The Current State of Technology’s Answer Toward the Inclusion of Audience Members with Sensory Impairments in the Cinema Auditorium The role of cinema exhibition is complex. It is complex not only because of the technology involved, though the new digital technology is indeed complex. It is complex not only because of the security involved to keep very sophisticated copyrights protected, though cinema exhibition security is fundamental and an extremely complex part of the technology. Cinema exhibition is also complex because it takes place in notable physical spaces and holds a notable mystical place in cultures worldwide. It brings people together to share well-crafted experiences, imaginative pieces that provoke and keep conversations flourishing, conversations that often integrate into the world’s narrative for decades. There is a presumption that these experiences are available for everyone; that the viewing and the discussions — some of the foundations of our cultural intelligence and growth — are accessible for all who want them. In reality, large segments of society find the explosions too loud for the dialog, and in varying degrees cannot discern the audio or visual presentations. They therefore cannot take advantage of much of society’s available art and entertainment. There have long been methods to mitigate these problems, and though many societies have laws that encourage or compel commercial and non-commercial facilities to offer mitigation, there have been more obstacles – technical, fiscal and normative – than swift and easy Accessibility compliance. In the conventional wisdom of the time – pre-2000 through 2009 – the transition to digital cinema should have given options that would make acceptance and compliance far easier than analog choices. In reality, everything in digital cinema’s transition has taken longer than expected, including accessibility equipment for the deaf, hard of hearing and the blind and partially sighted communities. Just as the needs of the blind community are different than those of the deaf community – what good do written captions on the screen do for a blind person? – each part of the movie exhibition chain had separate needs and considerations toward finding and creating solutions to handle the problems of access. This white paper will discuss the current state of that workflow and equipment as well as some of the history and politics of this issue, an issue that is critical for a growing number of people.

Accessibility To Inclusion in Cinema Early 2013 1 of 20 Table of Contents

Accessibility to Inclusion in Cinema

The Current State of Technology’s Answer Toward the Inclusion of Audience Members with Sensory Impairments in the Cinema Auditorium

Promise, Promises and Great Expectations 3

The Access Community 4

Accommodation, In General 5

Accommodation, Open Captions 6

Accommodation, Closed Captions 7

No Technology Before Its Time 8

Industry Coordination 9

Different Paths; ...and Finally, Results 10

DCP Production – Narration and Closed Caption Creation 11

Currently Available – “Personal” Closed Caption Solutions 13

Specialized Audio Systems for the Blind and Partially Sighted 16

In Summary 17

Table of Comparative Equipment Information 18

Links 19

Footnotes 20

Accessibility To Inclusion in Cinema Early 2013 2 of 20 “No theater should be exempted from providing captioning and description by saying it can't afford them unless that theater also is exempted, on economic grounds, from providing fire exits.” 1

Promise, Promises and Great Expectations Years 2000 – 2012: Cinema exhibition technology has gone through a transition from its film-based roots to magnetic-based files, the last of several entertainment technologies to do so. As a late-stage disruptive technology, the potential consequences should perhaps have been more predictable. But like most transitions from analog to digital before cinema – in the music, video and broadcast fields – complications that look obvious in hindsight seemed minor or perhaps, manageable beforehand. There is another phenomena that often appears with a technology’s incessant march forward: Some of the clever solutions come at the end of the curve, provocative but too late to be viable in the long-term. In the case of cinema, working – but expensive – audio description and captioning systems for film- based movies reached a zenith just as film was approaching its nadir. DTS and Dolby both released cinema subtitling equipment, DTS with its CSS – Cinema Subtitling System (introduced in 2001) and Dolby with the ScreenTalk System (introduced in 2003). Each created a device and workflow that worked with film projection systems, using a file delivered separately from the film. They delivered audio description for blind and partially sighted people, and subtitles as open captions (using an added video projector), or closed captions (with an associated ‘light reflection system’, for example the Rear Window System), allowing deaf and hard of hearing people to read transcriptions of the words and sounds. They could also be used to provide translations for foreign language audiences. For a few reasons, neither of these systems were going to be easily deployable in the concurrently developing digital cinema market: • Technically, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to make these systems work with digital cinema systems in the long term. • Politically, the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers (SMPTE) and the studios were working toward, 1) a system that utilized a single master, 2) an open standards-based system and, 3) a system that didn’t welcome proprietary implementations that created licensing costs or stifled innovation. • Practically, exhibitors delayed or suspended purchasing these film-centric systems which wouldn’t work with digital cinema equipment, even while d-cinema access equipment standards and data exchange protocols weren’t yet developed, and even as many were barraged by requests and lawsuits. The background story was the seemingly logical argument that said: Digital Cinema! – Computer-based, File-based Cinema! – File-based Captions! – Multiple Languages! – Simple! This logic was obvious, understood and repeated by all parties and their advocacy groups without question or malice, even as the standards, protocols and equipment for the cinema were always over another horizon.2 In fact, the standards development process for d-cinema that began in the year 2000 has surprisingly taken until 2011 to get through the complete process, which ended with their final submissions to the ISO – the International Organization for Standardization. Two of the last SMPTE submissions were the documents that would allow manufacturers to use a common, agreed upon format for the “Simple” interface that allowed closed caption systems and the d-cinema servers to work together.3

