Report to Film Council

Cinema Access Technologies for people with sensory impairments

A review produced by the bfi’s Exhibition Development Unit

December 2002

Project Team at the bfi:

Julia Voss

Paul Brett

Simon Duffy

Lorna Partington

Eimear Wijnands

External Consultants

Dion Hanson (technical)

Jo Hargreaves (market research)

Acknowledgements

A great many individuals and organisations have contributed to this study in many different ways including those who gave very valuable input into the stakeholder consultation process (see appendix 2) , those involved in the demonstrations and focus groups (appendix 3) and of course the Advisory Group (appendix 1) who provided much needed guidance and expertise. The project team extends their grateful thanks to them all and to others who have helped to make it all possible in a very short space of time including:

David Barrett (BBFC),Roger Beeson (BSL Interpreter), Kathy Blackburn, Nigel Blackmore (Titelbild GmbH), Annette Bradford (CEA) Mary Carroll (Titelbild GmbH), Joe Clark, Linda Croton (Lipspeaker), Graham Edmondson (Dolby), Murray Fisher (Personal Captioning Systems, Inc.) Volker Hagemeier (Titelbild GmbH ), Lise Hannibal (DTS), Myrna-Fey Selling (Titelbild GmbH) Roland Hodges (Cinematic Captioning Systems, Inc.) Ian Hosking (The Generics Group Ltd) Sue Mackay (Lipspeaker), David Monk (Texas Instruments) Peter Packer (Film Council) Jeanette Pitts (Lipspeaker) David Pope (DTS), Petteri Pulkkinen (Sublime Software), Marc Rosen (AudioVision Canada), Audrey Simmons (BSL Interpreter) Mary Watkins (WGBH, Boston) David Wolfenden (BSL Interpreter),

Contents

Summary of key findings and recommendations

The brief/aims of the study

Scope

Methodologies

1. Context

1.1 History and current context

1.2 Key players overview

1.3 The audience

1.4 Other artforms

1.5 Other media platforms (TV, DVD, Video)

1.6 The advent of digital

1.7 Other relevant technologies

1.8 The global picture

1.9 ‘Burnt in’ titles

2. Key issues and themes

2.1 The potential impact of the DDA

2.2 Universal access vs selective (restricted) access

2.3 The role of the exhibitor

2.4 Cinema staff training/on-site management

2.5 The role of the distributor

2.6 British Board of Film Classification

2.7 Chicken and egg

2.8 The service providers

2.9 Standards, protocols and quality control for end product

2.10 Foreign language and archive titles

2.11 Multiple disabilities (mobility and sensory)

2.12 Material ancillary to main feature (advertising, trailers)

2.13 A role for the public/voluntary sectors

Customer communications

Creating demand from visually impaired and blind audiences

3. The Technologies

3.1 A typology

No system is perfect

Cinema access systems – a summary of what’s available

3.4 Beamtitling (Titelbild Germany)

3.5 Bounceback Mirror Image Captioning System

3.6 Cinecanvas (Texas Instruments)

3.7 CSS (DTS)

3.8 Mopix ©

3.9 Moviemate (Intrasonics)

3.10 Palm Captioning Display

3.11 New Vision

3.12 Dolby Screentalk

3.13 SublimeScreen

3.14 Technical Issues

4. Testing the Products

4.1 Conclusions from existing research on systems worldwide

4.2 Feedback from DTS test sites

4.3 Data summary and analysis from FC organised UK end user trials and focus groups – report summary

Appendices

1. Advisory Group Members

2. List of stakeholder consultees

3. List of film titles with DTS CSS captions and audio description

4. List of DTS CSS installations in the UK

5. List of participants at screenings and focus groups

6. Full report on end user demonstration and focus groups by Morris and

Hargreaves (available as a separate document)

Glossary of terms and acronyms

Bibliography/webography

Executive Summary: Findings and Recommendations

Main findings of the research

This research, which is a review of systems for providing audio description and captioning at the cinema indicates that there is a potentially substantial level of demand (almost certainly several million people) for such access. The UK’s Disability Discrimination Act requires service providers to make ‘reasonable adjustment’ in order to meet the needs of disabled staff and customers. What this means in practice for cinemas has yet to be tested through the courts in this country but evidence from the U.S.A where similar legislation has already been in place for some years suggests that legislation and the market alone will not deliver the kind of widespread access which cinema patrons with sensory impairments need and want. Therefore, two things are required to make it happen:-

A level of investment (probably from the public sector) which creates critical mass in the market place i.e. a level of provision is required which will make most popular titles suitably available to most disabled people in order to build a real audience. The technology to do this has been available for five years now yet the level of take-up by the exhibition sector, even in the States where a relatively wealthy public service broadcaster has taken it on, has been negligible.

Installing equipment by itself is unlikely to be enough. There will need to be back-up support in order to a) build awareness among audiences with sensory impairments and b) ensure that operationally, the exhibition sector has enough information to make best practice the norm.

A range of solutions exists but synchronisation is key

There is a range of technologies available to provide captioning and audio description but the only feasible solutions for global rollout and adoption by the multinationals are those which are able to synchronise digitally with the film’s soundtrack. These are the DTS and Dolby systems. However, other systems which use analogue syncing may provide useful, cheaper, less reliable solutions for different settings.

No closed captioning system works entirely satisfactorily

There is no closed captioning system which is entirely satisfactory at the present time. The US Mopix system (Rear Window captioning) has met with only limited user acceptability during the demonstrations organised as part of this research. It seems that open captions are, for the time being the way forward for the UK. However, this is likely to mean a limited number of screenings at venues rather than the obvious goal of universal access. How many is ‘reasonable’ will depend on the number of screens and number of titles shown. What is important is that such screenings are regular and well publicised and not relegated entirely to ‘ghetto’ slots (Sunday morning at 10.00 am for example).

But there is still demand for a closed system

However, there is still demand for a closed system which works well, simply because it would mean so much greater freedom for deaf and hard of hearing people.There should be further investment in R&D for a closed system based on some kind of personal device in order that cinemas which have the equipment then have the option of offering many more screenings with general audiences.

Potential impact of current systems for blind and visually impaired audiences is much wider

The existing closed system for audio description means that near universal access is possible for blind and visually impaired audiences on screens which have the equipment installed and titles for which scripts exist. This means the impact of installing the equipment for these audiences is potentially much wider.

A large impact is attainable with relatively low levels of investment

2003 is European Year of Disabled People and there is a real opportunity for the Film Council, working with industry and other public sector partners, to become the catalyst which brings about a ‘sea change’ within the UK exhibition sector so that the UK will lead the world on access to cinema for people with sensory impairments. This can be achieved with a relatively modest level of investment in the infrastructure. As witnessed in the States, the market and legislation by themselves will bring about change but only slowly and in a piecemeal fashion.

Recommendations arising in the report:-

The following recommendations are divided into three categories and are not presented in the same order that they arise in the main body of the report. For reference, the page number is given where each recommendation appears in the main body of the report.

