Hello all:

My attention was called to an article written for the Digital Cinema Report, by Michael Karagosian.  After reviewing the article, I have to say first of all, that I DO appreciate the efforts being made by a portion of the industry to try and increase the capability to show captioned movies anytime, anywhere, basically.  Having said that, however, I must say that the article, while detailed in terms of technical specifications, was actually sorely lacking in other areas.  The article appears below, my comments about specific portions are in parentheses and in RED font.  To see the article in it's entirety without my comments, please visit the link to the article that I will post at the end of this piece.

Digital Cinema Report

Please Note:  This column will also appear in the February issue of BoxOffice Magazine.

Enabling the Disabled to See Movies

By Michael Karagosian

One of the possible benefits of digital cinema is access for those with visual and auditory disabilities.  Film technologies for access are proprietary and expensive.  New technologies promise improved and lower cost methods for media access in public places.  Digital cinema can provide the means to bring these new methods into the theatre environment, and much effort is being directed towards making this happen. (Possible being the key word here, and also, relative to the digital technology and costs of conversion, access technologies are relatively INEXPENSIVE, actually. Even this writer’s own projections show that competitive access solutions probably won’t pop up until the Virtual Print Fee portion of the digital cinema initiative is no longer available.)

New technologies for increasing media accessibility are now being promoted for all forms of content, including that which is online.  Readily available core technologies now exist that can provide the foundation for such methods.  This includes, for example, the potential use of IEEE 802.11 wireless Ethernet (Wi-Fi) in the theatre space, as well as the potential use of handheld devices that receive such signals, including a new wave of cellular phones.  There are a lot of moving parts in bringing such access solutions into practice, however.  While it is difficult to implement competitive access solutions with film systems, the industry is in the process of building a foundation for accessibility into digital cinema such that uniform distributions can support competitive access systems. (“In the process of building a foundation for accessibility into digital cinema such that uniform distributions can support competitive access systems” is lawyer-speak for “it’ll be a while, folks.” And as I said earlier, these access solutions will most likely not become available until the expiration of the virtual print fee requirement, by this writer’s own projections.)

The media types for aiding accessibility in the cinema are well defined.  A hearing-impaired audio channel, known in the industry as HI audio, is a monophonic mix of that which is heard in the auditorium speakers, but with added emphasis on the dialog track.  A descriptive narration channel, also known as visually impaired narrative, or VI-N, is a special track in which a recorded voice narrates what is happening on screen.  Both of these audio channels can be transmitted to wireless headphones worn by the patron.  

For those who need visual aids, captioning is offered.  Captions consist of text that describes the dialog and sound track of the movie.  Open captions in cinema are similar to captions in television, where text appears on screen, usually at the bottom of the picture, for all to see.  Digital cinema projectors can display open captions, and a standard format exists for distributing these in digital cinema.  However, studies show that hearing patrons prefer not to attend movie screenings with open captions. (NO, captions are NOT always offered, that is our bone of contention. And for the last time, I keep hearing about these “studies” that show hearing patrons prefer not to attend movies with open captions, yet I have not seen ONE single solitary published study. As a matter of fact, since we are doing the “show me yours, I’ll show you mine” thing, I found a study that shows when consumers are educated about captions and all that they can offer, they actually DON’T MIND THE CAPTIONS. And this is a documented study (by an independent 3^rd party survey company) that relates to television, yes, but it shows a willingness and an adaptability on the part of hearing audiences when surveyed over a vast and far-ranging scope of people after they have been shown what it is and how it works.  Here is the link: http://captionson.com/capsMatter_research.asp . Now show me YOUR studies. Published, respectable ones, please, not generic ones from Short Bus Cinemas in Backward, Utah with a population of 500 people. Relax, I am not denigrating Utah, I’m being sarcastic.)

A more acceptable method for presenting captions to cinema audiences is with the class of system called “closed captions.”  Closed caption methods present a personal display to the patron, such that the caption is visible only to the patron who wishes to see it.  With closed captions installed, the caption can be available at all performances.  (Assuming, of course, that the caption is delivered.)  This provides enormous flexibility to moviegoers. (Acceptable to whom? The hearing audience? Of course, silly me. Never mind all those published reports, testimonies, and so forth that show that RWC or hand-held caption devices are despised by the majority of the deaf and hard of hearing population due to several factors such as inability to watch the movie and read the captions at the same time, having to look down and then up to watch the movie and read the captions, complaints generated from hearing audience members about the ambient light given off by the personal captioning devices (much like cell phone lights), and so forth and so on. Silly me, I should have been thinking from the hearing perspective, not the deaf. You know, the ones who actually would be using said devices.)

