Mixed reality subtitles

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.

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. )

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I am completely baffled why anyone would object to this idea.

More details here including a review of the experience and details of the ongoing development and testing - www.techradar.com/news/the-national-theatre-is-using-augmented-reality-to-enhance-its-shows

They are in an experimental stage, there are clearly some issues to resolve which they are working on. The biggest issue I can see is the battery life of 2.5 hours.

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