Jump to content


Welcome to DBSTalk


Sign In 

Create Account
Welcome to DBSTalk. Our community covers all aspects of video delivery solutions including: Direct Broadcast Satellite (DBS), Cable Television, and Internet Protocol Television (IPTV). We also have forums to discuss popular television programs, home theater equipment, and internet streaming service providers. Members of our community include experts who can help you solve technical problems, industry professionals, company representatives, and novices who are here to learn.

Like most online communities you must register to view or post in our community. Sign-up is a free and simple process that requires minimal information. Be a part of our community by signing in or creating an account. The Digital Bit Stream starts here!
  • Reply to existing topics or start a discussion of your own
  • Subscribe to topics and forums and get email updates
  • Send private personal messages (PM) to other forum members
  • Customize your profile page and make new friends
 
Guest Message by DevFuse

Photo
- - - - -

Why are some classic films still in SD?


  • Please log in to reply
34 replies to this topic

#21 OFFLINE   Maruuk

Maruuk

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 1,951 posts
Joined: Dec 04, 2007

Posted 26 December 2013 - 01:37 AM

Maruuk, the DTS-HD Master Audio 5.1 track on the Blu-ray version of "Meet Me In St. Louis" isn't tortured. Surround activity is regulated to the score while dialogue and effects are anchored to the front channels giving the viewer a very pleasant listening experience.

It all depends what Warner's had to work from in the restoration. Did they have the 3 original optical tracks to mix from: Music, dialog, sound effects? Then the dreaded Academy Rolloff to deal with...

 

Ioan_curvesmallest.gif

 

 

 


Edited by Maruuk, 26 December 2013 - 03:55 AM.


...Ads Help To Support This SIte...

#22 OFFLINE   Maruuk

Maruuk

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 1,951 posts
Joined: Dec 04, 2007

Posted 26 December 2013 - 04:03 AM

But if they only had the mono optical, any channelizing would be absurd. You may as well just turn on that silly faux-surround effect on your home theater receiver.

 

EQ was always a fight back then. They had to try to compensate for efficient yet midrangey theater speakers, wimpy 15-watt tube amps in the theaters, the dulling effect of the sound coming through the screens, the dulling effect of the optical process itself, etc. Every studio had their own EQ curves.

 

Today they use sophisticated CCDs to read the old optical tracks for remastering--they can extract a lot more data from the tracks than a mere lamp-based system. So the Blu-Ray audio could be quite good. But what I heard the other night was mono optical doggie poo.



#23 OFFLINE   TomCat

TomCat

    Broadcast Engineer

  • Registered
  • 3,464 posts
Joined: Aug 31, 2002

Posted 26 December 2013 - 03:06 PM

...As for cc, that's a good question and likely plays into it though almost all blu rays are also ccd but I'm bit sure if they make that part of the master it not. The cost is the big thing...

Captioning is cheap. It costs about 20 bucks to caption an hour of video. It costs more to add another pass to the file adding the metadata. And not much more.

 

The cost is the telecine process. FOX, for instance, had 6 telecine studios in LA that mostly sat unused, until premium channels started to air movies in HD, and BR came to be a profit center. Older movies that were telecine-ed to video in SD had to be done all over again, and that is costly, from 50K up to 10 times that or more, depending if there is restoration involved and how much. FOX waited a long time and those studios sat empty for a long time, simply because they did not want to spend the money to retelecine.

 

They had to justify that there would be a return on that investment. BR helped goose that, and broadcast and cable helped. Of course today, a single HD telecine is done, usually to 1080p24, and that can be converted to any format used in the world pretty easily. In fact, much of the thought process when coming up with 1080p24 was universal compatibility.


It's usually safe to talk honestly and openly with people because they typically are not really listening anyway.

#24 OFFLINE   trainman

trainman

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,443 posts
  • LocationSherman Oaks, CA
Joined: Jan 09, 2008

Posted 26 December 2013 - 04:49 PM

Captioning is cheap. It costs about 20 bucks to caption an hour of video. It costs more to add another pass to the file adding the metadata. And not much more.


20 bucks an hour? From a Third World captioning sweatshop, maybe. (I don't know if that's a thing that actually exists.)

Decent captioning costs more than that -- think mid-to-high three figures per hour -- but that's still a small fraction of the overall cost of production.
trainman is Jim Ellwanger

HR34-700 | Linksys WGA-600N | Samsung 46" LCD | Slimline-5 dish

#25 OFFLINE   TomCat

TomCat

    Broadcast Engineer

  • Registered
  • 3,464 posts
Joined: Aug 31, 2002

Posted 26 December 2013 - 08:30 PM

My company pays to have a service live caption programs every day. Out of work court reporters do it from home using an internet connection. Not expensive at all.