Accessibility To Inclusion in Cinema Early 2013 3 of 20 “My profoundly deaf mother had given up trying to lip-read movie stars years ago. At a subtitled show her eyes flickered into life. “Finally, my mother and I have rekindled our cinema habit. She is now in her seventies, I'm approaching my forties. It may have been some time coming, but damn, was it worth it!” 4

The Access Community The definitions for the labels “deaf” or “hard of hearing”, and “blind” or “visually impaired”, can be decided with scientific precision based upon various frequencies and levels of sound and light. They can be categorized by specialists and according to need or government requirement – driving restrictions, for example, though even there arguments can ensue. Evidence presented at an administrative hearing stated that deaf professional truck drivers have fewer accidents (in localities where they are allowed professional licenses) because their attention isn’t constantly taken by radio, phones and other audio distractions. Cinema technology equipment labels the equipment that provides audio and video assistance as “HI” for “Hearing Impaired”, “VI-N” for “Visually Impaired-Narrative” and “CC” for “closed captions”. While it is preferable to label equipment to define what it is or does, it is imprecise to label a person because of what they can or can’t do since doing so often tends to “say too much” or “define towards ‘only’”. The FAQ on the National Association of the Deaf (NAD) website5 has this explanation: For many people, the words “deaf” and “hard of hearing” are not negative. Instead, the term “hearing-impaired” is viewed as negative. The term focuses on what people can’t do. It establishes the standard as “hearing” and anything different as “impaired,” or substandard, hindered, or damaged. It implies that something is not as it should be and ought to be fixed if possible. To be fair, this is probably not what people intended to convey by the term “hearing impaired.” Deaf and hard of hearing people have the right to choose what they wish to be called, either as a group or on an individual basis. Overwhelmingly, deaf and hard of hearing people prefer to be called “deaf” or “hard of hearing.” Nearly all organizations of the deaf use the term “deaf and hard of hearing,” and the NAD is no exception. The World Federation of the Deaf (WFD) also voted in 1991 to use “deaf and hard of hearing” as an official designation 6 It is similar for blind and partially sighted people. Both hearing and sight loss can occur at any time in life. Some are born with the condition and there is an increasing population of “late in life” onset worldwide. Absolute numbers vary by society, age group and breadth of definition. One estimate of “those who have some difficulty hearing even with a device” is “up to 14%”. The majority are 65+ years of age. The aging of the population is not lost on major studios, with anecdotal evidence that more movies are being created that cater to this crowd of movie-goers.7 Yearly statistics indicate that the 65+ per capita audience is growing, while the audience 20 and 10 years younger is not.8 This generation is also a group who have grown up with technology to address their needs, just in time for digital cinema solutions to assist them with diminished sight or hearing tools. In a recent US case mandating captioned shows, the judge ruled that: "The issue is not how many patrons have used the technology provided, but rather, whether an individual with a sensory disability has the legal right to have access to the movies when technology is now present to allow that access without impeding on other patron's experience and it is feasible for the defendant to provide it."9

Accessibility To Inclusion in Cinema Early 2013 4 of 20 “It is not right that individuals with hearing loss are systematically relegated to second class citizenship (or worse) when it comes to opportunity for participating fully in community and cultural conversations. The capacity for inclusive communication exists: it should be required.” 10

Accommodation, In General Different societies have approached inclusiveness at different times and in different ways. Balancing the rights of property owners with the rights, needs and expectations of the users of facilities on their property has evolved through cases of class, gender and race, and recently through the rights of the communities with various physical disabilities. There are national laws in the United States, England and Australia which, except for slight differences in names, are generally similar. They attempt to require that publicly used facilities – business and non- business – ensure that disabled individuals are not excluded from or denied services because of “the absence of auxiliary aids.” Mitigating the requirements for auxiliary aids, there typically is a clause that restricts potential legal mandates to “Reasonable Accommodation”, which cannot cause “undue hardship” or “change the nature of the business”. Because none of the terms are fully defined and evolve with the society and technology, it has been up to the courts or Agencies to interpret and then help implement the Americans with Disabilities Act, the UK’s Disability Discrimination Act (now substantially replaced by the Equality Act), and Australia’s Disability Discrimination Act. No countries have been as involved as these three. In no case did any court or agency ever mandate “open captions” for movie exhibitors. Captions are a type of auxiliary aid that most people are familiar with. Captions were seen in the earliest movies. Cards with words –“intertitles”– were displayed during the action telling people what the actors said, and giving clues to off-stage sounds and action. Since the audience can see these printed words, they were “open captions”. They were common until 1927, when movies with sound became dominant. Since that time, people watching a movie in their native language will usually only see captions when the movie contains words in a foreign language that the director wants everyone to understand. The term for this type of open caption is “subtitles”. Subtitles is also the term commonly used around the world to describe the printed translation of a movie for an audience with a different native language.11 This leaves the term “open caption” to mean the showing of a film in the same language as the audience, for the purpose of aiding comprehension for the deaf or hard of hearing. This can, but might not, include off-screen sounds and other descriptions. Separate from captions is audio enhancement of a movie sound track. There are two types, for two different audiences. The first gives extra emphasis to the dialog, lifting it above action noise and music. These were typically supplied by specialty companies for the distributor as the HI track, or “auto- created” by the theater’s sound processor equipment. The other audio enhancement is a descriptive narration of what is on-screen, so that a blind or partially sighted person can get the same understanding of the story in real time. This involves the art of putting audible descriptions of on-screen action in between the standard dialog of the movie. This can include such things as facial descriptions and expressions. Some facilities call this “Descriptive Video”.12 These terms are getting more use recently as additional countries – as diverse as France, India and New Zealand (among many others) and which have no mandates for movie captions and assisted listening tracks – are quite active in mandating them for television and videos on the internet. The corner has even been turned to mandate them in live and near live broadcast presentations in the US. This is a technology that has reached “reasonable accommodation” for that segment of entertainment technology.

