Randy Marsh calling strikes

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by waltjp

I immediately thought of the swishing sound from hockey games. The problem is that Jim believes that 'live' means instantaneous. Not true, of course. Ever see a live broadcast that's been closed captioned?

Close captioning is done by feeding the scripts the announcers read to the close captioning video source or by someone actually typing the words they hear.

What that has to do with altering sounds I do not understand.

Live closed captioning always has some lag time, because the person has to hear the dialogue and then type it. It's very similar to court reporting, equipment-wise. The only time closed captioning doesn't have lag time is on pre-recorded shows or movies, when the captioner has access to the script. Even then, the captioning doesn't show all the words from the dialogue whereas in live captioning, the poor soul is trying to type EVERY word.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

Live closed captioning always has some lag time, because the person has to hear the dialogue and then type it. It's very similar to court reporting, equipment-wise. The only time closed captioning doesn't have lag time is on pre-recorded shows or movies, when the captioner has access to the script. Even then, the captioning doesn't show all the words from the dialogue whereas in live captioning, the poor soul is trying to type EVERY word.

Most newscasts are closed captioned via the written scripts fed to the anchors via the teleprompter.

[David B]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Most newscasts are closed captioned via the written scripts fed to the anchors via the teleprompter.

That is simply not true also. You really need to give this up as Garth suggested you obviously don't understand the technology of TV or sound.

Closed caption is done usually off site and the feed is captioned back live. They listen to what's being said and feed it back to the TV stations.
You can't go by a teleprompter because the newsreporter might change what's on the prompter or they might cut away to a network broadcast etc,.

We used the same company that does all of ESPN and Fox news and they did our captioning for our TV broadcasts and its pretty neat how accurate they actually are.

The 5-7 seconds of lag time allow numerous types of editing to the sound that is broadcast. We simply think its live.

Turn on a radio broadcast of the game that is on TV and listen to the difference - then turn on the TV broadcast and you will see an abundance of edited sounds, etc.,

I can do the same on my MAC computer as we broadcast our TV each week - add reverb, sound effects, what ever I can think of, it can be added.

Thansk
David

Originally Posted by David B

That is simply not true also. You really need to give this up as Garth suggested you obviously don't understand the technology of TV or sound.

Closed caption is done usually off site and the feed is captioned back live. They listen to what's being said and feed it back to the TV stations.
You can't go by a teleprompter because the newsreporter might change what's on the prompter or they might cut away to a network broadcast etc,.

We used the same company that does all of ESPN and Fox news and they did our captioning for our TV broadcasts and its pretty neat how accurate they actually are.

The 5-7 seconds of lag time allow numerous types of editing to the sound that is broadcast. We simply think its live.

Turn on a radio broadcast of the game that is on TV and listen to the difference - then turn on the TV broadcast and you will see an abundance of edited sounds, etc.,

I can do the same on my MAC computer as we broadcast our TV each week - add reverb, sound effects, what ever I can think of, it can be added.

Thansk
David

What he said!

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by David B

Turn on a radio broadcast of the game that is on TV and listen to the difference - then turn on the TV broadcast and you will see an abundance of edited sounds, etc.,

I can do the same on my MAC computer as we broadcast our TV each week - add reverb, sound effects, what ever I can think of, it can be added.

Thansk
David

The difference in audio is the number of audio sources between TV and radio.
TV adds different sounds by miking more sounds of the game, not by creating them.

[Rcichon]

Very few 'live broadcasts' are actually live. There is a delay inherent to the video processors as well as an editorial delay which is introduced to allow quick editorial deletions (profanity, etc.) while broadcasting. You're only fooling yourself if you believe otherwise.

And I thought Randy was saying, "stee-riike".

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by David B

We used the same company that does all of ESPN and Fox news and they did our captioning for our TV broadcasts and its pretty neat how accurate they actually are.

The 5-7 seconds of lag time allow numerous types of editing to the sound that is broadcast. We simply think its live.

Editing reports in a newscast by adding sounds that did not occur at an event is a violation of the Broadcast Standards of any reputable TV news organization. It is not permitted even on taped reports.

If there is a 5-7 second lag on the closed captioning appearing on the screen from when the words are actually spoken it is due to the time it takes for the captioner to hear the words and type them. If the words are appearing as the newscaster reads then the captions are coming from the teleprompter.

Check it out the next time you are in a bar and the TVs show captioning.

[David B]

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Editing reports in a newscast by adding sounds that did not occur at an event is a violation of the Broadcast Standards of any reputable TV news organization. It is not permitted even on taped reports.

If there is a 5-7 second lag on the closed captioning appearing on the screen from when the words are actually spoken it is due to the time it takes for the captioner to hear the words and type them. If the words are appearing as the newscaster reads then the captions are coming from the teleprompter.

Check it out the next time you are in a bar and the TVs show captioning.

That is simply not true. Obviously you dont' deal with closed captioning for a living, I do. We close caption live each week and then we closed caption an edited show.

In a live event, there is hardly a delay, they are hearing the words as they are spoken and the lag might be maximum one or two seconds.

In a taped event, the captioning is actually recorded onto the tape and thus you have the captioning appear just as soon as it is read or spoken.

The technology is very very expensive and simply hasn't caught up yet to the demands of the FCC through the laws that actually made any broadcast over 15 minutes have closed captioning.

You can provide the captioner with a script of what you are going to say and they can go along with you for the most part, however, if you deviate any the captioner is lost thus most quality programs do not use that type of service.

The best way is to let the captioner do it on the fly, they are accurate and there are companies who are very good at it.

As for TV, NFL or MLB owns the broadcasts and they can add anything they want. Just watch ESPN a while and you will see it every single day.

Thansk
David

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by David B

That is simply not true. Obviously you dont' deal with closed captioning for a living, I do. We close caption live each week and then we closed caption an edited show.

In a live event, there is hardly a delay, they are hearing the words as they are spoken and the lag might be maximum one or two seconds.

In a taped event, the captioning is actually recorded onto the tape and thus you have the captioning appear just as soon as it is read or spoken.

The technology is very very expensive and simply hasn't caught up yet to the demands of the FCC through the laws that actually made any broadcast over 15 minutes have closed captioning.

You can provide the captioner with a script of what you are going to say and they can go along with you for the most part, however, if you deviate any the captioner is lost thus most quality programs do not use that type of service.

The best way is to let the captioner do it on the fly, they are accurate and there are companies who are very good at it.

As for TV, NFL or MLB owns the broadcasts and they can add anything they want. Just watch ESPN a while and you will see it every single day.

Thansk
David

There is no argument with your explanation of closed captioning.

But sounds are not created and added to live televised sporting events and newscasts. That would be a violation of any network's broadcasting standards.

It is simply not done.

Originally Posted by jimpiano

Most newscasts are closed captioned via the written scripts fed to the anchors via the teleprompter.

Newscasts that do not utilize real-time captioning are doing this. This leaves out the banter between the anchor and the weatherperson or the sports anchor, or the live feeds. Not really 100 percent accessible to Deaf people. You'll have to excuse my rantings on this captioning topic because I do have a hearing loss myself and use captioning all the time.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by Ref Ump Welsch

Newscasts that do not utilize real-time captioning are doing this. This leaves out the banter between the anchor and the weatherperson or the sports anchor, or the live feeds. Not really 100 percent accessible to Deaf people. You'll have to excuse my rantings on this captioning topic because I do have a hearing loss myself and use captioning all the time.

Which are most local newscasts in the country since it is much cheaper for the computer to power closed captioning than a human.