Thanks for the informative post. This is an interesting subject. Awhile back I downloaded a subtitles app that you manually sync with the movie after downloading an xml file. That puts the subtitles on your iPhone while watching a movie on TV. Our company has been producing video with subtitles for a long time but we do not know how to embed them into a mp4 file where they can be turned on and off like a DVD. We make two different versions of the movie. Do you have any additional info about what format these iTunes movies are in?
Here are the results of my research on this question:
As you'll read, there are good, open source tools available. There are also commercial tools such as iSubtitle which, conveniently, links to many of the sources of fan sub soft subtitles.
I didn't read this article too carefully so maybe I missed this, but I don't think they're literally adding CC's signals to the videos. Surely they're adding SRT files?
Quicktime supports them directly IIRC.
If they are indeed ussing CCs as you say that seems pretty boneheaded
I haven't actually purchased, downloaded and deconstructed one of these shows (DRM would probably prevent that anyway). Thus, I based my surmise on the use of the CC logo on the iTunes page. I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has deconstructed one of these captioned shows.
I haven't actually purchased, downloaded and deconstructed one of these shows (DRM would probably prevent that anyway). Thus, I based my surmise on the use of the CC logo on the iTunes page. I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has deconstructed one of these captioned shows.
No, it works fine. Here's Air Force One, straight from the iTunes Store a few years back (sorry, but it's obviously not captioned; I'm just showing that it's possible). You can see everything about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by apple1991
who is Closed captioning
Dr. Closed Captioning A.uRl. (or 'Clo' to his friends) was a scientist in the late 1940s who pioneered the first speech to text technologies in radio and eventually television. Dr. Captioning's work lives on today as digital streams of text that can be added to video files for the benefit of the deaf, hard of hearing, and foreign.
No, it works fine. Here's Air Force One, straight from the iTunes Store a few years back (sorry, but it's obviously not captioned; I'm just showing that it's possible). You can see everything about it.
Dr. Closed Captioning A.uRl. (or 'Clo' to his friends) was a scientist in the late 1940s who pioneered the first speech to text technologies in radio and eventually television. Dr. Captioning's work lives on today as digital streams of text that can be added to video files for the benefit of the deaf, hard of hearing, and foreign.
The annotations would indicate the presence of a CC or Subtitle track but, with DRM, you would not be able to extract and examine the structure of these tracks. Soft subtitles generally use SRT and other text-based formats so they are very human readable.
The annotations would indicate the presence of a CC or Subtitle track but, with DRM, you would not be able to extract and examine the structure of these tracks. Soft subtitles generally use SRT and other text-based formats so they are very human readable.
Yes, and I'm saying on files with SRT embedded, they'll show up in the list at the top. I haven't put an SRT onto my iTunes copy of Air Force One yet.
And now I have. Didn't complain at all, even though it's an iTunes movie.
And the subtitles show up perfectly fine. I can't show you, obviously, because the wretched thing won't let me screenshot it. But a user-added subtitle track works fine.
Sadly, I don't think that the ADA covers individuals with sensory impairments, only those with physical or motor impairments. I have been an advocate for closed captioning systems to be used in movie theaters (provided of course, that their use or implementation does not interfere with those in the theater that do not want the equipment to interfere with their viewing in the theater). It seems unfair that CC equipment is required in all TV sets, but those that are HOH or deaf can not go to a theater and enjoy movies because they cannot hear. Maybe sensory impairments are not recognized as being severe enough that they require attention from the ADA. It just seems to me that HOH or deaf individuals should have as much accommodation in public places as do people with physical impairments (ramps, elevators, etc). Actually, to go maybe a step further, I think that all commercially produced content that is made available electronically (online or by other means) should be required to have CC. Sadly, I don't think these people have a voice. I guess I expect that the "ADA" should cover all disabilities. Maybe it's really only meant to cover those with physical or motor impairments, and not those with sensory impairments? Thinking about it now, I guess having a physical impairment is probably much worse to deal with than having a sensory impairment.
Actually, ADA DOES recognize hearing loss as a disability. And FYI it has been mandated that electronic/digital media be accessible. It will take some time for it to be widespread. And how can one possibly say that a physical disability is harder than a sensory one? Would you rather lose a finger or hand or,say, your vision. Just b/c a disability is somewhat 'invisible' doesn't make it easier to live with. Often times, the opposite is true. And, while you are talking abt 'those people' remember that roughly 1 in10 persons has some degree of hearing loss -- and it's not just older folks.
Actually, ADA DOES recognize hearing loss as a disability. And FYI it has been mandated that electronic/digital media be accessible. It will take some time for it to be widespread. And how can one possibly say that a physical disability is harder than a sensory one? Would you rather lose a finger or hand or,say, your vision. Just b/c a disability is somewhat 'invisible' doesn't make it easier to live with. Often times, the opposite is true. And, while you are talking abt 'those people' remember that roughly 1 in10 persons has some degree of hearing loss -- and it's not just older folks.