Accessibility To Inclusion in Cinema Early 2013 5 of 20 “As a father of four daughters, a deaf man would take one of them to the movies with him – armed with a penlight, pen and paper – and the daughter would sit and write the story for him as the movie played. In 1999, circumstances eventually caused him to make a complaint under the Disability Discrimination Act against his local cinema about the lack of access at the movies. The beneficial results have rippled well into the digital age for deaf and blind people alike.” Accommodation, Open Captions The technology of laying words onto film took several decades to evolve into a fairly simple and workable method. The costs of different chemical techniques for open captions, added to the high cost for small runs of film prints, quickly consumed early grants and incentives meant to facilitate their inclusion and distribution. Exhibitors who wanted to show the movie with captions would order a special copy of the movie from specialty companies, then arrange special show times for audiences who wanted to see them. These specialty companies were not associated with any studio, so typically their work was available long after the principle release date of the movie. Captioning of video for broadcast was more easily accomplished and standardized, then compelled by legislation in the early 90‘s. Finally, with a laser technology that cut into the emulsion of the film13, captions returned to first-run movies in 1998 with the release of Titanic, Mask of Zorro and The Jackal. For many audience members, open captioning is even now the preferred method for seeing a movie. The words are on the same focus plane as the movie, making them easy to read without distracting from the movie. There are problems with open captions: For those who want them, they are never at all cinemas or at all times...and rarely at convenient times. They also require decent reading skills. And, for those who don’t want them (or need them), open captions are a distraction. [In contrast, if the cinema has assisted listening audio working for a movie, the audio tracks can be made available to those who want to listen with earphones, without disturbing audience members who don’t want to listen.] To give access to the deaf, blind, hard of hearing and partially sighted communities, the exhibition community supported open captions and the installation of assisted listening technology at a limited number of theaters per area, and at a limited number of showings. The advocacy groups in all three major english speaking countries had projects working to make this happen. In April 2000, NATO – the National Association of Theater Owners (NATO) – issued a statement that included the following: "Deaf or hard of hearing patrons should work WITH the exhibition community by supporting the efforts to make theatres more accessible through the use of open captioning, not AGAINST exhibition by bringing unfounded legal action seeking the wrong solution."14 At the same time in Australia, an official “conciliation process” began, resulting from the experience and complaint of the father from Perth (in the story cited above) under the auspices of the Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission (HREOC). It involved the three largest cinema chains, the Motion Picture Distributors Association, consumer reps of the Deafness Forum and Deaf Australia, and the Australian Caption Centre, eventually developing a way to put captions and descriptive narration into the cinemas of Australia from the year 2000 on. The evolution began with captioned movies playing 2 week runs in one theater in each of the 8 capital cities, with 2 of the 3 open captioned presentations per week including one Sunday afternoon and one Friday night showing. This grew to 10 when a DTS system became available, then by 10 more when the Department of Ageing funded more systems and introduced audio description into the cinemas. Over the decade the exhibitors continuously presented plans to expand coverage, and the HREOC would negotiate with, and for, the access community with the benefit of offering the exhibitor(s) an exemption from complaints under the Discrimination Act.

