Signing on TV programmes

Moglex

Last night I needed to watch a few minutes of the start of a programme I'd missed the beginning of. The only way to do this was to watch as signed version just after midnight. In doing so I noticed again something I'd seen before when I accidentally recorded a signed programme a while back.

When they sign a programmes, they shrink the picture to about 3/4 size so that there is a clear margin to the right. The person doing the signing takes up about 1/4 of the screen horizontally.

All seems pretty sensible, so far, yes?

But, no. Despite this blank section to the right of the picture, the person doing the signing stands mainly RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE PICTURE!

This seems so unbelievably stupid that I have to wonder if there is some reason why the do this. Why have the signer in front of the picture so that they are less clear than they would be against the blank margin and they obscure part of the programme?

shaun_from_Africa

I'm guessing the reason is so that it's easier for the deaf person to see the signing whilst watching the program at the same time.

Take your computer monitor for an example. Look at something in the bottom right hand side of the screen (such as the time) and concentrate on it, and you will find it very hard to take much notice of what is in the centre of the screen.

However, if there is something near the middle that you are looking at, the rest of the display will still be in you peripheral vision so you will be able to see both the person doing the signing and the program.

This may also be why the actual picture is shrunk as the edge of the screen may be difficult to see whilst also watching the person signing.

Moglex

I suppose it's possible that that was the thinking behind the effect but I doubt they have it right.

If you are reading subtitles or watching a signer you cannot clearly see the detail of what's happening on the rest of the screen even if it sis right next to the signer. Just get a general idea from peripheral vision which, itself, extends far beyond the confines of a TV screen, even if you ere watching on a 62" behemoth.

I'd love to hear the views of someone who actually uses the signing to see if they think the presentation is optimum - or daft.

bcl999

I've not noticed the 3/4 picture size the OP mentioned. Could it have been a programme that was broadcast in the 4/3 format? There is signing on BBC News for a time in the morning & am sure the
(tota)l picture size is same as usual.

On the subject of signed TV, whilst "flipping" late one night, I found a signed version of Deadwood being broadcast on Sky. Anyone familiar with the sort of language in that programme can imagine how the signer felt!

shaun_from_Africa

I don't remember which stand up comedian it was, but I do remember the comment they made about how the signing newsreader must have found it difficult when they were relaying the news about the Cockermouth floods.

Moglex

bcl999 wrote: »

I've not noticed the 3/4 picture size the OP mentioned. Could it have been a programme that was broadcast in the 4/3 format? There is signing on BBC News for a time in the morning & am sure the
(tota)l picture size is same as usual.

No, it was a normal, widescreen, programme that had previously been shown full screen. And the background margins were textured so not the normal "black bars" that you get when the original programme is not in the normal aspect ratio. Also, a part of the signer was in front of the border - just not very much.

On the subject of signed TV, whilst "flipping" late one night, I found a signed version of Deadwood being broadcast on Sky. Anyone familiar with the sort of language in that programme can imagine how the signer felt!

There was a comedy show sketch years ago where a newsreader complained about having someone "flapping their arms about" in front of her and started using every more complicated words until the poor woman gave up.

lauraaurora

bcl999 wrote: »

I've not noticed the 3/4 picture size the OP mentioned. Could it have been a programme that was broadcast in the 4/3 format?

Not quite, but you're on the right lines. All programmes are broadcast in 16:9 these days, but if you look at the graphics and idents, they're all designed to be seen be those with widescreen TVs, but also anyone who might still be watching on an old 4:3 set. So, if you were to put the signer on the edge of the screen, those with a 4:3 tv set wouldn't see much of the person signing.

Moglex

Thanks Laura (or Clive).

I feel rather stupid now for not working that out myself.

shaun_from_Africa

Moglex wrote: »

Thanks Laura (or Clive).

It might well be Laura and Clive as we do live in a fairly open minded society nowadays.
He might be Clive Monday to Friday and Laura at weekends!

Azari

Moglex wrote: »

There was a comedy show sketch years ago where a newsreader complained about having someone "flapping their arms about" in front of her and started using every more complicated words until the poor woman gave up.

That was Susie Blake as 'The Announcer' on the Victoria Wood series: 'As Seen on TV".

vyle

I've often wondered why BBC doesn't just have signing as an interactive alternative screen option through the red button.