this with no changes to the server. The audio would be forensically marked and transmitted (somehow) into the auditorium. This could also be done using AuxData tracks in the DCP. This could be handled within the IMB if enough audio outputs are available and if the IMB can forensically mark these audio outputs. The AuxData can also be delivered to an outboard media block (OMB) using SMPTE 430-14. However, OMBs are indeed media blocks with heavy security requirements, forensic marking requirements, etc. The other approach to handling these additional language tracks is "sidecar" delivery and use of auditorium sound to sync (which is what MyLingo does). So, there's a lot going on! I'm keeping an eye on it for QSC. Harold  |  IP: Logged Carsten Kurz Film God Posts: 4340 From: Cologne, NRW, Germany Registered: Aug 2009 posted 07-09-2017 01:59 PM                     quote: Harold Hallikainen These systems require the studios to deliver the soundtrack ahead of time so an audio signature can be developed (though it's possible for the vendor to supply the studio with software to generate the signature from the soundtrack). If the system is handling HI, the studio also has to either permit remix of the soundtrack to generate the HI audio or deliver the HI audio. There may be hesitation by studios to deliver this content outside a DCP. Further, the HI delivered by these systems does not get the auditorium specific forensic mark possibly allowing the audio to be used for pirated copies of movies. Hi Harold, no, they don't do HI, they would rely on HI options in the theatre/CP to create HI via other means. It could be possible that they upgrade their app to receive HI realtime from the CP the way Sennheiser does it. Of course, once HI hit's a personal device, no matter wether through WiFi, or IR RF, it can always be tapped, so, yes, the small benefit would be that in the one case it could theoretically be tapped before the release, and in the case of established realtime HI, not before it is actually screened (which may be enough of a difference for the studios). The benefit of the audio fingerprint VI-N for the studio is that they don't have to include this with the DCP distribution early on. They can package the DCP without VI-N and while the distribution is prepped, the service company can do the VI-N on a side track, and it all comes together in the cinema later. It is also relatively easy to support many different languages inside the same auditorium, as the language can be chosen per device and is not limited to one or two RF channels. That may be beneficial for festivals. The audio fingerprint TC can not be used to create a pirate copy, as it is a very low frequency volume envelope. It is also fault tolerant against editing/jumps introduced late in distribution, as it will simply resync without user intervention. The best thing, though, is that it actually works very solid. When I tried it with one of the first movies they released with it, I was quite skeptical, giving a smartphone to a person with visual impairment in a cinema auditorium and expecting him to handle the device. But it went exceptionally well, not just techwise, also the VI-N itself was of exceptional quality, tonal aspects, intelligibility, loudness, timing, etc. The latter, of course, can't be credited to the app, but the skillful people who created the VI-N track. Regarding alternative audio tracks - I have heard of two cinemas in germany which offer german and english dialog simultaneously. In the one case, a smaller chain orders a special DCP with the english dialog on the HI or VI-N tracks, and they transmit it with their existing HI/VI installation. The other cinema has a spare Doremi, and runs an english CPL synced to the one playing the german version. The special DCP is quite expensive, while the synced Doremi is (nearly free), but will probably not always work due to sync/version issues, and if no english DCP/KDM is available. But having an alternative language track on a regular basis would certainly make the investment into a HI/VI-N system more attractive, as it could serve both needs. - Carsten  |  IP: Logged

All times are Central (GMT -6:00)

This topic comprises 4 pages: 1  2  3  4

Printer-friendly view of this topic

Hop To: Select a Forum: Category: Operations -------------------- Digital Cinema Forum Film Handlers' Forum Large Format Forum Ground Level Feature Info, Trailer Attachments & REAL Credit Offsets Category: Community -------------------- Film-Yak Film Handlers' Movie Reviews The Afterlife Bob Maar's Joke-A-Thon Category: Classified -------------------- Equipment and Supplies Wanted/For Sale Help Wanted/Seeking Employment Category: System -------------------- Software Beta Testing Forum

The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.