Accessibility To Inclusion in Cinema Early 2013 6 of 20 “Kids on the internet can easily see when a US caption track is available. So it's hard for mums of deaf kids to explain why they can’t see captioned ParaNorman, when deaf kids in the US can. My 11 year old really wanted to see it, but wouldn’t go because his brother, who's deaf, can't go. Without justifying, is it surprising that many deaf people download pirated films and an easily available subtitle/caption track from the internet, overlay it on the film and stream it to a TV?” 15 Accommodation, Closed Captions In the UK studies on the issues began in 1999, coordinated with the British Film Institute’s Exhibition Development Unit, plus a series of multi-industry and advocacy group meetings. After much groundwork, Warner Bros, DTS, the RNIB, the UK Film Council (UKFC) and many other groups (detailed in footnoted report) worked to prove a technology concept. DTS donated 10 systems that provided narration via headphone, and open captions via an adjacent video projector. The event took place at several facilities in January of 2002 playing the first Harry Potter release, just two months after the 4 November UK premier.16 Following this success, the UKFC arranged to get £350,000 from the UK Lottery and created the Cinema Access Programme, a 50/50 financing deal with cinemas. Seventy facilities put the DTS CSS or Dolby ScreenTalk system into service under this plan. These systems also required the added and ongoing expenses of creating caption and audio description files, then putting them onto discs matched to a time code on the film. Additional funding for these costs was required which came from the Print Provision Fund, and the Capital and Access Fund For Cinemas. (The dialogue-emphasized “HI” track could be “auto-created” in the audio processors without additional cost.) At its peak there were about 200 DTS systems and 100 Dolby systems in service in the UK. In the next 7 years it became standard for the largest UK film distributors to caption/subtitle and audio describe nearly 100% of their output and the largest UK cinema chains would have at least one of their screens in each of their facilities caption and audio description accessible. The UK Cinema Exhibitors’ Association developed a concessionary card promoting assistance for disabled customers, including those who are blind or have impaired vision. In reality, though, it was an odd mix. Smaller production companies and non-UK movies – for example, movies that the US studio didn’t think derive enough income for an open caption print to be created and sent – meant that the actual number of movies that were captioned or have narration available was less than 25%, some years lower than 15%, with many big movies left out. (One odd instance of this was Best Picture Oscar winner 'The Kings Speech' which was not available on the popular DTS caption format, though a handful of 35mm subtitled reels with burned in captions were available.) Statistically, the objective – at least one accessible major movie screened per facility each week – gave an increase: 200 shows a week in 2005 to 1,000 per week in 2010, about 1% of UK cinema screenings.17 The UKFC again arranged funding from lottery money in 2004, this time to jumpstart the obviously imminent digital transition for exhibitors in the UK. Through the diligence of the RNIB and others in the multi-industry group, the issue was kept alive – the specifications for the Digital Screen Network were the first to include Descriptive Audio in the essence of digital cinema.18 The transition to digital cinema took nearly a decade before it reached 50% saturation, and 10 years for a complete set of specifications. These, among other things, created a standardized interface between media players, projectors, and the secure digital information that had to make it from hard disk storage to the audio and caption equipment. In the last years, new personal caption systems that emulated closed captioning were developed. The transition brought turmoil. Narration tracks were not created for digital equipment with any regularity until 2012. Digital equipment wasn’t able to auto-create an enhanced dialog track the way that analog equipment often did. 3D movies were never delivered with captions and personal caption equipment had significant growing pains upon introduction. While exhibitors were preparing for much higher ratios of inclusive movie presentations, audiences were wishing for the good old days of 1%.

Accessibility To Inclusion in Cinema Early 2013 7 of 20 “It isn’t perfect, but it is lot better. The schedules online are better, employees are better trained and seem to understand that I can’t hear their explanations. We can go as a group now and there will be plenty of working glasses or headphones. That’s great! I miss open captions, but I love being able to see any movie, any time, especially the ones in 3D.”

No Technology Before Its Time The pre-digital workflow of getting a captioned and narrated movie to the cinema was complicated. It was separated from the delivery of hundreds or thousands of ‘standard’ prints to the theaters. The ability to place the narration and caption scripts into a separately shipped disc from a 3rd party was easier than shipping extra sets of film canisters, but was still a source of extra work, cost, and often, delay. When digital cinema arrived, these problems were expected to dramatically diminish, along with the frustrations of only 1% inclusive screenings – at a minority of theater facilities. The expectation was more varied, capable and less expensive equipment in a competitive and standardized digital market. Unfortunately, the digital transition took longer than anyone expected, meaning that studios, distributors and exhibitors were required to support dual workflows. It also meant that exhibitors had to continue buying equipment that would soon be obsolete, and people who needed access equipment were forced to travel long distances – and tolerate disappointment when films or disks didn’t arrive or batteries were dead in the seldom used equipment that they needed. In the June 17, 2008 Federal Register, the US Department of Justice (DOJ) discussed the issue of open and closed caption technology in a chapter of “Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities” titled: Captioning at movie theaters.19 Nuanced reading showed a belief that capabilities and equipment still in development were already in existence, and that changes could be made immediately if requirements were enacted. The DoJ issued an invitation for public comment, to answer many variations of two basic questions about captions and descriptive narration. They were: Should the Department require that, one year after the effective date of this regulation, public accommodations exhibit all new movies in captioned format at every showing? and Should the Department require that, one year after the effective date of this revised regulation, a public accommodation will exhibit all new movies with narrative description? At the public hearings in 2010 and January of 2011, advocates for exhibition asked for continued patience, while advocates of accessibility pointed to years of patience and how the many frustrations of the current system keeps them outside of the cinema experience. But in 2008, when the DOJ document was released, digital cinema presentation equipment was still continuing to evolve. Projectors and secure media players were based on an evolving but interim “InterOp” specification, instead of the long-expected SMPTE Standards and Recommended Practices. Ad hoc changes to InterOp continued even as the first of 46 SMPTE documents were finalized, the last being submitted to the ISO in 2011.20 Subsequently, with no interchange standard there was no working d-cinema captioning or assisted listening equipment in 2008. The film-based open caption/assisted listening equipment couldn’t interface with digital equipment. Production of d-cinema-based narration tracks was rare, burned-in open captions for digital presentations was more rare than common, and d-cinema equipment couldn’t automatically produce center channel-centric dialog tracks, which the old analog processors could. Each success of d-cinema into a theater that was previously showing accessible films was a loss of several accessible movies per week until the industry found a solution.

