|
Post by Deleted on Oct 3, 2017 21:03:00 GMT
National Theatre specs create floating subtitlesI can't see this being a success. I've tried active 3d TV and — unlike the lightweight passive 3D used in cinemas — the weight of the electronics-filled glasses becomes painful after an hour or so. Unlike battery-powered active 3D glasses these ones seem to have wires hanging from them as well, adding to the inconvenience. On top of that, it also draws attention to people who have a disability. It all seems so poorly thought out that part of me suspects this is a spoof.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 8:22:38 GMT
Seems like an excellent idea to me, enabling the hearing impaired to see any performance at the National (and elsewhere if it's a success).
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 8:34:20 GMT
Seems like a fantastic idea to me. lt let's people access far more performances than the "special" ones with captions and actually i think people might rather being able to go to any performance they want, rather than restricted to certain ones.
|
|
2,702 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by viserys on Oct 4, 2017 8:43:27 GMT
As a hard of hearing person who can't always catch captioned performances because I have to book travel to London months in advance this is the best news I have heard in years. People with normal hearing just can't imagine what it feels like, when you struggle so hard to follow what people are saying that you can't really get into the play's mood/story or to sit in silence when everyone around you chuckles at a joke made on stage.
And what if it does draw attention? So do the currently available infrared hearing sets, but I've never had any comment from anyone. In fact, a lady wearing a set next to me a few years ago was what made me realize that I could try them as well and they have improved many a theatre evening for me since.
So I applaud the NT (and have actuall emailed them to tell them so) and I do hope that this system will work and catch on. It would be so much easier for me to book any new play at the NT knowing I could lean back and follow everything with the glasses instead of concentrating oh so hard on the dialogues to the point of exhaustion (I developed a headache during the second play of Harry Potter because my brain was giving up and I can't wait to Harry Potter again next weekend with captions).
In the long run I could also see the system work for West End theatres that sell plenty of tickets to foreign audiences who often can't follow English very well and who could use subtitles in their own language. In fact I think it might encourage tourists to see other shows than Phantom or Mamma mia because they won't have to rely so much on knowing the story and/or songs.
Maybe the system won't work perfectly at once but at least they are doing something while here in Germany, our theatres don't even bother with captioned or signed performances, thus excluding everyone with a hearing disability. So I applaud the NT and I do hope I will be able to test the glasses sooner or later.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 9:12:22 GMT
Honestly we can sit and speculate all we want about how good an idea we think it is, but as someone whose ears do the job sufficiently, I know my opinion counts for nothing here. It's not for me, it's for the people who need it, and maybe there'll be false starts and teething problems, but it's a good thing they're doing and I hope it goes well. (That said, I do have a selfish interest in hoping it goes well; I always end up reading the captions rather than watching the stage when I end up at a captioned performance, so I really wouldn't say no to losing them in favour of individualising the caption experience. )
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 4, 2017 10:23:36 GMT
National Theatre specs create floating subtitlesI can't see this being a success. I've tried active 3d TV and — unlike the lightweight passive 3D used in cinemas — the weight of the electronics-filled glasses becomes painful after an hour or so. Unlike battery-powered active 3D glasses these ones seem to have wires hanging from them as well, adding to the inconvenience. On top of that, it also draws attention to people who have a disability. It all seems so poorly thought out that part of me suspects Experience of technology development suggests that they'll gradually become smaller, lighter, less noticeable and wireless. This is only the initial version. As a concept I think it's outstanding.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 11:11:53 GMT
The idea that it opens up more performances doesn't work, because they could put screens up at every performance. If they can't do that because they have to pay fees to the captioning provider those fees won't go away because of a change in equipment.
The point I'm trying to get across here is that the technology is nowhere near good enough, and I think it would be better to concentrate on technology that will actually do the job. I have a 3D active TV and the glasses for it weigh 58g. That doesn't sound like much but after half an hour that weight becomes agonising. I just can't use it any more. For comparison, my regular and quite strong prescription spectacles weigh 28g, and even that can become uncomfortable over time.
I'd love to know how enthusiastic people supporting this idea would be if they were in a considerable amount of discomfort half way through the first act of a play, knowing that they had no choice but to continue suffering or manage on their own. The equipment needs to be brought down to a workable weight first. The way they're going now they'll never get the chance to sort out the problems because the technology will gain a reputation as a failure before it has the chance to mature. This would be a great idea if they'd waited until the technology was ready, but far too often people rush to present a new concept to the public before it's ready and the reputation that results kills the concept for years.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 11:20:15 GMT
I appreciate what you're trying to say Matthew but surely it should be left to the people who actually require such technology/assistance in theatre to judge for themselves? and we have at least one person with direct experience telling you so.