FUNDING AND INVESTMENT

The Film Council, working possibly in collaboration with other public or private partners, should make funds available ( a significant impact could be made for around £300,000) to install captioning and audio description equipment in selected cinema sites around the UK on a partnership basis as a trial project (to test the market, the equipment in situ, audience response and management process, etc.). Cities, towns or areas would be identified in advance and bids taken for a set proportion of the capital cost. Grants would be awarded on the basis of best value including level of planned provision, best operational practices etc. Thereafter, a smaller fund with higher levels of partnership could be maintained for other sites where a need can be demonstrated. (p.28)

Resources invested in this area might be matched by other public and private sector finance, especially since 2003 is European Year of Disabled People. In any case the possibility of doubling up investment resources through partnership with other industry partners, public or voluntary sector agencies, should be thoroughly investigated. (p.28)

Any capital investment in systems should include the option of personal captioning and audio-description systems in order that deaf or hearing impaired audiences can join general audiences and have a wider choice of screenings. (p.24)

That a Fund be established – from public and/or private sources - to make grants available to distributors for captioning and audio describing films released on less than (say) 100 prints. In practice this will mean a subsidy for independent English Language titles. A small sum, say £60,000 if used in partnership could release 20 independent films with captions and AD. The Film Council should certainly consider integrating a requirement for provision into any distribution subsidies it plans as part of its Distribution and Exhibition Strategy as a condition of funding. (p.27)

The Film Council’s production funds – The Premiere Fund, The New Cinema Fund and The Development Fund - should set as a condition of funding a requirement that the production of feature films funded by the Film Council must, in their final form, be sub-titled and audio-described. The burden of proof as to why this might not be possible would rest with the funded clients. (p.35)

Exhibition clients funded directly by the Film Council, or indirectly via the Film Council’s Regional Screen Agencies, should set as a condition of their funding the installation of sub-titling and audio-description equipment over a reasonable period of time – such as over two years – in at least one of their screens. This would especially apply to the bfi, at the National Film Theatre and to those cinemas previously known as Regional Film Theatres now funded through the Film Council’s Regional Screen Agencies and to any new exhibition clients. Local Authority exhibition clients should also be encouraged to make this a requirement. (p.34)

A small sum of R&D funding (say £40K) is raised to help develop a personal captioning device which can work alongside existing digital open systems. (p.24)

The bfi should source funding to audio describe bfi DVD releases (captioning is already available) and for captioning and audio describing bfi Classic Re-releases. (p.32)

There needs to be research into further development of headsets for AD which takes into account the sound levels issue. (p.31)

TRAINING, RESOURCES AND INFORMATION FOR OPERATORS AND DISTRIBUTORS

As part of the trial project proposed in no.1 the reaction of hearing audiences to open subtitles should be formally tested with a view to determining an ‘acceptable level’ of open screenings. (p.24)

A centralised training and information resource is made available, possibly in electronic format in order that cinemas have access to the latest advice, models of best practice and staff training guidelines. This should be included in the CEA’s Disability Guidelines. (p.26)

The voluntary sector (RNIB, RNID) continues to monitor customer feedback from sites where equipment is installed both now and in the future and that this is fed back formally to operators. (p.26)

13. Cinema standards and protocols for captioning and audio description are formally established, based on those for TV, with input from sensory impaired cinema audiences and the FDA. The Film Council and/or the CEA, the FDA and the BVA might be appropriate bodies to convene and co-ordinate such a standards group. These standards might also be extended to DVDs. Although such standards would be voluntary the standards body should also monitor to ensure that the best quality possible is generally in use. Ideally this should involve the US studios in order to obtain consistency. (p.31)

14. Standards and protocols should take into account those with

multiple disabilities, especially DVIP. (p32)

15. Further investigation is made into how a number of classic movies can be captioned and audio described including potential franchise of the technology by the bfi or other supplier and distribution rights. . The availability of captioned and audio described titles in the TCM catalogue should be investigated. (p.32)

Investigation of what happens to InSight Cinema (formerly Tripod) captioned prints and hard captioned prints distributed in the UK once they have finished their main release with a view to making them available for further distribution through an archive or other distribution mechanism if this does not already happen. (p.21)

The particular needs of blind and visually impaired cinema patrons (film information, transport, screening venues, dates and times) be identified and included in any guidance on operational practice for cinemas including the CEA’s disability guidelines. (p.37)

18. Film information on new releases (for example some of the content of ‘Sight and Sound’, published by the bfi) be made accessible to blind and visually impaired cineastes and made available through a central source. (p.37)

PROMOTION

Assuming that widespread, UK-wide installation of the appropriate technologies can be achieved within a short timescale (see recommendation above) a high-profile national promotion/publicity drive should be co-ordinated to encourage people with sensory impairments to visit the cinema. This might include selection of a particular film for national distribution with free/cheap entry, a ‘cinema for the blind and visually impaired’ week etc. Any such initiatives should ensure that they draw on the experience of other similar programmes for other artforms e.g. the Arts Council of England’s New Audiences Programme. (p.35)

The website resource HYPERLINK "mailto:subtitles@yourlocalcinema" subtitles@yourlocalcinema which is currently run on a voluntary basis needs to be put on a firmer financial footing in order that it can cope with increased capacity as well as becoming more accessible to blind and visually impaired people through the use of voiceover. The site could be taken on by an organisation with the resources to keep it regularly updated (bfi, CEA, RNID etc) and could generate revenues through subscription or advertising to cover costs. Alternatively, the organisation could be funded through a grant from the Film Council. (p.16)

Since promotion to disabled people of sub-titling and audio-description equipment in cinemas locally is an important adjunct to the fact of installation, all cinemas with this equipment or any who install it should also include information about their service to disabled people in their recorded information or any local publicity they might carry out. (p.16)

All of the above will need to be achieved through a range of partnerships including with the National Screen Agencies of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the Film Council’s Regional Screen Agencies in England.

Part I - Background

The brief/aims of the study

There are around 8.7m people in the UK who have hearing loss or deafness to varying degrees and an estimated 2m who are blind and visually impaired – around 15% of the entire population. It is likely that a significant number of these would like to be able to visit the cinema but are denied access because very few cinemas provide captioning or audio description.

The Film Council wishes to ensure that, as far as is reasonably practicable, people with sensory impairments have access to theatrical film exhibition i.e. that they can visit their local cinema on a regular basis. However it must ensure that any investment decisions in this area are based on the best possible information regarding technical solutions.

The objectives of this study are to identify all existing technologies available for generating captions and audio description for theatrical film exhibition and to evaluate these against relevant criteria including customer preferences. In order to evaluate the latter, two end user demonstrations of currently marketable technologies were conducted in August 2002 in London, followed up by a series of focus groups.

This report is intended to serve two main audiences:-

Internally at the Film Council, it will assist in developing a strand of its Disability Strategy which will lead to the achieving of widespread access to theatrical film exhibition for people with sensory impairments.

Second, it is hoped that the information provided will assist UK exhibitors in selecting an appropriate technical solution to their access needs as well as looking at some of the other operational issues. For this reason, Part III of this report is presented in a format which evaluates the relative pros and cons of each system in order that the information can be used in the style of a ‘Which’ report.

Finally, it is hoped that this report will be of use to other general readers with an interest in this subject.

Scope

The search for appropriate technologies has been conducted on a global scale and has identified systems currently either in use or in development in most of the developed world including North America, Western Europe and Australia. Some of the systems identified only provide captioning and not audio description. It is generally agreed that appropriate long term solutions must be capable of delivering both captions and audio description. We have included some systems which generate only captions however for the sake of completeness but also because it may be possible for users of this report to develop low cost hybrid solutions using existing infrared transmission systems already in place for assistive audio technologies which many cinemas already have.

We have explored technologies currently in use on other media platforms as well as other artforms (principally theatre) in order that any crossover issues or applications can be considered.

Our search has been confined to solutions for people who have either a hearing or visual impairment. Whilst acknowledging that it is not uncommon for sight and hearing loss to occur in conjunction with each other we have not attempted to find an access solution to cinema for those who do not have some functional degree of either sight or hearing. We have however, taken into account the needs of visually impaired people and the impact of captions and their presentation as well as those of deaf visually impaired people (DVIP).

Methodologies

This project has been overseen by an Advisory Group comprising key organisations and individuals working in the field of disability and/or cinema. The group met twice to help frame the research and provide on-going support and once to receive a draft of this report in order to make further refinements. The input and advice of this group has been crucial in the development of the project, in particular the assistance given in recruiting participants for the focus groups. A list of members is contained in appendix one.

The research comprised three main phases as follows:-

Desk research – including identification of relevant technologies and stakeholder organisations

Evaluation of the technologies identified against key criteria

Product testing by end users including the UK’s very first demonstration of a closed captioning system (Mopix) alongside demonstration of the DTS open captions

Morris Hargreaves & McIntyre (market research consultancy specialising in the arts) was commissioned to undertake 4 focus groups; two with blind and visually impaired adults; one with deaf and hearing impaired adults and one with deaf and hearing impaired children, all of whom had attended accessible screenings of Men in Black II on 15 or 16 August 2002.