Accessibility To Inclusion in Cinema Early 2013 8 of 20 “I know quite a few people who, like me, have become disabled in the prime of their lives. I served in Iraq, came home last year with permanent damage to my hearing. I can still enjoy films with a little 'assistance'. In this case, subtitles. I only go to the cinema now if the film is subtitled. Thankfully most are these days” 21

Industry Coordination The deliberative nature of SMPTE doesn’t lend itself to dealing with the quick pace of events on the ground, or interfacing with manufacturers to help solve the problems that studios and exhibitors were having in the field. In 2006 a group was set up to facilitate the required discussions while not exposing the participants to anti-trust laws. The monthly meetings of the InterSociety Digital Cinema Forum (ISDCF) allowed a world-wide group of technical staff from the studios, manufacturers and exhibitors to work together for that purpose. Members of this group monitored the pain and progress that lead to InterOp changes and suggestions to SMPTE. Dealing with caption data and assisted listening tracks became a significant part of those changing ad hoc needs. The change of legacy 8 channel analog setups to 16 channels of user-mapped digital audio was debated with draft documents, a separate committee, re-submissions, and requests for comments that lasted many months. Some files would also be in the secure/encrypted space, so special equipment interface specifications also needed development. Even deciding which channels to place the HI and VI- N tracks (for the Hearing Impaired channel and Visual Impaired-Narration channel) took months. In 2008, NATO asked the ISDCF to put a special focus on the issues of the accessibility technology. The studio technicians had been pushing the topic earlier, but the interlocking “foundation before structure” nature of all the standards and specification requirements made prioritizing difficult. A special April 2009 ISDCF meeting was held, requested by NATO, to push for exactly that prioritizing. Their presentation was meant to make certain everyone was aware of the needs, and the pressure that the exhibition industry was facing – a public that was not going to stay as patient as the engineers tasked with handling dozens of issues and 100% workability. Projector and media server manufacturers gave reports about the transitions they were going through as they approached the goal of SMPTE Compliance. Delays from one key group developing their Series II equipment would have ripple effects impacting captions and narration tracks since new levels of security meant no company could test interfaces until all the main chips were ready. It was at this meeting that the ISDCF took responsibility for prioritizing access issues, by organizing the first of what turned into a series of plugfests – multi-day gatherings of manufacturing engineers, their equipment and current or experimental software/firmware – to facilitate the exchange of data (and problems) toward making common interfaces work together.22 The plugfests worked well for improving the technology. They also worked well as a means for showing the state of the equipment. People in the industry got to see equipment working that they had only heard about. At the first plugfest, Doremi and USL showed preview versions of what was later sold as the Doremi CaptiView and the USL CSS seat mounted private closed captioning systems. USL also showed an early prototype of a glasses-based closed caption viewing system that used an extension of their standard audio emitter system. Representatives from legal teams and advocacy groups attended the first plugfest. How well the invited audience understood the dozens of back room hours by dozens of people for two days to get everything working was not polled. But the event proved quite valuable to the manufacturers for discovering and working out details and forcing focus. A plugfest has been held every 3 to 6 months since then.

Accessibility To Inclusion in Cinema Early 2013 9 of 20 “BEST THING SINCE SLICED BREAD! They could use some tweaking but technology is always advancing!! Can not wait to see the evolution of these things! Thank you for allowing me to fully understand the movie in the theater.” 23