Actually, ADA DOES recognize hearing loss as a disability. And FYI it has been mandated that electronic/digital media be accessible. It will take some time for it to be widespread. And how can one possibly say that a physical disability is harder than a sensory one? Would you rather lose a finger or hand or,say, your vision. Just b/c a disability is somewhat 'invisible' doesn't make it easier to live with. Often times, the opposite is true. And, while you are talking abt 'those people' remember that roughly 1 in10 persons has some degree of hearing loss -- and it's not just older folks.
Actually, ADA DOES recognize hearing loss as a disability. And FYI it has been mandated that electronic/digital media be accessible. It will take some time for it to be widespread. And how can one possibly say that a physical disability is harder than a sensory one? Would you rather lose a finger or hand or,say, your vision. Just b/c a disability is somewhat 'invisible' doesn't make it easier to live with. Often times, the opposite is true. And, while you are talking abt 'those people' remember that roughly 1 in10 persons has some degree of hearing loss -- and it's not just older folks.
Just seems that the ones with the physical impairments are the only ones that have accommodations made for them. I guess they are the ones that are more visible. The ADA has been around since 1990. I'm not sure what has taken this long (21 years??) to recognize that people with sensory impairments have disabilities, also. I am not a person with any physical or sensory impairments, just an advocate for their rights. I find it difficult to comprehend that based on a certain orientation, people have more civil rights than those that have what SHOULD be considered a disability.
Just seems that the ones with the physical impairments are the only ones that have accommodations made for them. I guess they are the ones that are more visible. The ADA has been around since 1990. I'm not sure what has taken this long (21 years??) to recognize that people with sensory impairments have disabilities, also. I am not a person with any physical or sensory impairments, just an advocate for their rights. I find it difficult to comprehend that based on a certain orientation, people have more civil rights than those that have what SHOULD be considered a disability.
I stand corrected. I found the definition ..
"The ADA defines a disability as 'a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.'"
So, technically, sensory impairments are not considered (at least by the ADA) to be a disability, because they are not physical or mental.
Comments
Thanks for the informative post. This is an interesting subject. Awhile back I downloaded a subtitles app that you manually sync with the movie after downloading an xml file. That puts the subtitles on your iPhone while watching a movie on TV. Our company has been producing video with subtitles for a long time but we do not know how to embed them into a mp4 file where they can be turned on and off like a DVD. We make two different versions of the movie. Do you have any additional info about what format these iTunes movies are in?
Here are the results of my research on this question:
http://hercules.gcsu.edu/~flowney/re...G-4/subtitles/
As you'll read, there are good, open source tools available. There are also commercial tools such as iSubtitle which, conveniently, links to many of the sources of fan sub soft subtitles.
I didn't read this article too carefully so maybe I missed this, but I don't think they're literally adding CC's signals to the videos. Surely they're adding SRT files?
Quicktime supports them directly IIRC.
If they are indeed ussing CCs as you say that seems pretty boneheaded
I haven't actually purchased, downloaded and deconstructed one of these shows (DRM would probably prevent that anyway). Thus, I based my surmise on the use of the CC logo on the iTunes page. I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has deconstructed one of these captioned shows.
I haven't actually purchased, downloaded and deconstructed one of these shows (DRM would probably prevent that anyway). Thus, I based my surmise on the use of the CC logo on the iTunes page. I'd be interested in hearing from anyone who has deconstructed one of these captioned shows.
No, it works fine. Here's Air Force One, straight from the iTunes Store a few years back (sorry, but it's obviously not captioned; I'm just showing that it's possible). You can see everything about it.
who is Closed captioning
Dr. Closed Captioning A.uRl. (or 'Clo' to his friends) was a scientist in the late 1940s who pioneered the first speech to text technologies in radio and eventually television. Dr. Captioning's work lives on today as digital streams of text that can be added to video files for the benefit of the deaf, hard of hearing, and foreign.
who is Closed captioning
Not who but what. Wikipedia is your friend: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_captioning
No, it works fine. Here's Air Force One, straight from the iTunes Store a few years back (sorry, but it's obviously not captioned; I'm just showing that it's possible). You can see everything about it.
Dr. Closed Captioning A.uRl. (or 'Clo' to his friends) was a scientist in the late 1940s who pioneered the first speech to text technologies in radio and eventually television. Dr. Captioning's work lives on today as digital streams of text that can be added to video files for the benefit of the deaf, hard of hearing, and foreign.