With film, presenting anything other than picture poses a problem.  If a caption is printed directly on the film print, then the film print is no longer useful for non-caption showings.  Worst case, for the studio, this approach doubles the number of prints that must be distributed.  There are cost issues for the exhibitor, too.  Closed caption display with film requires synchronization of an external display system to the projector.  While methods exist for printing a synchronization signal on film, they are proprietary:  no open standards exist.  Even with the relatively recent (in terms of film history) advent of digital sound on film, none of the digital sound-on-film formats provide the means to include HI and VI-N audio.  HI audio in film is typically generated live during the performance, by mixing Left, Center, and Right audio, with an emphasis on Center as the primary dialog track.  With film systems, VI-N audio is only available through means of a synchronized CDROM, the player for which is available only from one manufacturer.  While methods exist with film systems for increasing accessibility of the performance, they are all proprietary, making it difficult for competing systems to exist. (Yada, Yada, Yada…What this all means is simply that the studios and theaters, as the main purchasing group from said proprietary manufacturers, need to bring that collective buying power to use and say “This needs to be done. The company that does it in a standard format will get our business.” Don’t worry so much about competition, since this writer (on his business website) even admits that the studios tend to want the higher quality (and usually higher priced) devices to be used. Establish the standards that are needed and the studios can agree upon at a minimum for transmitting the captions, publish the standards, and tell the manufacturers “This is what we need. We buy from whoever can meet our needs.” That creates a market and a demand to fill said market.  Competition comes after someone else sees the money to be made and has a better idea or product.  By then, with a proliferation of product already in the theaters, it will be THEIR imperative to make sure their system can be adapted to work with whatever is already there in the theaters and studios.  Focusing now on trying to create a competitive market is a worthless endeavor.  Create the demand first.)

With digital cinema, the industry is able to take a much different approach.  For sound, the native capacity of digital cinema distributions is 16 audio channels, providing more than enough capability to include HI and VI-N audio in standard distributions.  SMPTE is close to standardizing audio formats in draft SMPTE 429-2 D-Cinema Packaging – DCP Operational Constraints, which will define how HI and VI-N audio is to be included in standardized distributions.  Open caption and subtitling can also be included in standard distributions, and the capability to display these is built-in to digital cinema projectors.

To complete the offering, closed captions will also be included in the digital cinema suite.  SMPTE has published two new standards:

428-10 D-Cinema Distribution Master – Closed Caption and Closed Subtitle

429-12 D-Cinema Packaging – Caption and Closed Subtitle

This pair of standards makes it possible for closed captions to be included in standardized distributions.  However, these standards alone do not bring competitive closed caption systems into the cinema environment.  SMPTE is currently engaged in the additional development of complementary digital cinema standards titled Content Synchronization Protocol (CSP) and Resource Presentation List (RPL).  Together, CSP and RPL will provide the means for closed caption systems of different manufacture to plug into compliant digital cinema servers.  (In other words, “Hey folks, we got closed caption standardized now (RWC), the other stuff we are working on. Just like we have been for the last 10-15 years.” Good lord, the government moves faster, people.  Again, quit focusing on trying to create a competitive market.  Create the demand for that market, and people (manufacturers) will get in.)

Of course, the publication of standards does not mean that competitive closed caption systems will instantly be available on the market.  As manufacturers push ahead to meet the DCI specification, it is important to note that, as of this writing, DCI does not require compliance to SMPTE 429-2 for access audio, or SMPTE 428-10, 429-12, CSP, or RPL for closed captions.  It will take more than DCI compliance to get these standards, once completed, incorporated into products.  Recognizing this, NATO has begun working with manufacturers to help accelerate the process of closed caption implementation.  While much work remains, the effort to create a full suite of accessibility standards for digital cinema is breaking new ground. (Look, I’m not the smartest guy in the world, but even I see something obviously missing here, which is the lack of established time frames. This writer’s website speaks of the “chasm” after the initial heady outpouring of interest in digital cinema. In the real world, we call this the “bubble bursting”, much like the Dot com bust of the 90’s.  It means that sales and installations are not keeping up with one another.  There will be a long shakeout in which the strong survive and the weak are gobbled up. Then, we will see it begin to gain favor steadily. And that is IF the vast majority of independents (theater owners not affiliated with major chains) sign on to the purchasing agreement that will cost them almost $100,000 per screen for equipment that will have to be replaced on an average of every 10 years. Even factoring in equipment price declines, you will see the average last well beyond 10 years as people try to make this last as long as possible to get the best value for their money. That kind of investment scares a lot of people away, and will make them wait longer, especially since one industry person has told me that 3D or digital has not really shown a big difference in attendance figures. If there are not more people visiting the theaters and spending money on the profit margin drivers (i.e. pop, popcorn, candy, etc.), where is their incentive to buy-in on the idea at the early stage? Summary? “it’ll be a while, folks”)

As I have said, I am appreciative of the efforts many people are making, however, there is a long way to go.  And while I hope digital cinema catches on quickly and affordably, I am of the opinion that nothing I have read so far indicates to me that this technology will be the answer to our prayers in terms of accessibility any time in the near future.  As a matter of fact, I would probably be safe in wagering that it will be a minimum of 5 more years before this is prevalent in the majority of theaters, with standards written and agreed upon between the studios, theaters, and tech people that will allow for a truly accessible theater-going experience for ALL deaf and hard of hearing.  It has taken almost 9 years since the first heady arrival of the promise of digital cinema for it to be applied to approximately 5,000 screens here.  Only about 31,000 more screens to go, and at that rate, I might qualify for a Senior Citizen's discount before it hits every screen.  If you want to read the article without my comments, please click on this link:

http://www.digitalcinemareport.com/digital-cinema-hearing-impaired-SMPTE-standards-closed-caption-closed-subtitle

Eddie