Different Paths; ...and Finally, Results Delays were requested in Australia, and lawsuits were filed in the US. The lawsuits usually resulted in broadened implementation plans, until finally two different sets of judges in 2009 and 2010 were convinced that the newly introduced and implemented technology had crossed the line to, 1) “reasonable accommodation” and 2) which didn’t cause undue hardship or change the nature of the business. Within a month, several large US chains made announcements that went far beyond the judges rulings – announcing that they would implement access equipment in all of their auditoriums and push the providers of materials – movies, trailers, advertising – so that they would be consistently delivered with captions and enhanced audio. Much of this implementation occurred in the US by year-end 2012. In 2008, Australia’s 4 largest exhibitors request for a temporary implementation delay of a previous agreement was denied in late April of 2010. In mid-July 2010 the Cinema Access Implementation Plan (CAIP) was announced. This program between the Australian Government’s Department of Families, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs and four major exhibitors promised $470,000 in grants against the projected $2.2 million cost of captioning and audio description equipment, plus installation. The implementation began in 2010 with some coordination and implementation problems, as the equipment was new and there was little time for staff training. CAIP ends in 2014 with 3 accessible screens in complexes with 13 or more screens, 2 in complexes of 7+ screens, and 1 screen for complexes of 6 or less. The end result will put captions and audio description in a minimum of 242 screens in 132 Australian complexes.24 One lesson learned from this Australian arrangement is that a facility with only one “accessible screen”, but with the option to give priority to 3D movies, will take that screen off the accessibility grid if these movies don’t have captions or narrative tracks. This is often the case since Captions and 3D require a new technology that floats the captions on the plane of the picture’s focus point. (Otherwise, viewers can get physically nauseous.) Descriptive Narration tracks are not yet part of the standard workflows of smaller producers and distributors. Until they are truly commonplace, there is room for the complaint from the communities needing these capabilities. Some say they were better off with 3 guaranteed open caption showings, even if only one movie per week and not everywhere. Implementations in the US have been smoother since they started later – in 2012 when there were more options available. Exhibitors could exhort their suppliers to deliver every trailer, ad and movie with the proper access tracks. ISDCF and SMPTE is still working on nuanced details of caption timing and the transition to SMPTE compliance, which is expected to start in 2013 now that the final details for accessibility equipment for inclusion of the blind, deaf, hard of hearing and partially sighted is working. Advocacy groups for these groups in the rest of the world appear to be taking the more nuanced, grass roots approach, with very slow results. After great effort, the EU ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities as EU law. Other countries are in process of passing similar statutes. This process allows advocacy groups the right to presume inclusion instead of asking to negotiate each access from each supplier, one at a time. Cinemas have not been on top of the list of early agendas though, focusing instead on living conditions and transportation rights. Access to jobs (including eAccessibility) is expected to be the next focus. Perhaps the next breakthrough in the cinema world will be more staff who know how to demonstrate and maintain access equipment since they are also users.

Accessibility To Inclusion in Cinema Early 2013 10 of 20 “ The cinema is the most accessible and thrilling social experience, where you can go with friends and family alike to watch the best and biggest new films. So why is it that I didn't go to the cinema for the first 19 years of my life? It was just pointless when I couldn't hear anything the characters said, but thanks to the efforts over the past decade, I've kept up with the cinematic world and socially, culturally and historically my life has become better for it. Thank you for making movies accessible to people like me.” 25 DCP Production – Narration and Closed Caption Creation From the first lens used during the first production shot, to the last lens and the screen it shines upon, all the equipment and time spent on a movie is used to deliver the director’s intent to the audience. It is no less with audio enrichment and captioning for the audience with sensory impairments. The conversion to digital cinema brings digital precision, with some ease of workflow and speed of access to the exhibition process. Days long chemical processes and the need to transport large reels to several post production facilities are eliminated. But there is still an extremely detailed workflow required to create and join the necessary materials into the distribution package, the DCP (Digital Cinema Package). Creating different versions of closed captions, open captions, and narrative tracks still add additional steps that can only happen during the hectic few days between the final picture and audio edits and the release date. The tasks of creating the VI-N (Vision Impaired–Narration) DCP is done by a separate post-production chain, just as it was in the historical film system. While a general release DCP can be sent to large audiences in several markets, different VI-N DCPs are needed, targeted to smaller audiences around the world.26 These will end up as a separate DCP with a separate set of security keys. There is added pressure to make these available with the same release date, which is now regularly accomplished for the “Hollywood” movies, but more rare for “smaller” movies. A separate DCP allows different exhibitors to choose the right package for each of these micro-targeted audiences, while keeping security for the whole package. The downside is that the film booking team and projectionists do the extra work of ordering and monitoring and loading the materials, and processing their separate security keys. The hard disk at the exhibitor also gets filled more quickly with similar-named packages, which leaves the door open for error and mis-played shows. Eventually meta- data is expected to help automate these package choices for different show times. Today’s techniques still require extra labor and diligence to avoid confusion in the projection booth, and in the theater. The essential steps of creating a VI-N DCP are: • Write a script of the on-screen action. Since the description information cannot conflict with characters speaking, dramatic music and other sounds, this must be very cleverly done with separate time points that cannot be grabbed from previous editing notes. • Voiceover talent has to record the narration in a mixing session with technicians & engineers. There are many companies who make purpose built equipment for this task, and there are thousands of people around the world who participate in creating the tracks for variations in different languages. This is particularly true in the television and internet world, which is going through a transition of its own with new inclusion laws in dozens of countries around the world. But these workflows, as well as DVD/Blu Ray workflows, can be allowed months for the preparation while first run movies don’t have the luxury of time.27

