JJ
Juicy Joe
Founding member
It was - but they need to credit everyone for their contribution towards ITV's excellent coverage over the past 3 weeks seeing as ITV are not showing the final. It was also a chance to play the full version of the theme tune, which in comparison to the BBC's theme tune, has been far superior.
JO
No, ITV's theme tune just feels like they have treid to hard and the titles a poor if you asked me.
Juicy Joe posted:
It was - but they need to credit everyone for their contribution towards ITV's excellent coverage over the past 3 weeks seeing as ITV are not showing the final. It was also a chance to play the full version of the theme tune, which in comparison to the BBC's theme tune, has been far superior.
No, ITV's theme tune just feels like they have treid to hard and the titles a poor if you asked me.
FA
No, ITV's theme tune just feels like they have treid to hard and the titles a poor if you asked me.
I feel that ITV's titles and theme have been far superior, but the BBC have had the upper hand with the studio, and team of pundits.
wells posted:
Juicy Joe posted:
It was - but they need to credit everyone for their contribution towards ITV's excellent coverage over the past 3 weeks seeing as ITV are not showing the final. It was also a chance to play the full version of the theme tune, which in comparison to the BBC's theme tune, has been far superior.
No, ITV's theme tune just feels like they have treid to hard and the titles a poor if you asked me.
I feel that ITV's titles and theme have been far superior, but the BBC have had the upper hand with the studio, and team of pundits.
DE
[quote="Brekkie"]
Isn't it largely automated nowadays?[/quote}
Subtitling isn't at all automated on live programmes where there's no script. There are two methods used to subtitle such programmes, stenographers who use a special machine to type in a form of shorthand while listening to the commentary and re-speakers, who listen to the output and re-speak it into a voice-recognition PC, which then generates the subtites.
Steve in Pudsey posted:
Guess you have to spare a thought for a subtitler - subtitling a TV commentary must be hard enough, but to suddenly change to a full ball by ball radio commentary must have been a shock! I assume the subtitles continued through the bit when the pictures failed?
Isn't it largely automated nowadays?[/quote}
Subtitling isn't at all automated on live programmes where there's no script. There are two methods used to subtitle such programmes, stenographers who use a special machine to type in a form of shorthand while listening to the commentary and re-speakers, who listen to the output and re-speak it into a voice-recognition PC, which then generates the subtites.
OV
I've found a lot of the subtitling for live programming on the terrestial channels to recently be done by voice recognision listening to the programme, rather than subtitlers having to be invovled. It's quite noticeable on some programmes, as the system is prone to making mistakes. I know ITV have such a system in place, and since its been introduced it seems like everything is automatically subtitled now. Channel 4 also have such a system, as I've seen it make quite a few mistakes on Big Brother, so I'm guessing such a system is now employeed on the BBC channels.
deejay posted:
Subtitling isn't at all automated on live programmes where there's no script. There are two methods used to subtitle such programmes, stenographers who use a special machine to type in a form of shorthand while listening to the commentary and re-speakers, who listen to the output and re-speak it into a voice-recognition PC, which then generates the subtites.
I've found a lot of the subtitling for live programming on the terrestial channels to recently be done by voice recognision listening to the programme, rather than subtitlers having to be invovled. It's quite noticeable on some programmes, as the system is prone to making mistakes. I know ITV have such a system in place, and since its been introduced it seems like everything is automatically subtitled now. Channel 4 also have such a system, as I've seen it make quite a few mistakes on Big Brother, so I'm guessing such a system is now employeed on the BBC channels.
FL
Would be pretty easy, they have an RTÉ logo to superimpose over the BBC logo from their 6 nations graphic package. That said BBC have been known to borrow RTÉ broadcast facilities. It's been known in the past where a Rugby game the BBC were going to cover was called off they would switch to the game RTÉ were watching and even use the RTÉ commentator. I've heard Ryle Nugent on Grandstand a few times.
rdd posted:
According to RTÉ, some sort of electrical storm knocked out the international feed. Apparently all of Europe went off line. RTÉ didn't have any radio commentary, they went to an apology graphic for a few seconds before just going back to the pundits in Dublin.
Oddly, every time RTÉ went off line, for a split second the BBC pictures (complete with scorebar and BBC logo) appeared before the graphic appeared. RTÉ Sport obviously have the abilitty to take the BBC feed if their own feed goes off line (or more likely, they simply relayed BBC One off air.)
Oddly, every time RTÉ went off line, for a split second the BBC pictures (complete with scorebar and BBC logo) appeared before the graphic appeared. RTÉ Sport obviously have the abilitty to take the BBC feed if their own feed goes off line (or more likely, they simply relayed BBC One off air.)
GE
Possibly not at Red Bee, but definitely in CCA, who the feed will be passing through.
You'd need a fair bit of extra coordination though to work out exactly how much delay you need - ISDN codecs don't always have the same processing delay, and if you switch to vision via a different path, then that's going to be different again.
thegeek
Founding member
william posted:
guess the next question is do Red Bee have any kit they can route the audio (or video, if necessary) through to deliberately introduce a delay, so they can get the pictures and commentary in sync? (Of course its not necessarily that easy if the delay is going to be slightly different for every uplink)
You'd need a fair bit of extra coordination though to work out exactly how much delay you need - ISDN codecs don't always have the same processing delay, and if you switch to vision via a different path, then that's going to be different again.