I don't have personal experience, but I am on the board for a theatre that specialises in creating work, and making work accessible for both d/Deaf/hearing impaired people and people with sight impairments. All the technology for this is both expensive, and constantly in development. But I know the people who we work with would jump at the chance of an opportunity like this which lets them pick any performance of a show, and see any of the shows on offer from a theatre, not just the selected ones.
Also let's not forget that subtitles/surtitles aren't a perfect medium and cause issues for some people- if you have even minor sight issues along with your hearing issues for example, if you prefer to sit closer to the stage in order to perhaps lip read most of the play, but then can't read the subtitles. Nothing will be perfect for everyone.
But to my mind, this seems an exciting advance. So why not let those who need it try it out and feedback to the NT/developers before writing it off?
|
|
2,702 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by viserys on Oct 4, 2017 11:29:01 GMT
Also let's not forget that subtitles/surtitles aren't a perfect medium and cause issues for some people- if you have even minor sight issues along with your hearing issues for example, if you prefer to sit closer to the stage in order to perhaps lip read most of the play, but then can't read the subtitles. Nothing will be perfect for everyone. To add to this, the subtitle screens are usually at the side of the proscenium arch, so your eyes dart forth and back all the time. It's fine with an opera, when they sing "I'm gooooing to diiiie" for about five minutes, but when you have a wordy play, you get little chance to focus on the actual actors because you are too busy keeping up with the subtitles. Hamlet was such a case for me. If subtitles were directly in my line of vision as they are on a TV screen, it would be so much easier. I don't care if the first-generation glasses are heavy or clunky or don't work perfectly, as least they are developing something that will be a huge benefit to thousands of theatre-goers. Should the glasses become too heavy, I take them off, so what? Then I'm basically in the same situation I ALWAYS am in the theatre - staring at the stage, trying to figure out what they are saying.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 4, 2017 11:45:47 GMT
As with all glasses based things, I wonder how they work with people who already wear glasses for sight problems.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 12:25:34 GMT
I appreciate what you're trying to say Matthew but surely it should be left to the people who actually require such technology/assistance in theatre to judge for themselves? and we have at least one person with direct experience telling you so. In my last job I was in charge of checking disability issues so I have a fair amount of understanding of the requirements. But it's not just experience of being deaf that matters. It's experience of what it's like to have to wear heavy equipment, and from what I've read here I'm the only person commenting from extensive experience of the latter. It's difficult to get across how physically painful it becomes after a very short time. Because if they get it wrong now there probably won't be a chance to get it right. I mentioned 3D TV before, and that's a very good example of how taking an idea to the public before the technology is up to the task can kill the entire concept stone dead for years. 3D cinema is still fairly popular (though not as popular as its proponents hoped) but sales of 3D TVs are essentially zero, and the main reason for that is that the manufacturers backed the heavy and uncomfortable active 3D with the electronic glasses instead of the lightweight passive 3D used in cinemas. The reason they did that is mainly because at the time of introduction active 3D offered full-HD resolution but passive 3D offered lower resolution than old-style standard-definition TV, and they thought that resolution was more important than comfort. But audiences disagreed and the heavy active 3D glasses put people off. Those problems have now been fixed and comfortable full-HD 3D TV is a technological reality. But nobody is selling it. By promoting a bad product before the technology was able to deliver a good product the manufacturers wiped out the demand for the good product. People associate 3D TV with bulky and uncomfortable glasses and nobody is prepared to give the modern technology a chance. My fear with the NT's project is that if it proves to be unpopular because the technology isn't up to the job then in a couple of years when the technology can deliver the right product nobody is going to risk trying it because everyone will remember that the NT sunk a fortune into something that didn't work. Nobody wants to be the second person to do something that was a failure for the first person to do it. Everyone seems to be thinking that "it can't do any harm to try it", but it really, really can. People are concentrating so much on how it might make things better that they're ignoring the fact that it's rather more likely to make things worse.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 12:49:55 GMT
Matthew I'm not the only one disagreeing with you so I don't know why I'm being singled out. I'm happy to agree to disagree. But a couple of points before I bow out:
1. I too have a variety experience in disability support, and it's my experience that something like this would be welcomed with open arms. 2. Your argument about 3D TV is really arguing a number of separate points. People haven't started buying up 3D TVs because they're expensive and relatively speaking there's not that much you can watch on one to make it worth the investment unless you're a real tech-junkie. The average household just doesn't have the use for them. While the tech is of the same ilk, that's not the same argument. 3. You still can't speak for those using the technology. You wore heavy 3D glasses for choice/fun. If I were to lose my hearing tomorrow, and I had the choice between discomfort that allowed me to still pursue my love of theatre, I'd take it.