 

As far as "decent', I doubt there are various levels of pay for various levels of quality. Most of the captioning I see, if I miss what the speaker said and go back, 9 out of 10 the captioner missed it too. I also see a lot of captioning that is obviously not what was said, and means their hearing is even worse than mine. I think as far as quality goes, you get what you get; if the captioner is good, great. If not, not so great. They are not paid accordingly, they are paid to make the attempt and show up on time. It is not an industry with different levels of captioners ranked by senority and expertise, and no one gets promoted to a better position with more responsibility, because there are no better positions with more responsibility. It is what it is. It is not unlike the job of signing for the Mandela funeral, where it was proven that nearly anyone qualifies.

 

There is also computerized captioning, which is basic speech-to-text. The quality is sometimes better than when humans do it. But usually, not so much. But, another couple of years and human captioners will be joining the ranks of typewriter repairmen, blacksmiths, and buggy whip manufacturers as the software with the right amount of sophistication rolls out. Not a field you want to try to start a career in.


It's usually safe to talk honestly and openly with people because they typically are not really listening anyway.

#26 OFFLINE   yosoyellobo

yosoyellobo

    Icon

  • Registered
  • 1,664 posts
Joined: Nov 01, 2006

Posted 26 December 2013 - 08:46 PM

My niece is a graduate of Gallaudet University and I am sure she would not agree it is not a job were nearly anyone qualified.

Edited by yosoyellobo, 26 December 2013 - 08:47 PM.


#27 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,214 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 27 December 2013 - 12:53 AM

Most of the captioning I see, if I miss what the speaker said and go back, 9 out of 10 the captioner missed it too. I also see a lot of captioning that is obviously not what was said, and means their hearing is even worse than mine. I think as far as quality goes, you get what you get; if the captioner is good, great. If not, not so great. They are not paid accordingly, they are paid to make the attempt and show up on time. It is not an industry with different levels of captioners ranked by senority and expertise, and no one gets promoted to a better position with more responsibility, because there are no better positions with more responsibility. It is what it is.


There is a difference between a live captioner that would provide captioning for television broadcasts and a service that would provide captioning for feature films and pre-recorded television. A live captioner does not have the script to work from and only has moments to key what they heard into the system so it can make it back to the network/station and be added to the stream. Captioned scripted programming often is the script ... with different text shown in the caption than was spoken by the actors. Sometimes the script changes and the caption is an older version. Getting it right instead of right now is an option with scripted and pre-recorded programming. A feature film is more likely to be accurate and descriptive than a television show with cheap captions.

For more information check out the Media Access Group at WGBH:
http://main.wgbh.org...captioning/faq/
"an intricate process that can take up to 30 hours for a one-hour program"

Or check here at the website of another captioning service:
http://www.captionad... Captioning.htm
"For "live" real-time captioning, most agencies insist that a qualified real-time captioner must have an accuracy rate of at least 98.6%, which is the standard set by the NCRA." (National Court Reporters Association)
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#28 OFFLINE   Maruuk

Maruuk

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 1,951 posts
Joined: Dec 04, 2007

Posted 27 December 2013 - 04:09 PM

I find good captioning essential for Brit shows like Downton Abbey and sometimes even shows like Breaking Bad where an actor will "mumblecore" a critical line and the director will let them get away with it. The joke of captioning are the live translations on shows like SNL or live sports where they're behind by about 5 lines and then they miss half of them. Useless. I'd hate to read their court reporter logs! "The foreman said 'We find the defendant...(something)...then the judge said 'I sentence you to....(incoherent)..."


Edited by Maruuk, 27 December 2013 - 04:13 PM.


#29 OFFLINE   TomCat

TomCat

    Broadcast Engineer

  • Registered
  • 3,464 posts
Joined: Aug 31, 2002

Posted 29 December 2013 - 12:20 PM

Whether done live or done not live, whether following a script or not, the process is the same, which is either transcribing a word or identifying it by hearing it and then transcribing it. Something a computer can do.

 

Sure, it could take 30 hours per hour if you have the budget and are meticulous. But unless it is a blockbuster movie (and many of those do not merit special treatment either) it's done live during a single playback. There is an option to go back, review, and change mistakes, but really, how often might that happen inside the parameters of the budget?

 

We have to remember that we have CC because we have to, and we have to because the deaf folks have one of the largest, best-organized, and effective lobbys going. More power to them, that's actually a good thing. But that means that if they could opt out, most program providers would, and that it does not pay much. Most CC comes to us by virtue of a gun to someone else's head.

 

If I were in that business I would also be in denial that computers will replace me in three years. But they will.


It's usually safe to talk honestly and openly with people because they typically are not really listening anyway.