The groups were recruited by The British Film Institute with assistance from the RNIB, RNID, BDA and NDCS.

To ensure that the context of each respondent was taken into account, all participants completed a ‘Pre-Focus Group Questionnaire’ which explored their history of cinema attendance, their previous use of audio description or captioning systems and response to their experience of attending cinema in the past.

The groups took place on 28 and 29 August 2002 at The Film Council’s offices in central London. Both groups of deaf and hearing impaired people were signed.

1. Context

1.1 History and current context

Subtitles are as old as cinema itself with silent movies containing caption boards which were integral to the film. Most of us are accustomed to reading subtitles on foreign language films and subtitles on television both open and closed (through Teletext or Ceefax) are a well established feature of current televisual output. However until very recently in the theatrical (cinema) context, with the exception of foreign language titles, it has not been possible for those with severe hearing loss to fully enjoy and appreciate the cinema. Even foreign language titles are not fully accessible since contextual sounds (such as music or ringing phones) are not captioned. For the hard of hearing, many auditoria are fitted with induction loops or infrared transmitters in order to amplify a film’s soundtrack.

Audio description for the arts and entertainment on the other hand is a relatively new concept and its use currently is not very widespread. Live audio description is used in about 50 UK theatres (usually on a monthly basis) but is less well established for recorded audio-visual media.

A certain percentage of UK televisual output is audio described and this is due to increase. However, only about 45 households in the UK have access to the decoding equipment which is still at the prototype stage as part of a digital trial. Audio description for the cinema can also be performed live although this is very expensive and of limited use in terms of universal access. In Britain, Chapter Arts Centre in Cardiff was one of the first to provide regular descriptions using live script readers.

Two digitally automated delivery systems have recently been developed for cinema whereby an additional pre-recorded soundtrack narrating what is occurring on screen is played in between the dialogue/soundtrack of the film. The playing of pre-recorded narration is only really possible when this additional sound can be synchronised to the film’s soundtrack.

Leaving aside the provision of ‘burnt-in’ captions for the time being, the most significant recent development has been the introduction by DTS (a US Company specialising in digital sound) of 14 test sites in the UK trialing its CSS system which delivers both open captions (projected onto the screen) and audio description. In addition, Odeon has acquired systems for another four sites and plan another 10 sites for the first quarter of 2003. Since Autumn 2001 when the system was first introduced some 32 films have been released with captions and audio description (see Appendix 3 for a full list of titles). There have been 210 captioned screenings and 520 audio described screenings as at 3/12/02.

Dolby have developed a competing system called Dolby ScreenTalk which is also synchronised using a different digital technology. Dolby launched their product to the industry in September 2002 and plan to make it available from January 2003. Both Dolby and DTS systems work on the basis of projecting captions onto the screen and delivering audio description via infrared transmitters through headsets.

These developments, along with the regular screening of films with burnt in subtitles means that in percentage terms, Britain leads the world in terms of access to cinema for people with sensory impairments.

In the US, a patented closed captioning system (Rear Window Captioning) has been developed by WGBH (Boston), a public service broadcaster, whereby captions are displayed on a databox at the back of the auditorium and reflected onto a portable plexiglass screen attached to the viewer’s seat which can be positioned either over or below the screen image. This system, whilst hailed as the only real solution to the issue of universal access (where Deaf or hard of hearing cinema patrons can watch any film with general audiences) has met with only limited success in terms of market penetration. Only around 83 systems are currently installed in the U.S (against a total of 6,500 movie theatres across the country). This may be due in part to cost but our research also indicates that the device meets with only limited initial user acceptability, particularly among the elderly population although younger people seemed to like the device.

1.2 Key players overview

In the UK supply chain for theatrical film distribution there are a number of key players currently involved in the provision of access to cinema for people with sensory impairments, many of which are global companies.

Equipment manufacturers/suppliers/patent holders

DTS (Digital Theatre Systems)

A US Company founded in 1993 with a European Headquarters in England, DTS are best known for their digital sound systems. The DTS CSS (Cinema Subtitling System) system works by writing a timecode onto the film which synchronises with a dedicated CD player. Taking the sound off the physical film itself and onto a CD gives much greater capacity for multi-channel audio. DTS is installed in 22,000 screens in almost 100 countries, including 500 sites in the UK. DTS is currently trialing its soft titling and audio description technologies at 14 UK cinema sites in collaboration with the CEA.

Dolby

Dolby is a U.S Company founded in 1965 in London, probably best known for their innovative noise reduction systems and more recently for their digital surround sound. Dolby has a considerable global presence with over 37,000 screens worldwide and a much larger presence in the UK cinema market (2,500 screens) than DTS. Dolby launched their soft titling and audio description product at the end of September 2002 and plan to make it available from January 2003.

WGBH

The Media Access Group at WGBH, Boston (an American public broadcaster) is an umbrella department comprising three separate services of the WGBH Educational Foundation - The Caption Center (founded 1972), Descriptive Video Service (DVS) (1990) and the National Centre for accessible Media (NCAM) (1993). The Caption Center captions more than 10,000 hours of audiovisual material per year. DVS is the world’s first and largest description agency for audiovisual media. The DVS Home Video Collection includes more than 200 titles. NCAM is a research and development facility dedicated to providing access solutions for existing and emerging media technologies. The Rear Window Captioning and DVS Theatrical systems (collectively known as Motion Picture Access or Mopix) is a closed caption and description delivery technology developed and patented by WGBH. WGBH charge a licence fee for the captioning component of this system. They undertake outreach and training of studios and exhibitors.

Rear Window Captioning and DVS Theatrical will be viable solutions in a digital cinema projection environment. WGBH is working with the industry standards organisation, the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, as well as with private companies development digital cinema systems to develop an open protocol for delivery of access services in the bit stream for d-cinema. Such a solution would bypass hardware (beyond the personal captioning or description delivery interface at seats) altogether.

Distributors (see Appendix 3 for a full list of titles and distributors)

Warner Brothers

The UK division of the Hollywood distribution company, Warners take around 25 titles into distribution each year. Warners have already captioned and described a number of films as part of the DTS trials and are very committed to making it happen, having committed to doing the next 24 titles with DTS CSS.

Columbia (Sony)

Columbia is a part of Sony Filmed Entertainment. They take 25-30 titles into distribution in the UK each year. They are committed to providing subtitles and audio description for every major blockbuster.

Exhibitors (see Appendix 4 for a full list of companies and sites)

Odeon

Odeon (now majority owned by Cinven, a venture capital multinational) is by far the UK’s largest cinema circuit with over 600 screens and revenues of around £180m in 2000. Odeon have four sites engaged in the DTS trials, with more coming on line.

Other multiplex operators involved in the DTS trials

Warners (Warner Village Exhibition and Warner Village Cinemas) – 2 sites

UCI – 2 sites

Cine-UK 1 site

UGC – 1 site

National Amusements – 1 site

Glasgow Film Theatre (GFT) and Moviehouse Cinema Belfast

Glasgow Film Theatre and Moviehouse Cinema in Belfast are the only two independents participating in the trials.

Service providers (captioning and audio description)

itfc

The Company was founded in the mid 1970s originally as a post production facilities house. Media access services including subtitling, captioning and audio description now constitute around 50% of the business. They have been doing work for cinema films for about a year and have captioned and audio described about 10 titles since then.

IMS

IMS began offering broadcast support in 1989 but have offered audio description since 1998. They do subtitling including translation services mainly for Turner Classic Movies. All studio facilities are available in house and they have about 130 staff at 9 sites across the UK. Most of their AD and captioning work has been for television but they have recently completed captions and description for ‘The Sum of all Fears’ for UIP and three other features.