NG
I've found a lot of the subtitling for live programming on the terrestial channels to recently be done by voice recognision listening to the programme, rather than subtitlers having to be invovled. It's quite noticeable on some programmes, as the system is prone to making mistakes. I know ITV have such a system in place, and since its been introduced it seems like everything is automatically subtitled now. Channel 4 also have such a system, as I've seen it make quite a few mistakes on Big Brother, so I'm guessing such a system is now employeed on the BBC channels.
For live programmes - speech recognition is used - but using "Respeak". This is where the speech recogniser is trained specifically for the subtitler's voice, rather than generally trying to recognise anyone - so there is still someone repeating the dialogue, and if required putting the other prompts (Music plays, crowd cheers etc.) and changing colours for different speakers.
Stenography typing (as used in courts etc.) is also still used for live subtitling. You can often tell when stenography is used as phonetic errors are made. Stenography is not a literal typing system but a phonetic one, so words that sound similar can sometimes be confused.
Both Respeak and Stenography are prone to mistakes - but because they are used for live subtitling there isn't time to fix these mistakes.
The reason you see more now than in the past is that broadcasters now have to subtitle almost all of their output (the BBC are committed to 100%) so more live output is subtitled than in the past. As a result you see more mistakes. (ISTR that Respeak may not always be as accurate as Stenography - and stenography's accuracy depends on both the operator and the way they have configured their dictionaries for complicated words - which requires some off-line preparation time. "Morgan Tsvangarai" is not a name that would automatically be in a dictionary - and is not pronounced as it is written - so off-line prep time would add this to a dictionary - particularly if a script is available before transmission)
Also - on some live shows you may notice a switch between subtitling styles - with full lines of text appearing on studio links, but individual words appearing during VTs and interviews. This is because often the studio links are provided to subtitling before transmission - so they can be pre-prepared, whilst some VTs don't get shown to subtitling before transmission, and like live interviews, have to be subtitled live.
Automatic techniques are used in subtitling - but for pre-recorded content like drama. In this case the script is also available - so the speech isn't "recognised" it is "matched". Rather than having to work from scratch, the system just has to look out for the words it is expecting and lay them out and time them correctly. It can do the colour mapping for different speakers from the script as well, though the subs are still proof read, and extra guidance added. (Subtitles don't just tell you about the words, they document other audio cues as well - like music on a radio, a loud bang etc.)
noggin
Founding member
Orry Verducci posted:
deejay posted:
Subtitling isn't at all automated on live programmes where there's no script. There are two methods used to subtitle such programmes, stenographers who use a special machine to type in a form of shorthand while listening to the commentary and re-speakers, who listen to the output and re-speak it into a voice-recognition PC, which then generates the subtites.
I've found a lot of the subtitling for live programming on the terrestial channels to recently be done by voice recognision listening to the programme, rather than subtitlers having to be invovled. It's quite noticeable on some programmes, as the system is prone to making mistakes. I know ITV have such a system in place, and since its been introduced it seems like everything is automatically subtitled now. Channel 4 also have such a system, as I've seen it make quite a few mistakes on Big Brother, so I'm guessing such a system is now employeed on the BBC channels.
For live programmes - speech recognition is used - but using "Respeak". This is where the speech recogniser is trained specifically for the subtitler's voice, rather than generally trying to recognise anyone - so there is still someone repeating the dialogue, and if required putting the other prompts (Music plays, crowd cheers etc.) and changing colours for different speakers.
Stenography typing (as used in courts etc.) is also still used for live subtitling. You can often tell when stenography is used as phonetic errors are made. Stenography is not a literal typing system but a phonetic one, so words that sound similar can sometimes be confused.
Both Respeak and Stenography are prone to mistakes - but because they are used for live subtitling there isn't time to fix these mistakes.
The reason you see more now than in the past is that broadcasters now have to subtitle almost all of their output (the BBC are committed to 100%) so more live output is subtitled than in the past. As a result you see more mistakes. (ISTR that Respeak may not always be as accurate as Stenography - and stenography's accuracy depends on both the operator and the way they have configured their dictionaries for complicated words - which requires some off-line preparation time. "Morgan Tsvangarai" is not a name that would automatically be in a dictionary - and is not pronounced as it is written - so off-line prep time would add this to a dictionary - particularly if a script is available before transmission)
Also - on some live shows you may notice a switch between subtitling styles - with full lines of text appearing on studio links, but individual words appearing during VTs and interviews. This is because often the studio links are provided to subtitling before transmission - so they can be pre-prepared, whilst some VTs don't get shown to subtitling before transmission, and like live interviews, have to be subtitled live.
Automatic techniques are used in subtitling - but for pre-recorded content like drama. In this case the script is also available - so the speech isn't "recognised" it is "matched". Rather than having to work from scratch, the system just has to look out for the words it is expecting and lay them out and time them correctly. It can do the colour mapping for different speakers from the script as well, though the subs are still proof read, and extra guidance added. (Subtitles don't just tell you about the words, they document other audio cues as well - like music on a radio, a loud bang etc.)
SP
Is it just me, or is the music the BBC use for Euro 2008 the same as Beehive Bedlam, the game on Sky Active? I suspect both are derived from the same piece of classical music I'm unfamiliar with.
TV
if only katherine, tvforum's self proclaimed beehive bedlam champ, was here to answer your question!
tvmercia
Founding member
Steve in Pudsey posted:
Is it just me, or is the music the BBC use for Euro 2008 the same as Beehive Bedlam, the game on Sky Active? I suspect both are derived from the same piece of classical music I'm unfamiliar with.
if only katherine, tvforum's self proclaimed beehive bedlam champ, was here to answer your question!