Accessibility To Inclusion in Cinema Early 2013 11 of 20 For movies, sound tracks and audio dubbing is often not finished until mere weeks before the distribution date, so it is not uncommon to find union specialists (talent and engineers) who are not only skilled, but available and ready to work long hours at proportionate rates. • The recording then has to be prepared for d-cinema use – sample rates have to be chosen, reel data needs to be matched so the sound relates correctly to the picture, and the VI-N track is added as another audio channel in a final differently named DCP. Narration track preparation for assisting the blind and partially sighted costs approximately $10,000 - $12,000US, with variables of running time and complexity. The caption file workflow can use the existing dialog continuity script as a starting point for a script that adds the deaf and hard of hearing particulars, such as “gunshot off-screen” or “dog barks in background”, and their appropriate time codes points. Compared to the VI-N steps, it is simpler to create and combine an XML script (a special, formulated type of text package) that the DCP uses. In the case of open captions, placement information is included in the XML, e.g., making sure open captions don’t collide with on-screen titles, subtitles and credits. In the case of closed captions, different breakpoints are added to match the 3 lines that the personal captioning devices use. The generation of caption files for a DCP will be $2,000 - $3,000US. Combined then, these costs are about $12,000 to $15,000, and don’t include the costs of a specially prepared dialog-pushed HI track or administration to make it all happen or keep the distribution packages going to the proper facilities. All of these costs are typically charged to distribution, not production or exhibition. For comparison, it costs approximately $15,000US for the creation of the DCDM (the digital master – the unencrypted compilation from which different versions are added into or taken from) and a DCP of the baseline general domestic release and international versions. In round numbers then, the creation of VI-N and caption files costs double a movie’s DCP costs. Additionally, there is typically more than one language to add, in addition to foreign subtitles or language dubs. As a greater number of capable digital facilities become available overseas, these functions will go back to being handled by the local market distribution, as it was in the film days. It should also be noted that many large studios are paying for the digital infrastructure that makes these processes possible, including the emollient of the digital transition, the VPF. Virtual Print Fees reimburse many of the exhibitor’s digital equipment expenses – though not all – as far out as 2020.28 Moviemakers on the other hand, point out that tens of thousands of movies get started, but only a small percentage actually get finished and even fewer get distribution deals. Finishing touches like multiple languages, descriptive narration and captioning are therefore not on their primary checklist. On the other hand, costs for digital distribution for festivals and limited release “prints” – even adding in these accessibility packages – are a fraction of what film prints and distribution previously cost a production. As more audiences around the world are promised and expect access capability, more directors and producers are becoming aware of these issues, discussing them earlier in the process. Film festivals, familiar with requiring multiple languages, have been on a steep learning curve in the digital transition. Large exhibition chains are beginning to demand inclusion tracks of winners and those in contention. There are new caption and narration tools becoming available. One example is Amara - Universal subtitling which takes advantage of open source software and crowd-sourcing volunteers. There are copyright exemptions in some countries that allow this for internet movies, e.g., Australia’s 200AB of the Copyright Act. In the US, copyright exemption allowing third parties to caption and narrate for the deaf, blind, hard of hearing and sight impaired is still a work in progress.29 Regardless, smaller movie projects can take advantage of such resources to bring their movies to a broader audience.

Accessibility To Inclusion in Cinema Early 2013 12 of 20 “ It used to be, we were never certain about the equipment we had, or how good the marketing would be to attract the audience who needed our assisted listening gear. It would fall into disrepair. Few people would show up for the open caption movie. Now I can train someone and know that we will get users – it is noted in every ad – so the training sticks. The studios are getting better, our booking team is getting better. We all are delivering a product that we can be proud of.” 30 Currently Available – “Personal” Closed Caption Solutions The list of “personal caption” equipment is filled with logical extensions of digital, file-based technology, combining with LED-based technologies and wireless IP-based delivery. As with consumer equipment generally, the available technology is available through more companies and items are becoming smaller and more reliable. The equipment is different from typical consumer gear though, because the same piece of equipment has to be rugged enough to stand up to hundreds of different people using the same item and go through many more cleaning and recharging cycles. The original innovator group in the field is the technology labs at WGBH television in Boston, Massachusetts. They provide captions and descriptive services under the trade name DVS Theatrical (since the DTS disk systems, and presently). Under the trade name MoPix, they also make the Rear Window system, working with film and now with digital media servers. The system displays reversed text on an LED display mounted on the rear wall of the auditorium, which is mirrored at the users seat. The upgraded version of the Mopix reflective panel still uses a bendable support arm and a piece that the user places into a cup holder at their seat. Once the patron is seated, the panel is manipulated so the user can read the movie’s text (or translated language) that streams from the LED display. Because the reflective panel is also transparent, the letters seem superimposed upon the movie. Two recent personal caption systems, from two different companies, use a small LED panel surrounded by a plastic housing that keeps stray light from adjacent patrons. Both use a similar gooseneck suspension system as the Rear Window, with a base that fits into the seat cup holder. Once adjusted to a seated position, these system allow a greater latitude of head movement compared to the Rear Window panel, which must maintain a fixed reflection angle from the rear display to the viewers eyes. Since their radio signal can reach the entire auditorium, they also avoid the need for the audience member to sit in a “sweet spot” that avoids too much of an angle, or letters that are too small, too large or too slanted. The Doremi CaptiView system uses an encrypted ZigBee wireless signal that can be received from any seat in the theater. The system can run on any one of up to 20 frequencies to avoid clashes between adjacent auditoriums. The glass in front of the OLED display gives 3 lines of text to the viewer. The system is simple to set up at either the customer service center or by the user in the auditorium. Doremi has offices in the international centers and a sophisticated representative system in most major markets. They also have sold the majority of digital cinema servers (media players) in the market. The USL CCR-100 (Closed Caption Receiver) is designed and marketed by USL, Inc., once called Ultra Stereo Labs, and which has received multiple technical Oscars from the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences in their 30 years. This personal caption system can be deployed separately or packaged with their Assistive Listening Devices’ emitters. Infrared LEDs are pointed at the screen then bounce into the audience and have an advantage over wireless radio frequencies – their frequencies stay contained in a room and therefore don’t need the addressing steps required during setup. The USL systems also follow the SMPTE standards interface protocols which allows easy attachment to all SMPTE compliant media servers.