WGBH

WGBH provided some of the captions for the DTS tests (in the form of bit maps drawn from their existing work with the studios) and is able to work with UK organisations as appropriate.

Promoters

CEA (Joint Industry Disability Working Group)

The Cinema Exhibitors Association represents the interests of around 90% of the UK’s cinema operators including national PLCs, smaller circuits, independently owned cinemas, council cinemas and regional film theatres. It provides a range of services for its members, handles national promotions and carries out detailed consultative work on Governmental papers influencing UK Exhibition. It has set up a JIDWG in response to the Disability Discrimination Act and has been instrumental in moving forwards trials of DTS equipment at a number of sites in collaboration with the voluntary sector representing the interests of disabled people.

FDA

The Film Distributors' Association Ltd (FDA) is the trade association representing theatrical film distributors in the UK. Originally established in 1915 (and formerly named the Society of Film Distributors), the Association promotes a distribution perspective on cinema industry issues and offers a range of support services to distributors and the industry.

The FDA developed and wrote the industry's 'universal access protocol' in 2001, intended as a set of practical guidelines circulated throughout the industry's working group and which companies use for making films available and created a bespoke 'access' section on the FDA website for members' reference, with notes on the legislative background and procedures to follow.

The FDA has raised the awareness of the whole issue among distributors, with the objective of securing a greater, and more regular, supply of subtitled and audio described product in the UK.

HYPERLINK "mailto:Subtitles@yourlocal" Subtitles@yourlocalcinema

www. HYPERLINK "mailto:subtitles@your" subtitles@yourlocalcinema is a website started up by a nine year old boy in response to the demand for information about where subtitled screenings were being held. The website is authored and maintained by Derek Brandon, a professional graphic designer whose son is deaf.

Its subscriber base is growing. The site also contains information about audio-described screenings. It is currently run on an entirely voluntary basis. The site has also become something of a lobbying tool. This latter tendency has meant that the site has alienated some exhibitors who have come in for criticism. Derek Brandon is keen for the site to return to its original purpose which was to provide a comprehensive listings service. At the moment, the future of the site is precarious due to lack of time and resources.

...

Recommendations

The website resource HYPERLINK "mailto:subtitles@yourlocalcinema" subtitles@yourlocalcinema which is currently run on a voluntary basis needs to be put on a firmer financial footing in order that it can cope with increased capacity as well as becoming more accessible to blind and visually impaired people through the use of voiceover. The site could be taken on by an organisation with the resources to keep it regularly updated (bfi, CEA, RNID etc) and could generate revenues through subscription or advertising to cover costs. Alternatively, the organisation could be funded through a grant from the Film Council.

Royal National Institute for Deaf People (RNID)

RNID is a membership organisation with 300,000 members and supporters. The organisation provides services in residential care, promotes employment for the profoundly deaf and is involved with the development of assistive technologies e.g. Speed Text (real time captioning) and speech to sign animation. RNID has 54 branches throughout UK. Their website has full cinema listings of subtitled films. A representative from RNID sits on the CEA disability steering group.

Royal National Institute of the Blind (RNIB)

RNIB has recently become a membership organisation and is the UK’s largest charity for blind and visually impaired people, providing over 60 services throughout the UK. The Broadcasting Team has been involved with audio description (AD) since the 1980s, predominantly in video. RNIB are providing AD services for major film distributors including Buena Vista for mainly video releases and, more recently for theatrical release (Harry Potter). Representatives from RNIB sit on the CEA disability steering group.

British Deaf Association (BDA)

A member-led organisation (circa 5,000 members) which campaigns on issues relating primarily to BSL users. BDA organise the Deaf Film Festival which takes place in Wolverhampton and London. A representative from BDA sits on the CEA disability steering group.

National Deaf Children’s Society (NDCS)

NDCS estimate there are 28,400 children with permanent hearing loss in UK. The organisation describes itself as ‘parent led’ and offers a range of support and services for children and their families. The NDCS has 11,500 members. A representative from NDCS sits on the CEA disability steering group.

1.3 The audience

The audience for audio described and captioned cinema films is an unknown quantity. Although there are data on numbers of people with sensory impairments (around 10 million) it is not known how many of these are/or could become regular cinema patrons. It is known that over 8 million people use the TV subtitles supplied by the broadcasters every day. However, many of these will be elderly people who may not be in the market for regular cinema-going.

The situation is even less clear for blind and visually impaired people, some of whom (especially if blind since birth for example) may never have been to the cinema in their lives. It is clear that in order to build this particular audience for cinema very considerable efforts will have to be made to communicate, not only basic scheduling and access information, but also the whole concept of audio description itself which will be new to many. The continuing difficulties and delay in developing a suitable receiver for television output means that only those lucky enough to be participating in the digital trial (45 UK households) currently being run by the Digital Network have access to the little televisual output that there is.

Many blind and visually impaired people watch television without audio description but soap operas (for example) are relatively easy to follow without the pictures relying as they do on plenty of dialogue, well trodden plot lines and well known characters. Cinematic films tend to rely much more heavily on visual signifiers and special visual effects and may cover themes new to their audiences. For a blind or visually impaired person to fully engage with cinema (without being dependent on a sighted companion whispering in their ear) good audio description is crucial.

The audiences within both groups are far from homogenous. There is a vast difference between people with a hearing impairment and profoundly deaf people. While those with hearing impairments number some 8 million in the UK, the number of deaf people is around 500,000. The majority of those with hearing impairment can be supported (but not always) through different types of hearing aids, whereas deaf people may need another form of communication which in the UK can be British Sign Language (BSL), lip reading and sign supported English. There are some 70,000 deaf BSL users in the UK. Deaf people can use text for communication but this may not be their first or preferred language. There is still a place for signed screenings although clearly the cost of this (several signers may be required to represent different characters) prohibits its use on a widescale.

Similarly, only about 18% of those who have sight impairment have no useful sight at all. The remaining 82% have some sight, the characteristics of which vary widely. This ranges from loss of central vision, tunnel vision or blurredness/patchiness. Whatever the nature of the disability, most visually impaired viewers will be unable to fully appreciate what is on the screen without being able to see the full screen or the subtle gestures and facial expressions which tell so much of the story. The preferred style and content of audio description will vary hugely from individual to individual. People who were once sighted retain visual memory and are more likely to want to know about colours or what characters look like. People who have been blind since birth have less interest in these kinds of details.

There is another less ‘visible’ minority who are also in the market for accessible cinema which are deaf people who also have visual impairments to varying degrees (DVIP). Standards and protocols for captioning need to take account that high level contrast is an important characteristic to make captions useful to this group. Essentially, this means that captions would ideally be presented as they are currently on Teletext i.e. white lettering on a black box. However, for cinema, it is not possible to project a ‘true’ black. It is not known how many people fall into this category due to lack of census data but extrapolating from American statistics it could be estimated at 3-6% of deaf and deafened people, say up to 180,000 in the UK alone.

Apart from people with sensory impairments, there are a number of other groups who would benefit from captions and audio description. Captions would help people for whom English is not their first language and may also help children increase their reading speed. Audio description and captions are helpful for sighted people who may have difficulty following plot e.g. people with learning difficulties, or people who can hear but have communication difficulties such as autism, dyslexia or language processing disorders. There are many potential educational and cultural benefits to access technologies beyond the more obvious ones relating to disability.

1.4 Other artforms

Audio description is used ‘live’ in a number of other arts contexts, principally theatre but also visual arts where describers/interpreters attend galleries with blind or visually impaired people. Audio description for theatre is longer established than it is for film and most of the standards set by the Audio Description Association are based on theatre describing.

Captioning has been available to Deaf and hard of hearing theatre audiences for some time. The system in most common use is the ‘Stage Text’ system. Stage Text is a voluntary organisation dedicated to providing captioning services for theatrical performances. Scripts are stored in a computer and displayed on a screen to the right or left of the stage. An operator is required who ‘hits return’ to display the next caption at the appropriate moment. Non English language opera has been accessible to the hard of hearing and Deaf for some time through the use of ‘surtitles’ to translate the libretto during performance.