The annotations would indicate the presence of a CC or Subtitle track but, with DRM, you would not be able to extract and examine the structure of these tracks. Soft subtitles generally use SRT and other text-based formats so they are very human readable.
The annotations would indicate the presence of a CC or Subtitle track but, with DRM, you would not be able to extract and examine the structure of these tracks. Soft subtitles generally use SRT and other text-based formats so they are very human readable.
Yes, and I'm saying on files with SRT embedded, they'll show up in the list at the top. I haven't put an SRT onto my iTunes copy of Air Force One yet.
And now I have. Didn't complain at all, even though it's an iTunes movie.
And the subtitles show up perfectly fine. I can't show you, obviously, because the wretched thing won't let me screenshot it. But a user-added subtitle track works fine.
Sadly, I don't think that the ADA covers individuals with sensory impairments, only those with physical or motor impairments. I have been an advocate for closed captioning systems to be used in movie theaters (provided of course, that their use or implementation does not interfere with those in the theater that do not want the equipment to interfere with their viewing in the theater). It seems unfair that CC equipment is required in all TV sets, but those that are HOH or deaf can not go to a theater and enjoy movies because they cannot hear. Maybe sensory impairments are not recognized as being severe enough that they require attention from the ADA. It just seems to me that HOH or deaf individuals should have as much accommodation in public places as do people with physical impairments (ramps, elevators, etc). Actually, to go maybe a step further, I think that all commercially produced content that is made available electronically (online or by other means) should be required to have CC. Sadly, I don't think these people have a voice. I guess I expect that the "ADA" should cover all disabilities. Maybe it's really only meant to cover those with physical or motor impairments, and not those with sensory impairments? Thinking about it now, I guess having a physical impairment is probably much worse to deal with than having a sensory impairment.
Actually, ADA DOES recognize hearing loss as a disability. And FYI it has been mandated that electronic/digital media be accessible. It will take some time for it to be widespread. And how can one possibly say that a physical disability is harder than a sensory one? Would you rather lose a finger or hand or,say, your vision. Just b/c a disability is somewhat 'invisible' doesn't make it easier to live with. Often times, the opposite is true. And, while you are talking abt 'those people' remember that roughly 1 in10 persons has some degree of hearing loss -- and it's not just older folks.
Actually, ADA DOES recognize hearing loss as a disability. And FYI it has been mandated that electronic/digital media be accessible. It will take some time for it to be widespread. And how can one possibly say that a physical disability is harder than a sensory one? Would you rather lose a finger or hand or,say, your vision. Just b/c a disability is somewhat 'invisible' doesn't make it easier to live with. Often times, the opposite is true. And, while you are talking abt 'those people' remember that roughly 1 in10 persons has some degree of hearing loss -- and it's not just older folks.
Actually, ADA DOES recognize hearing loss as a disability. And FYI it has been mandated that electronic/digital media be accessible. It will take some time for it to be widespread. And how can one possibly say that a physical disability is harder than a sensory one? Would you rather lose a finger or hand or,say, your vision. Just b/c a disability is somewhat 'invisible' doesn't make it easier to live with. Often times, the opposite is true. And, while you are talking abt 'those people' remember that roughly 1 in10 persons has some degree of hearing loss -- and it's not just older folks.
Actually, ADA DOES recognize hearing loss as a disability. And FYI it has been mandated that electronic/digital media be accessible. It will take some time for it to be widespread. And how can one possibly say that a physical disability is harder than a sensory one? Would you rather lose a finger or hand or,say, your vision. Just b/c a disability is somewhat 'invisible' doesn't make it easier to live with. Often times, the opposite is true. And, while you are talking abt 'those people' remember that roughly 1 in10 persons has some degree of hearing loss -- and it's not just older folks.
Just seems that the ones with the physical impairments are the only ones that have accommodations made for them. I guess they are the ones that are more visible. The ADA has been around since 1990. I'm not sure what has taken this long (21 years??) to recognize that people with sensory impairments have disabilities, also. I am not a person with any physical or sensory impairments, just an advocate for their rights. I find it difficult to comprehend that based on a certain orientation, people have more civil rights than those that have what SHOULD be considered a disability.
Just seems that the ones with the physical impairments are the only ones that have accommodations made for them. I guess they are the ones that are more visible. The ADA has been around since 1990. I'm not sure what has taken this long (21 years??) to recognize that people with sensory impairments have disabilities, also. I am not a person with any physical or sensory impairments, just an advocate for their rights. I find it difficult to comprehend that based on a certain orientation, people have more civil rights than those that have what SHOULD be considered a disability.
I stand corrected. I found the definition ..
"The ADA defines a disability as 'a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a major life activity.'"
So, technically, sensory impairments are not considered (at least by the ADA) to be a disability, because they are not physical or mental.