Closed captioning (was How is Weather Channel Data....)

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Regards closed caption, since I

> sometimes these days do not hear as well as I would like, I > frequently leave closed caption turned on (it is an on/off > option on my television set) even though I am also using sound > as well (closed caption allows me to keep up with words I miss > or do not understand occassionally.) But has anyone else > noticed how they really _blow it bad_ sometimes, with trash > symbols instead of the words, etc,...

The "trash symbols" you see are the result of corrupted CC data. In an NTSC video signal, the CC data is encoded on Line 21 of the picture raster (if you slightly underscan your TV set, you can see it dancing along at the top of the screen as a horizontal line of black and white dots and dashes). It other words, the CC data is part of the video signal, not a separate data stream. Consequently, it's subjected to all of the various degradations that also affect the video signal: noise, distortion, non-linear heterodyning, scrambling/descrambling, interference from outside sources. Furthermore, if the video signal is sent digitally (as on digital cable or DBS), Line 21 is sampled right along with the rest of the video. Even if the sampling data stream is error-corrected, the underlying CC data is not.

... or sometimes just approximations of the phrases used > instead of the actual words?

Sometimes this is done intentionally; sometimes not. An ad libbing speaker often speaks in a hesitant manner, sometimes repeating himself or inserting extraneous or meaningless words. An effective closed-caption track captures the essential meaning of the speaker's words, but it isn't necessarily a literal word-for-word transcription. Indeed, a word-for-word transcription can be difficult to follow, and sometimes downright annoying (it certainly isn't necessary to transcribe every "...uh...uh...").

And in the case of VCR or DVD movies, I assume the closed > caption is just encoded right on the finished product, is that > correct?

Yes. It's also true of prerecorded network programming; in fact, it's true of just about everything you see on television except live or live-delayed programming. I once observed a captioner at work at the National Captioning Institute; at the time of my visit, he was captioning a sitcom. He already had the original script as a text file; his job was to copy the script to the CC track, match it to the sound track, and modify it if necessary (as he explained, actors who really know their roles tend to adlib their lines, especially in sitcoms). I was amazed at how fast he worked: fingers flying across a standard PC keyboard, one eye on the video monitor, one eye on the text monitor, half-listening to the sound track. I asked, how he could do it so fast? He just shrugged and said "all sitcoms are alike" -- once you know the basic rhythm, you just know intuitively where to insert the CC data.

And if it is a 'live program' such as a newscast instead of > some pre-recorded stuff, it appears they also create the > closed caption live, since it drags behind the audio by a few > seconds. PAT]

During live events, CC data is created on-the-fly using the same

22-key "stenotypes" that court reporters use. Some community colleges now teach stenotyping, emphasizing the training for, and the future job prospects of, both court reporting and closed captioning.

Of course, doing this type of work accurately requires more than just stenotyping: it also requires knowledge of the subject at hand. Court reporters obviously have to understand legal terminology; closed-captioners have to understand the terminology of whatever they're transcribing.

Inevitably closed-captioners make mistakes. Among my favorites: Senator Daniel Anyway of Hawaii Felix Mendel's son a feat snobs John Maynard Cain

Nevertheless, considering the vast range of topics that closed-captioners have to deal with, I think they do an amazing job.

Neal McLain

[TELECOM Digest Editor's Note: Your comment about transcribing an extemporaneous speaker was a good one. For a few years in my former life in Chicago, IL I had a job of tape-recording then transcribing a lecture series given at the Chicago Public Library. It was stressed to me, 'do not transcribe him literally, transcribe what he _meant_.' So I would listen to the tape three or four times, jotting down some notes. Then I would listen to the tape again, and type it up mostly 'word for word' (these notes were given out to persons who requested them later on), but I would *make complete sentences* where the speaker had made partial sentences; I would eliminate the extraneous 'ah, um' things. But then before I took the finished transcription to be mimeographed in a large quantity, I took my finished product to the speaker and said "if this correctly states your lecture, _please sign off on it for me_" then when the speaker and myself were in agreement (we almost always were), then I would get the copies run off. PAT]
Reply to
Neal McLain
Loading thread data ...

Cabling-Design.com Forums website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.