1.5 Other media platforms (TV, DVD, Video)

Captioning and subtitles

By law, a significant percentage (currently over 70% for ITV and the BBC ) of UK analogue terrestrial TV output has to be subtitled and is accessible through Teletext (ITV,C4,C5) or Ceefax (BBC). The current percentage for digital terrestrial television is lower than this but the channels must achieve 90% within the next 10 years. Digital terrestrial television is also obliged to provide 5% signing on programmes.

Similarly video cassettes and DVDs are often subtitled (English language subtitles and sometimes captions for hard of hearing viewers) using closed systems which can be accessed via a captioning decoder (which is available as standard on DVD players). The National Subtitling Library for Deaf People (NSLDP) offers Deaf and heard of hearing people a video tape hiring service at nominal cost and stocks over 500 titles including both newly released and classic film titles.

Audio Description

The situation is far less well developed for audio description. Very few distributors supply an audio description track on their DVD releases despite this being a technologically very straightforward thing to accomplish. There have been around 25 titles made available with an audio description track in the UK by Film Four, Pathé, Buena Vista and Fox. The RNIB have released over 120 videos with open audio description.

Between July and November 1994, the ITC’s Audetel Consortium ran a trial on peak-time ITV and BBC television delivering over 6 hours of described programming per week to 140 receivers throughout the UK. On television four per cent of terrestrial output is broadcast with closed audio description. However, in order to receive this service, a decoder has to be installed and there are only 45 such sets in the UK. Cable and satellite broadcasting companies may also be required by law to distribute a certain percentage of audio described output and this is due to increase to 10% by 2010.

1.6 The advent of digital

Digital film production is now a well-established feature of the film landscape although the ‘film’ almost always has to be transferred onto 35mm celluloid for theatrical release because so few cinemas have digital projection facilities (5 UK sites currently have dark chip projectors, more than anywhere else in Europe). However, although the demise of celluloid is not imminent, it is likely that in the longer term mainstream film will be both distributed and exhibited digitally, obviating the need for striking prints and for physical transportation.

The implications of this for the whole industry are enormous and likely to engender significant structural changes. There are also implications for the current project. In theory at least, it will be possible to produce captions and audio description for every release and to distribute these via digital projection systems at the flick of a switch. The only additional hardware on site which will be required will be that needed for the closed display of captions or playback of audio description. How soon any of this is likely to happen and who will pay are the main points at issue. More optimistic projections put the timescale at 5 years, whereas others predict 10,15 or even 20 years.

The existing digital systems for captioning and audio description being developed by DTS and Dolby are fully compatible with current digital distribution and exhibition systems, as is the Mopix system.

1.7 Other relevant technologies

Voice-recognition software

It is possible that one day, computers will be able to translate dialogue into text instantaneously, which will cut subtitling costs considerably as the whole process could be automated. However, the current software has to ‘learn’ to recognise the speech patterns of individuals before it can accurately convert speech to text and at the moment this can take many thousands of words. Software which will be able to recognise speech without this interim learning phase is a very long way from being developed. Even if the software can ‘learn’ to cope with myriad speech patterns, if it is to be truly accessible it also has to factor in sounds. There is also the issue of editing, since it is not possible for most people to read as fast as the spoken word.

Automated deaf signing

The ITC leads a three-year European project ViSiCAST (Virtual Animation, Storage & Transmission) which is developing 3D human virtual signing to provide sign interpretation for profoundly deaf sign language users in Europe in a number of different contexts including access to public services and entertainment. A successful trial was held at the Post Office in 2001 which apparently met with favourable response from the Deaf community. This technology offers the prospect of being able to offer signed screenings, possibly within some kind of closed system at some future date and will also have applications for DVD.

DVD

DVD (Digital Versatile Disks) offer the best competing alternative to the cinema for people with sensory impairments. Subtitles or captions are provided pretty much as standard and it is very easy to add another track of audio to provide audio description, even if, as at present, few distributors are doing this. Having said this, it should be noted that as DVDs and access to some of their special features (such as audio description) are driven by on screen menus, they are not accessible to many visually impaired people. On screen menus are also often over-designed at the expense of clarity. Some partially sighted people could use on screen menus if they were presented in black and white with no extraneous information or graphics. DVDs really need to be able to talk through the steps required to activate audio description. WGBH has developed audio navigation or talking menus, available on several commercial DVD releases, and are now developing guidelines for creating this feature for the DVD authoring community.

While some people have said during the course of this research that they just don’t bother to go to the cinema now and wait for films to be released on DVD, there are substantial numbers for whom the cinema experience (getting out of the house, watching a film with others, socialising afterwards) cannot be substituted for with home entertainment systems. No matter how good these systems get, there will still be a desire to go out to the cinema.

1.8 ‘Burnt in’ titles

Most of the Hollywood studios produce one or more prints of all major releases with ‘burnt in’ subtitles. High powered precision lasers are used to etch subtitles into the layer of emulsion on the film print leaving only the clear base of the film. This is a relatively costly process (around £3-4,000 per print plus the cost of the print at £500) and as it is permanent, makes the print unusable for general purposes. Another process uses overlay optical printing which again is expensive. The main disadvantage of this system is that because so few prints are produced it takes time for them to ‘do the rounds’ and so most Deaf and hard of hearing audiences will not see it until many weeks or months after release. The UK industry has conducted successful trials of hard captioned release day and date at key sites.

In association with 10 studios and 35 multiplex chains, a California-based not for profit organisation called InSight Cinema (formerly Tripod) distributes laser-etched versions of new releases to deaf and hard of hearing audiences in the U.S, Canada and Australia. The studios provide the captioned prints, the results of an estimated two week $7,000 per print process and ship them.

Projected captions are becoming the preferred technology as a result of which the studios appear to be producing less prints with burnt in captions. However, these still make up a significant proportion of subtitled screenings in the UK and are clearly crucial for those cinemas which are not equipped with DTS equipment.

Recommendation

1.9 The global picture

Outside the UK the provision of accessible cinema screenings for people with sensory impairments is patchy. The U.S.A, Canada and Australia have made most progress, largely as a result of legislation (which has served to raise expectations and generate demand), personal lobbying and the efforts of Hollywood studios to caption and describe some of their product as well as exhibitors who have purchased systems . In the States there are about 83 installations in 20 States of the Mopix Rear Windows System including a number of installations in IMAX theatres and museums. AMC appear to have taken a lead in installing these closed captioning and audio description facilities. However, not all films are available and some of these screens do not show captioned and described movies all the time. Mopix also have around 31 installations in Canada at Famous Players (Canada’s largest theatre chain) and another 20 are planned for next year. The Australian Screens are few in number (there is one in most State capitals) and show ‘special screenings’ of InSight Cinema (formerly Tripod) open-captioned films, often prints left over from their limited US distribution runs.

However, there does not appear to be any concerted strategic approach anywhere with individual disabled people having to lobby individual companies to press for change.

In mainland Europe, there has been less reliance on US originated technology and development has been piecemeal and is still patchy. Most systems seem to have been developed by software companies and are aimed at providing foreign language subtitling. At least two portable systems have been developed – Beam Titling and Sublime, which are in limited use in Germany and Finland respectively. Beam Titling has recently extended its capability to include audio description as part of the package.

2. Key issues and themes

2.1 The potential impact of the DDA

The Disability Discrimination Act was introduced to the UK in 1996 and many of its provisions are already in force including all those relating to employment and some relating to provision of goods, facilities and services. October 2004 is being seen as a milestone date by which service providers will have to have made ‘reasonable adjustment’ to their premises to improve access for disabled patrons (Part III of the Act). However, this concerns mainly physical adaptations to premises. Cinemas are more likely to be affected by the existing policies, practices and procedures Section and the provision of auxiliary aids and devices. It is not really known at this stage what the legislation means in practice as it will all have to be tested by case law. Some complaints have already been brought to the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) against cinemas in the UK including issues such as ‘no guidedogs’ rules, lack of provision of subtitles/interpretation and a faulty lift. The problem is the absence of a compliance model as each establishment faces its own particular set of financial and physical constraints. The Disability Rights Commission aims therefore to encourage best and exceptional practice and works to secure the best possible outcome for both the client and the service provider.