Finally you can critique the technology all you want but I agree with others on this thread, if you're not the one who actually needs it I don't think it's your place to say it's a waste of time. Similarly until the actual thing in question (not just things you're comparing it to)is in use, and has feedback I don't think any of us can rightly judge.
|
|
5,707 posts
|
Post by lynette on Oct 4, 2017 13:24:19 GMT
I do have experience of hearing problems at the theatre. I am usually sitting right next to it! And at the risk of opening up another can or worms I have to say that audibility is dependant on how the actor delivers the line and how he or she is placed on the stage. And..and...when an actor knows a laugh is coming then he/she has to time the line well. This is often a problem. Laughs drown the line even for me with my sharp little pointers so next to me has no chance. Director should be aware of sound blanks, those spaces from where you cannot hear and actors might like to attend the projection classes I'm sure they still offer. You don't have to shout to be audible. In fact shouting can often lessen audibility. I'm not sure that rows of people wearing odd glasses in the Lyttleton will enhance the theatrical experience for audience or actors.
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 4, 2017 13:27:19 GMT
3D didn't take off because it's a gimmick that adds little to the enjoyment of most film and TV (and actively causes headaches for many). It's a different ballpark.
After all, any pair of glasses is weird to wear at first - I remember complaining about mine when I got them - but you get used to them with use. Plus, none of us has actually worn a pair of them yet. I am sure the designers will be focused on user-comfort as a priority - they want them to work for people.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 13:37:31 GMT
lynette that's fair comment on both fronts- hearing and how it's affected is different for all (for example my Mum isn't officially 'hearing impaired' but suffers severe tinnitus which does impact depending on the day/volume of the room in as well) it's all very individual and relative. There's also been much written on whether or not actors learn to PRRRROOJEEECT (hehe) properly today or not. But I'm not sure it's a director's responsibility to account for hearing in the performance in that way (not saying it isn't just not sure it is). But I still think this is an idea worth trying out. Surtitles have massive issues of their own- not least in countries where bilingual ones are needed as well. And there's not a one size fits all- not every D/deaf person signs but we still give BSL performances, so I just think it's worth trying out.
|
|
1,582 posts
|
Post by anita on Oct 4, 2017 13:51:55 GMT
I wear 2 hearing aids & glasses. - I would gladly volunteer my services as a tester for these.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 14:31:37 GMT
People keep on fixating on how worthy it is to help the deaf, but that's not the point I'm trying to get through to everyone. Of course it's going to be a great benefit to anyone with hearing difficulties. That's so bloody obvious it doesn't need saying. Everyone is agreed on this and it really shouldn't be part of the discussion.
There have been many different attempts to use glasses-like technologies, including things like 3D TV, virtual reality, Google Glass, and loads of others that I haven't even tried to keep track of. The problem that comes up over and over again is "That's all well and good, but we hate wearing this stuff". Now this new idea comes along and everyone is getting all enthusiastic about the possibilities and ignoring the fact that it suffers from exactly the same problem that keeps sinking all the other ideas.
People. Hate. Wearing. Heavy. Glasses.
It doesn't matter how worthy the application is, that problem is still going to be there.
All the individual components of this have been around for years and the benefits and problems are well known. Subtitles in front of scenes work well in film and TV. The idea of overlaying text over live scenes is well established from head-up displays. Transmitting information to audience-worn receivers is commonplace. The problems in these areas have been resolved. No component of this is new. The only new aspect of this is the combination. Yet for some reason it's assumed that a known problem with one of the components just won't apply in this case.
Why? Why do people think that the well-known problem of heavy electronics-laden glasses won't be relevant in this application?