#30 OFFLINE   trainman

trainman

    Hall Of Fame

  • Registered
  • 1,443 posts
  • LocationSherman Oaks, CA
Joined: Jan 09, 2008

Posted 29 December 2013 - 01:32 PM

TomCat, I hope you never lose your hearing and have to rely on the type of barely adequate -- if not wholly inadequate -- closed captioning that exists in your world.
trainman is Jim Ellwanger

HR34-700 | Linksys WGA-600N | Samsung 46" LCD | Slimline-5 dish

#31 OFFLINE   Maruuk

Maruuk

    Hall Of Fame

  • Topic Starter
  • Registered
  • 1,951 posts
Joined: Dec 04, 2007

Posted 29 December 2013 - 07:53 PM

Yeah, scripted shows are fine but the deaf are left up a creek with these live transcriptions. Sometimes I'll miss a funny sportscaster line and I think I can pick it up on playback with subtitles. Forget it. They not only always miss the funny line, but they miss half of what I can plainly hear. There's a ton of non-sequitors and broken sentences:

 

Joe, I--

Right Frank you see he's running a--

Exactly. You said it, Mo! And...LOOK! He's.....

Wow, you couldn't see it at home but he---

Never seen anything like....

Incredible, that's ---- if he--- was---------!

 

Computers have gotta be better than this crap.



#32 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,214 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 30 December 2013 - 08:52 PM

TomCat, I hope you never lose your hearing and have to rely on the type of barely adequate -- if not wholly inadequate -- closed captioning that exists in your world.


There is definitely a difference between companies who take captioning seriously (such as the two entities I linked) and broadcasters who do the minimum acceptable by law.
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.

#33 OFFLINE   TomCat

TomCat

    Broadcast Engineer

  • Registered
  • 3,464 posts
Joined: Aug 31, 2002

Posted 30 December 2013 - 10:04 PM

One pretends that they are doing something different and that they have great self-importance, and the other does the exact same process yet simply doesn't pretend. It may have something to do with the angle of the nose, and how much some think the rest of us can be easily seduced.

 

Again, the process is pretty basic. We can try to polish that turd, but that is still what it is; recognize a spoken word, write it down. The end. Nothing more; nothing less. Or just transcribe. There is no difference in the basic process regardless who might be doing it, although there are plenty that would like to make the rest of us think there is.

 

Think upscale restaurants. Often, the food is no better than what Guy Fiero visits on a regular basis. Maybe even not as good. But they sure would like us to think that there is something that validates the high prices, when often there is not. Expert wine connoiseurs, the best noses in the world (held at incredibly steep angles) have been tested, 10 months apart, on the same exact wines, and gave them staggeringly different ratings the second time. Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

 

And, trainman, what could make you think that CC that is delivered to me is any different from CC delivered to you? Or anyone else? We all get the same thing, and live in the SAME world, and there is nothing special about captioning from WGBH or anywhere else; all you have to do is watch This Old House with CC on (and captioned by WGBH) and you will see the same garden-variety bad captioning you see on CNN.

 

The only thing that bothers me about the truth is that it makes some of us uncomfortable. I am sorry about that. But the only thing that makes many of us more uncomfortable is pretending, trying to convince ourselves that some fantasy is the truth, instead.


It's usually safe to talk honestly and openly with people because they typically are not really listening anyway.

#34 OFFLINE   inkahauts

inkahauts

    Hall Of Fame

  • DBSTalk Club
  • 14,685 posts
Joined: Nov 13, 2006

Posted 30 December 2013 - 11:14 PM

Since people see differences in the actual programs I tend to think there are different levels of people caring and what they use to create the captions and such no matter how much you say it's all the same tom. The proof is in the actual broadcast.

#35 OFFLINE   James Long

James Long

    Ready for Uplink!

  • Super Moderators
  • 39,214 posts
Joined: Apr 17, 2003

Posted 31 December 2013 - 01:49 AM

Since people see differences in the actual programs I tend to think there are different levels of people caring and what they use to create the captions and such no matter how much you say it's all the same tom. The proof is in the actual broadcast.


Agreed ... as a Closed Captioning connoisseur I know there is a difference between a program that have captions of "[unintelligible]" vs "[ad lib toss to sports]". One has a person or device listening for the words and captioning, the other is using a script. (For those that don't know, a script is words written in advance that are spoken. Not writing down what is heard.)

Great care can be taken to create excellent captions ... or one can slop something together. I can tell the difference - and it isn't because someone told me that one program was captioned better than another - it is because I can read.

I can also tell the difference between a great novel and an online newspaper article. Both are words and usually describe characters and events. But there is certainly a difference!
Welcome to DBS Talk - Let's talk about DBS! (The Digital Bit Stream)
DISH Network vs DirecTV: HD Channel List - DISH Network HD Capacity, HD Conversion and more.
DISH Network complete channel lists and lists by satellite location are in The Uplink Activity Center.
Unless otherwise noted, I speak for myself. Content is not controlled by DISH Network, DirecTV or any other company.




spam firewall