In the U.S.A under the Americans with Disabilities Act, a case has recently been brought against AMC and Loews arguing for universal provision of closed captioning. The outcome of this case has yet to be decided. However, in Oregon, a similar case was lost on the basis that (a) the costs of installing the Rear Windows system in every screen of every theatre would be prohibitive and (b) the cinemas were already providing a reasonable selection of open captioned screenings.

It seems unlikely then, that in the UK all cinemas will be required to provide all shows with captions and audio description but that some kind of compromise whereby most titles should be available on a range of dates and at times including peak times would be acceptable. Given the issues and conflicts around existing closed captioning systems (see part IV) the goal of universal access is still some way off.

There may also be implications under the Act for distributors as films are manufactured items and so they may be under pressure to provide subtitles and audio description.

2.2 Universal access vs selective (restricted/segregated) access (the open/closed debate)

Although the goal of equal access is obvious, there is a tension between aiming for full or universal access (any film, any time, any place) and partial access (some films, some of the time). This tension is driven by the very real practical and resource constraints of providing universal access.

The argument against making all screenings accessible to Deaf people through open captions is that general audiences would not accept the presence of permanent on screen captions. There is anecdotal evidence (from research by Odeon cinemas and in the States) to support this contention and many people, if asked, would say they prefer films without the distraction of subtitles whether they need them or not.

On the other hand, as far as we can ascertain, no-one has actually conducted any formal and statistically validated research to test this hypothesis. Theatre audiences seem to accept Stage Text and there is no reason to suppose that cinema audiences are any less sophisticated. Where screenings have been advertised as captioned, for example at the DTS test sites, but hearing patrons have inadvertently attended there have been complaints, but few people have asked for their money back (the litmus test of true dissatisfaction perhaps). Indeed, some people have commented favourably on the unexpected availability of open captions, saying it enhanced their understanding of the film.

The same issue does not apply to audio description however. Provided there is technology (such as the DTS and Dolby systems) to sync the AD track with the film’s sound track and there are infrared transmitters installed in the auditorium (as there already are in many auditoria across the UK for the purpose of amplifying the film’s sound track for hard of hearing patrons) it would be perfectly possible to make all films (for which AD has been produced) accessible to blind and visually impaired people. Provided there is no sound leakage from the headsets this will not impact on general audiences in any way. Therefore the goal of (near) universal access for blind and visually impaired cinema-goers is a realistic proposition whereas for captioning the situation is more complex because there simply is not a universally accepted closed system on the market.

Open captions, particularly if placed on a black box as is often the practice for TV and recorded formats, can be very distracting for visually impaired audiences.

Several systems for closed captioning have been developed (see section IV). WGBH’s Rear Window Captioning is the most widely used of these. The others include a unit which uses wireless radio transmission to deliver captions to a display unit attached to the armrest or seatback of the seat in front or to a pair of spectacles. Another system being developed in the UK by Cambridge-based Scientific Generics is the Intrasonic Moviemate which delivers captions and audio description to a mobile phone.

Recommendations:

As part of the trial project proposed on p.28 the reaction of hearing audiences to open subtitles should be formally tested with a view to determining an ‘acceptable level’ of open screenings.

A small sum of R&D funding (say £40K) is raised to help develop an alternative personal captioning device which can work alongside existing digital open systems.

2.3 The role of the exhibitor

The Cinema Exhibitors Association (CEA), the trade body representing the interests of the cinema industry in the UK has taken a leading role in setting up DTS test sites and promoting the use of captioning and audio description at cinemas through its Joint Industry Disability Working Group (JIDWG). It has also promoted the exhibition of hard captioned prints released at the same time as a film’s general release. Odeon, Cine-UK, National Amusements, UCI, UGC, and Warners have actively collaborated in the trials. The Glasgow Film Theatre and Moviehouse in Belfast are the two independent sites which are participating. On average, GFT seem to be offering one screening per week although participants with more screens are able to offer much more than this – for example Odeon in Uxbridge has shown 240 described screenings and 38 captioned screenings since starting the trials.

Stakeholder consultation interviews with the exhibition sector have revealed a high level of knowledge about and commitment to the provision of accessible screenings among the chains but much lower levels of awareness among the independent sector, apart from a handful of Regional Film Theatres, funded by the Film Council via their Regional Screen Agencies, and independents who have made some provision. Derby’s Metro Cinema offers monthly signed and described screenings for example.

Some (but by no means all) cited cost of equipment as one of the main barriers to progress. A recurring theme is the availability of captioned and audio described prints early in a film’s release schedule. In order to attract peak audiences the data must be available as close as possible to the release date. Similarly, most felt that there was a significant audience there to be tapped but that there needs to be critical mass i.e. more sites showing more films, in order to fully develop audience potential. As it currently stands, coverage is not wide enough and the gaps between releases which are captioned or audio described are too long.

Almost all operators reported very favourable feedback from hard of hearing customers on the sub-titled screenings with either no or very few complaints from hearing customers. Take-up by blind and visually impaired customers has been poor in most places, mainly because operators feel they are unable to reach this audience to communicate screening dates and times through conventional means.

2.4 Cinema staff training/on-site management

All the major cinema chains offer some kind of training for operational staff on disability and some include customer care for those with sensory impairments but almost everyone we talked to admitted they would like to do better in this area.

The experience from the DTS trial sites demonstrates that the commitment of local management and training of front of house people is crucial if accessible screenings are to be successful. Installing the equipment on its own is not enough. There has to be commitment to a certain level of provision and new procedures and practices integrated into the venue’s operations.

So far, the equipment has proven reliable and there are no significant additional training requirements for projectionists since the player is fully automated and selects the right data file for the film being shown. There may be additional technician time required to check headsets are working properly prior to each performance as well as routine maintenance and cleaning. While the experience has been largely positive, there have been reports from at least one test site that customers have been erroneously informed that the service was not available. As a bare minimum ushers and box office staff will need the following;-

System overview

Customer care for Deaf and hard of hearing customers

Customer care for blind and visually impaired customers

How the ancillary devices (if applicable) work

Cinemas may also need to change customer communications and promotion methods in order to ensure that they reach target audiences with the relevant information and things like emergency evacuation procedures will need to take account of these new audiences. It may also prove necessary to install an induction loop at the box office if staff are behind glass.

Recommendations:

A centralised training and information resource is made available, possibly in electronic format in order that cinemas have access to the latest advice, models of best practice and staff training guidelines. This should also be incorporated into the CEA’s guidelines on disability access.

The voluntary sector (RNIB, RNID) continues to monitor customer feedback from sites where equipment is installed both now and in the future and that this is fed back formally to operators.

2.5 The role of the distributor

UK Distributors fall mainly into two main categories namely the UK subsidiaries of US companies and the independents. Currently Warner Bros and Columbia (subsidiary of Sony) have taken the lead in making their most popular titles available with captions and audio description and have done so at their own cost (the exhibitors had trial equipment installed by DTS free of charge at the beginning of the trials although new sites are now paying a proportion of the cost). Sony have recently announced that they plan to make captioning available on all of its ‘wide’ releases and have committed to describing many of these on a regular basis. Other companies have made a start with one or two releases.

Both Warners and Columbia are very committed to making it happen but believe cost could become an issue if they were required to make every title available with captions and AD. Even for the majors, it is the case that many films lose money and they rely on the blockbusters to cover losses on less successful films.