I want to be clear about this: In principle this is a wonderful idea. I just think that it's vitally important to get it right, and not get so wrapped up in how worthy you're being that you strangle the technology before it has a chance to get established. If they can get the head-mounted weight down to around 20g (which would almost certainly require a thin wire to a separate pack containing all the heavy stuff) then this will be fantastic technology. The best way to kill off any idea is to make people disillusioned with an early incarnation of it, and that seems to be what is happening here.
I mean, don't deaf people deserve good technology rather than adequate technology?
|
|
4,156 posts
|
Post by kathryn on Oct 4, 2017 14:45:29 GMT
Do you actually know how much they weigh right now? Because if not you don't actually know if there's a problem.
Google glass is 36g. I doubt my glasses are much less than that.
|
|
2,702 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by viserys on Oct 4, 2017 14:48:42 GMT
As a hard of hearing person I rather have adequate technology than NO technology.
So what if the first version is heavy? They can work on making them smaller WHILE the first version is being used. I'd rather see a new play next season with 60g glasses than miss out on the play because the 20g glasses won't be ready until 2020.
What do you think are we LOSING from these? Do you seriously think that anyone with a hearing problem will go "meh, these things are too heavy, they're worthless, I give up"? No, we will bear them as bet as we can and wait patiently until the NT announces that they have a new lighter version.
This is not naff gadgetry like Google Glasses that no one needed in the first place. And Virtual Reality IS being developed and nobody said "hrm, let's forget the idea, these VR glasses are too clunky" - they work with the clunky ones for now while developing smaller lighter versions.
|
|
2,702 posts
Member is Online
|
Post by viserys on Oct 4, 2017 14:49:53 GMT
And for what's it worth, I just put my sunglasses on the kitchen scale and they're 37g. I'm sure I'll survive those 60g glasses...
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 14:57:21 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 15:05:36 GMT
And for what's it worth, I just put my sunglasses on the kitchen scale and they're 37g. I'm sure I'll survive those 60g glasses... As I said, my active 3D glasses are 58g. That doesn't sound like much, but before I gave up on them completely I was having to watch 3D movies in two parts because I couldn't last a solid 90 minutes with them. If you're being flippant about the weight then you have no idea just how painful they get after a while. It's not "a bit uncomfortable". It reached the point where I couldn't go on: I simply couldn't focus on what I was watching. To me, that's an important problem. If I was designing a system like this then wearing the glasses for three hours without finding them bothersome would be an essential part of the testing. And by all accounts I've heard these are not as comfortable as their wearers deserve them to be. And remember, it's not a matter of this or nothing. There are already solutions for people with hearing difficulties. There's no rush. So why is everyone apart from me acting as though we need to have this right now? It's like everyone thinks they're going to get a medal for defending defenceless deaf people against the evil person who wants to make sure they get technology that actually works well. How many people here actually have experience of wearing this sort of technology? Just me, is it?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 15:11:02 GMT
I think if you pay attention at least 2 people on this thread are the people who will actually be using/needing this technology. Your argument is about being fit for purpose, the point is the current technology isn't fit for purpose. As people who use them have pointed out. The more you post the more it seems like you're just miffed you spent a ridiculous amount of money on technology that is a bit crap. Literally none of the people here are saying it's going to be perfect, we're all saying 'well hey this seems like a leap forward, hope it goes well' Meanwhile maybe lay off the 2-part plays NT, and get Ben Power on editing that trilogy down
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 15:18:11 GMT
I am completely baffled why anyone would object to this idea. I don't object to the idea. All I initially said was that I expected that it would fail because of the weight of the glasses. For some reason that got everyone up in arms, because apparently you're not allowed to spot potential problems when disabilities are involved. (Yes, I am upset about this, because I'd have liked a proper discussion and instead I'm being attacked by people who seem to think that this project must be beyond criticism.) Cool. Thanks for the link. ( Specifications here for anyone interested.) The headset weight is 69g. That's heavy. In practice I don't think the battery life will be an issue because there's a wire to a separate controller, and that means the battery weight can be increased without it causing additional inconvenience. At least, that can happen if the battery is in the controller, and even if there is one in the headset it would make sense to allow a supplementary external one.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 4, 2017 15:22:30 GMT
Ok I went back and read the initial comments. Four of us in a row literally said 'hey seems like a good idea to me'
I'm not sure where the idea that we're saying it's above criticism because it helps disabilities is coming from. All of us have gone around and around in circles saying basically the same thing 'Seems like a helpful idea, why don't we see how it plays out?'
|
|