- From: geoff freed <geoff_freed@wgbh.org>
- Date: 04 Feb 2003 08:45:18 -0500
- To: <public-tt@w3.org>, <Johnb@screen.subtitling.com>, <public-tt-request@w3.org>
- CC: <public-tt@w3.org>
>Captioning is NOT always in the language of the program audio - for example >in the UK it is perfectly feasible on DTT (digital terrestrial TV) to have >English subtitles AND English captions (as separate user selections) for a >Welsh language (audio) program. To adopt the above definition would mean >that any 'foreign language' program that is **not** dubbed could only be >termed 'subtitled' - regardless of the inclusion of audio events and >narration (which are indicative of captioning cf subtitling). Talk about head-spinning... It is becoming apparent that we should consider a broader definition of subtitle vs caption. That is, not differentiating subtitles from captions based on language, but based on content: -- captions contain additional information (sound effect cues, identifiers) -- subtitles contain no additional information In other words, the language of the original soundtrack *could* become irrelevant. Arguments? Geoff/NCAM On Tuesday, February 4, 2003, Johnb@screen.subtitling.com wrote: > >Geoff Freed wrote: > > > SMPTE's definitions leave room for ambiguity. Captions are always >in the > > same language as the program audio, for example, and they aren't >limited to just > > motion pictures. I propose the following definition for >captions: > > > "Textual representation of dialog, narration and other audio >events, in the same > > language as the original presentation." > >Captioning is NOT always in the language of the program audio - for example >in the UK it is perfectly feasible on DTT (digital terrestrial TV) to have >English subtitles AND English captions (as separate user selections) for a >Welsh language (audio) program. To adopt the above definition would mean >that any 'foreign language' program that is **not** dubbed could only be >termed 'subtitled' - regardless of the inclusion of audio events and >narration (which are indicative of captioning cf subtitling). > >I agree that the scope of the definition could be widened in the TT standard >to include all video and audio material (not just motion >pictures). > >regards > >John Birch. > >The views and opinions expressed are the author's own and do not necessarily >reflect the views and opinions of the Screen Subtitling Systems >Limited. >
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2003 08:45:50 UTC