The independents are in a much riskier and precarious situation thus the costs (currently around at least £4,500 for both captions and description) are potentially prohibitive. This effectively means that people with sensory impairments will have access to mainly U.S Blockbusters without the wider range of choices open to general audiences. While it is true that most people with sensory impairments (like general audiences) will want to see the most talked about and heavily promoted films, there is still a strong case for making a wider choice available.

Recommendation:

2.6 British Board of Film Classification

Caption film scripts and audio description scripts are dealt with in the same manner.

The distributor submits the script with an affidavit (on company headed paper) stating the script is a true reflection of the soundtrack. The BBFC check the script and issues a letter back to the distributor confirming that the script for the relevant work has been approved and that "it may be shown under the (whatever) certificate which was awarded to the feature on (whenever) date".

The only issue that may crop up would involve bad language at the junior (U/PG) categories. In the unlikely event that the subtitles or audio description contained a word that was beyond the film category the BBFC may ask for a script alteration before it approves.

Following negotiations by the industry there is currently no charge for this service.

2.7 Chicken and Egg

There is an element of ‘waiting to see who jumps first’ with widespread adoption of access technologies in UK cinemas. Distributors want to make sure there are adequate numbers of accessible cinemas and that adequate numbers of sensory impaired customers have access to their prints before investing in captions and description. Exhibitors on the other hand, complain of a shortage of product and certainly, from the customers’ point of view, anecdotal evidence suggests that there are simply not enough films out there to give a satisfactory range of films to see and certainly not enough places to go and see them (the north of England is particularly badly catered for at the moment as the DTS trial sites are mainly in the South).

What is required therefore, is ‘critical mass’ in order to develop a real interest in accessible cinema-going for these audiences. The availability in the US (estimated at around a quarter of one per cent of all screens) has so far failed to really capture enough interest to build a significant audience and the market is still small although in cities where Mopix exists it serves the population well. The U.S studios are now providing a steady stream of accessible films (100 titles to date) to show their willingness to work through the scarcity of product issue.

The UK has around 700 cinema sites. If systems were installed at a selected number of sites in major UK cities, towns or areas in the UK (initially perhaps on a pilot project basis – to test the market, the equipment in situ, audience response and management process) it would be possible to generate sufficient national publicity and press coverage to build an audience because most people would at least have some prospect of being able to get to a cinema within a reasonable distance. This would provide sufficient incentive for the larger distributors to supply a greater range of product.

Recommendation:

2.8 The service providers

The general consensus seems to be that for technical and logistical reasons, distributors will require a ‘one stop shop’ i.e. an organisation that can provide both captioning and audio description services. Security is a very big issue for the distributors and the fewer potential opportunities for ‘leakage’ the better.

We have only been able to identify two UK organisations capable of providing both – itfc and IMS. These companies offer very similar services at similar prices although itfc has a longer track record in providing audio description for cinema films. Both these Companies work in similar ways and have a dedicated staff team and studio facilities in house.

Currently it can take one person working full time anything between one and three weeks to audio-describe a film depending on its complexity. Both IMS and itfc use AD scriptwriters who also perform the final script (in much the same way that newsreaders prepare their own material). Several hours are then required in a sound studio. Captioning is much more straightforward and, with a producer’s script, will take a matter of two days, so the total turnaround time to produce a CD with both is an absolute minimum of a week or a preferred two to three weeks. The costs to the distributor are currently in the region of £3,000 for audio-describing and £1,500 for captioning a standard length feature film. However, this price is based on a market penetration strategy (i.e. pitched low to encourage take-up) and may not reflect the true costs of production or required returns.

In addition to these two, there is one other company providing audio description – IADA. This organisation has delivered audio description for around 20 feature films, mainly for DVD releases. As it works with professional actors and scriptwriters on a freelance basis it charges slightly more for its services. There are a number of companies providing subtitling only services, most of these for the purposes of subtitling foreign language films i.e. there is a translation element. These include the European Captioning Institute and Subtitling and Dubbing International. IADA is currently in negotiation with the former in order that it too can offer a ‘one stop shop’ to distributors.

If captioning and audio description become more in demand, there is the issue of capacity of existing providers. Because everything is done in house, IMS and itfc are able to offer their services at relatively low cost but the barriers to entry would be high for newcomers wanting to compete on price due to the capital investment required. Apart from this, the only constraint on capacity of existing providers is the time taken to train someone on the very labour-intensive and creative skill of audio describing – estimated to be around 6 months on the job full time.

It may also be the case that in the longer term, as AD becomes standard on DVD, studios will want to take control of its production for global distribution across all formats. At the moment, UK distributors are producing UK English and UK caption format titles and AD at additional cost for films where an American version may already exist. Directors of independent films may also wish to have an input in order that their vision is correctly interpreted.

The integrated model in the U.S whereby WGBH as well as licensing the technology also provide captions and audio description could probably not be extended to the UK due to linguistic differences. The current hardware suppliers to the UK market prefer to leave this part of the production process to independent expert providers who work directly with distributors.

In Europe and the US, some of the systems supply captioning software for ‘home-made’ captioning, on the assumption that the exhibitor will create his or her own for subtitles in a variety of situations. There will be copyright issues here.

2.9 Standards, protocols and quality control for end product

A great deal of work has already been undertaken in standards setting and protocols for UK televisual output with both captions and description. Whether or not these can be transposed directly onto the cinematic experience remains to be established but they are certainly a good starting point. On the whole, there seems to be general agreement that audiences should get ‘what they’re used to’ so that the rules for cinema should try and adopt the same or similar protocols and standards as for television. The Audio Description Association (UK) and Audio Description International have done work in this area although mostly in relation to AD for theatre.

With regard to audio description, the ITC has issued comprehensive guidance on standards including how to prepare scripts, groundrules and guidance regarding different programme categories including feature films.

ITC also publish detailed standards for subtitling. Captioning for cinema may be more problematic. Our focus group research threw up a number of issues relating to the captions they saw on Men in Black II. Of primary importance is being able to identify who is speaking during dialogue. On TV, colours are used to identify speakers. It is possible to use colour for video projection but the intensity of light reflected from the screen is much less for colours making them more difficult to read. Only blue, cyan and green really work effectively and colour is more expensive. Positioning captions under the person speaking can be used on occasion, but frame composition will not always allow for this.

Scripts for both AD and captioning may need to be different for DVD or other recorded media to those for cinema, which may need to be shorter and tighter, because without a playback facility, in cinema you get only one chance to see or hear. It is therefore not entirely straightforward to produce a set of captions and an AD script which can be used across every release format of the distribution companies although in the US it is customary to do this. However there is a case for greater cross departmental collaboration/communication within the distribution companies to better co-ordinate the production of AD and captioning scripts for international theatrical release and for recorded formats such as DVD and video. But for English language titles there will always be the issue of linguistic differences across the Atlantic and Pacific.

A perennial observation for AD, both in our trials and those conducted elsewhere, relates to sound levels. Very often, the soundtrack of the film becomes so loud that it obliterates the sound of the narrator’s voice. There does not really seem to be a viable solution to this problem. It has been suggested that the AD track should in fact be mixed in a studio with the film’s soundtrack so the levels can be balanced against each other. Closer investigation has ruled this out on financial and logistical grounds. Describers tend to put more energy (and volume) into their voices during louder parts of the soundtrack and cinema goers also have the option to increase the volume on their headsets. However, this needs to be easy to do and some headsets are more difficult to adjust than others.

Recommendations:

Cinema standards and protocols for captioning and audio description are formally established, based on those for TV, with input from sensory impaired cinema audiences and the FDA. The Film Council and/or the CEA, the FDA and the BVA might be appropriate bodies to convene and co-ordinate such a standards group. These standards might also be extended to DVDs. Although such standards would be voluntary the standards body should also monitor to ensure that the best quality possible is generally in use. Ideally this should involve the US studios in order to obtain consistency.

There needs to be research into further development of headsets for AD which takes into account the sound levels issue.

2.10 Foreign language and archive titles

At present, most (though not all) of what is being captioned and described for cinema has originated in the U.S.A and comprises Hollywood blockbusters. Clearly, most people will want to see these more popular films and these should be the priority, however, this means limited choice (from an already fairly limited palate) for people with sensory impairments. Apart from smaller English language releases, a broader range of films would also ideally include foreign language, archive and repertory titles.

Foreign language films which have been subtitled are already at least partially accessible to Deaf and hard of hearing audiences. For blind and visually impaired audiences, unless they are fluent in the relevant language, the only solution would be simultaneous English dubbing and describing. This is unlikely to prove a viable proposition for any distributor, particularly distributors of foreign language titles in the UK especially since dubbing has largely been discontinued in the UK. Dubbing with AD has been tried with limited success in Germany.

With regard to archive and repertory screenings it is technically possible to encode any print with DTS timecode in order that the system can work for these. While the equipment is now available, there is no supplier in the market as yet so it is difficult to provide an estimate of cost. The equipment costs $80,000 and so large volumes will be required to make a financial model work. However, Dolby Digital timecode which has been around since Batman Returns in 1992, will be available on many older prints making this system more flexible in this regard. The two European technologies which are available (Beamtitling and Sublime Screen) can work from any output signal and would therefore be more appropriate in some scenarios.

The difficulty is that such films are generally not widely available throughout the UK and would have to be toured extensively to justify the expense of providing audio description and captions. However, there are archive films which are particularly important, popular or commercial which should be accessible to everyone. All bfi Classic Rereleases for example could be captioned and described and other films of historical significance which still make regular outings (Battleship Potemkin, Man with a Movie Camera, classic animation, documentaries etc.) The Sight and Sound Top 10, Top 100 or any other ‘canon’ of classic films could also be considered.

Recommendations:

Further investigation is made into how a number of classic movies can be captioned and audio described including potential franchise of the technology by the bfi or other supplier and distribution rights.

The bfi should source funding to audio describe bfi DVD releases (captioning is already available) and for captioning and audio describing bfi Classic Re-releases

The feasibility of making available described and captioned prints not currently in distribution (including old InSight Cinema (formerly Tripod) prints) as well as data on distributors of newer titles should be explored. The availability of captioned and audio described titles in the TCM catalogue should be investigated.

2.11 Multiple disabilities

A great many visually impaired people also have other disabilities, sometimes relating to mobility or they may also have hearing impairments to varying degrees. Similarly, many hard of hearing people are elderly and may be experiencing loss of vision, failing cognitive functions or medical conditions affecting their physical mobility. It therefore needs to be borne in mind that any system for either captioning or describing must be ‘user friendly’ and not rely heavily on having full use of other faculties. It was noticeable for example that the deaf young people in our trials liked the closed captioning system immensely and experienced no difficulty in using it whereas the older members of the focus groups found it difficult to use (typeface too small, hard to adjust etc). This could be attributed to general resistance to using new technologies but is equally likely to be due to the failing eyesight associated with the onset of middle age. Because it requires intricate adjustment, it would also be more difficult to use with, for example, the use of only one arm.

Recommendation

Standards and protocols should take into account those with multiple disabilities, especially DVIP.

2.12 Material ancillary to main feature (advertising, trailers, shorts)

Cinema advertising relies heavily on visually enigmatic commercials which often omit verbal identification of the product. In front of most main features these days there is often at least 20 minutes of advertising and trailers, much of which is lost to visually impaired and blind cinema patrons. In the independent sector playing shorts in front of the feature seems to be coming back into fashion and there have been concerted efforts by many public sector film development agencies to get short films seen theatrically. Advertisers may wish to consider whether they should describe and caption their commercials. It is unlikely that distributors will have produced captions and audio description for trailed films due to the time lag. Short film producers may wish to make those which do achieve a theatrical life accessible to people with sensory impairments although the costs of doing this relative to the overall production budget (which may be as low as a few thousand pounds) may well preclude this.

2.13 A role for the public and voluntary sectors

Thus far, the industry and private sector have taken the lead in developing the technologies and trialing them at a number of cinema sites across the UK. There is a general view among distributors and exhibitors alike that the industry should be able to ‘sort this one out’ without too much intervention from the public sector. However, during stakeholder interviews cost was cited as a potential barrier for both exhibition and distribution, in particular in the context of having to make film universally accessible i.e. mainstream distributors are happy to caption and describe blockbusters (but not necessarily their less successful films) whereas smaller independent distributors simply could not afford it for any of their releases; multiplex operators seem happy to install equipment in one or two screens but independents with only one or two screens have much less capacity for open screenings and less capital available to invest in closed systems.

In the US, most progress on accessible media has been made by WGBH, a pubic service broadcaster WGBH is a nonprofit organisation. WGBH’s Media Access Group/Services division provides captioning, subtitling and description services to the entertainment and educational media industries It is funded 75% percent by the private sector (program producers, television networks, film distributors, corporations, etc.) and 25% by the public sector (mostly in the form of grants from the U.S. Department of Education for partial funding of television captioning and description). The Media Access Group’s Descriptive Video Service produces around 15 hours of described TV programming per week and makes it available to 90% of US homes through the Public Broadcast Service Network, major commercial and cable networks. As of December 2002, roughly 1,300 hours pa of described programming on commercial networks in the U.S will be available. WGBH has also developed and patented the only commercially available closed systems for cinemas which are currently available in about 100 venues in North America.

Also based in the U.S, Insight Cinema (formerly Tripod) open captioned prints are distributed by a not for profit organisation. Insight Cinema is an offshoot of the Tripod School (although they are now an independent organisation), which provides communication programmes for deaf children. Insight Cinema does much more than a simple distribution job, they market the films by identifying audiences, arranging special screenings in some cases and training studios and exhibitors in how to advertise to ensure seats are filled.

Stage Text for theatre has become more widespread in the UK due to the efforts of a group of volunteers who provide advice to theatres and produce scripts. The organisation has only recently employed a paid member of staff. The UK leads Europe in the number of venues (about 50) which regularly offer audio described performances, again through the initial endeavours of private individuals.

There is no doubt that people with sensory impairments represent a market and that some operators regard this as a potentially major incentive to make provision but on the whole, particularly during the early years of development, it seems unlikely that anyone is going to make much money and most are taking the more enlightened view that this is something they want to do anyway. Take-up amongst both cinemas and audiences may be unacceptably slow without some additional investment from the public sector. However, with the existing private, public and voluntary sector infrastructure it should not be necessary to form separate dedicated public or voluntary sector organisations to carry out these ancillary functions.

Aside from investment, there are other areas where the public or voluntary sector could make a useful contribution in terms of making it work. These have been suggested by audiences, cinema operators and distributors:-

Advice and research (on equipment, audience development, communications training, suppliers etc)

Training or training resources for management and operational staff

Awareness raising among general audiences and audiences with sensory impairments which might include a major ‘launch’.

Centralised information (possibly through a website and telephone service)

Investment in captioning description for smaller films or a ‘canon’ of classic films

Recommendations

Following the commissioning of this report, that Film Council continues to ensure that adequate research and information about AD and captioning is widely available.

That all public sector investment in film exhibition facilities be conditional upon reasonable installation of AD and captioning equipment.

2.14 Customer communications

A particular issue for people with sensory impairments is finding out when accessible films are screening. At present, most communication seems to be happening on the Internet with the excellent HYPERLINK "mailto:Subtitles@yourlocalcinema" Subtitles@yourlocalcinema (which also lists audio-described screenings) and sites run by the RNIB and RNID. This seems to work satisfactorily for Deaf and hard of hearing people but is not an acceptable communication medium for many blind and visually impaired people, a large number of whom do not own PCs. Some cinemas have taken the initiative and contacted local organisations working with people with sensory impairments in order to try and access their membership or client groups.

The difficulty is particularly acute for blind and visually impaired people as there is no established tradition of going to the cinema and therefore no expectation (as yet) that this activity i