Accessibility To Inclusion in Cinema Early 2013 13 of 20 A non-technical disadvantage that these systems have, besides using the seat’s cup holder instead of a cup of liquid refreshment, is found without too much searching on the internet. With all three systems, some users, especially young adults and teen-agers who want to fit in without calling attention to their ‘otherness’, object to carrying around what is called “a large flag” or a box with a gooseneck and cup holder attachment. The latest piece of equipment introduced to the market solves this problem and others by putting the display system into a pair of glasses. Sony is now distributing their Entertainment Access Glasses, which uses holographic display technology to place an image of the letters into a space between the picture and the viewer, as if it were on the screen. This system also picks up its signal anywhere in the auditorium using a wireless signal, 1 of 7 channels of an encrypted ZigBee variant. 7 channels allows a multiplex system to be laid out so that the same channels doesn’t overlap and therefore won’t cause interference between movies. There are two major advantages of the holographic system for the client: First, the ‘floating’ image can be adjusted so that the viewer can maintain focus on the letters and the screen at the same time; Second, the glasses are built to hold a separate 3D lens. When used for a 3D movie, the captions are not blocked by the darker polarizing filter attached in front of the glasses, which keeps the light level of the text at the user’s setting. The alternative of looking through filters into a text system makes the reading problems even more difficult. The elimination of the focus/refocus problem is a major evolution in personal captioning. The problem of moving the eye’s focus every few seconds from the text of a close display, (30-45 cm or 10-18 inches), then to focus on the distant picture screen, (3-6 meters away or 10 - 18 feet or more) is quite tiring. The glasses system better imitates the open caption system. They allow for broader head and body movements since the person can still see the image of the florescent captions onscreen whether below or even over the picture. They have the added comfort feature that the glasses themselves have adjustable click points that hold the lenses at different angles. There was brief excitement about potential devices that would allow people to put the caption text on their smartphones, which works well at sports stadiums and museums. But there are security and copyright concerns of streaming text to them. Plus, there are problems with the light that they propagate in a room that is supposed to be dark, especially since there is no holder that places the unit at eye level. Finally, since these devices can also record sound and picture, they are not welcome in a theater. Like everything involving stereoscopic 3D movies, using these personal caption systems is a work-in- progress and different users will have different experiences. As post-production, screen and projector technology evolves to reflect more light to the eyes – bettering the 3D experience for everyone – the different caption systems will have to be examined or perhaps evolve further. Creating captions and subtitles for 3D is still a laborious task, the prime example being the open captions of the Na’vi language translations in Avatar. They were meticulously hand crafted with hundreds of hours of post-production to keep the words readable and on the constantly moving focal point in the “depth” plane of the action. The holographic placement of the text in space appears to have some benefit in viewing 3D movies, although the studios are only beginning to release captions for this format so there isn’t much comment on this yet. The technical standards that will make this easier and less expensive have not been written yet, so this is many years out. No system is perfect, as interviews and internet comments point out. While the box-on-a-gooseneck system allows more latitude than the mirror system, the user still must keep their head fairly still to keep the readable image in the box placed near the dark portion at the bottom of the screen – taller people complain that they have to slouch as the goosenecks are not long enough for a good position – and others point out that goosenecks eventually droop as well.

Accessibility To Inclusion in Cinema Early 2013 14 of 20 There are some internet comments that the glasses system take some time to get used to since the text image moves when the glasses move, especially when laughing. But more than one internet commenter has mentioned that it also took a moment to get used to the image still showing when they stepped out of the auditorium for a bio-break – but then saw it was an advantage since they could still pay attention to the movie’s words while ordering popcorn.

To add to their customer’s quality experience, exhibitors have installed digital equipment at each screen at a cost that is 3 to 4 times what film projection systems cost in the past. Studios and distributors have made great efforts and added production costs to add quality, and timely access materials to each movie. To attract more and varied customers the entire cinema market has evolved their facilities that now range from boutique high-end comfort zones to large-scale restaurant/bookstore/multi-thousand person service and entertainment palaces. Audio technology has left stereo behind, and added 4 new audio formats to fill the large rooms with more immersive sound. In this grand metamorphosis, caption systems for the deaf and hard of hearing is another success. Small and large manufacturers have responded with great variety, but always with an eye to high quality. Every feature on each vendor’s product advantage sheet is relatively expensive given the relatively small cinema market. For accessibility equipment in particular, long-term durability is still the primary usability concern as the need for cleaning and battery charging and breakage drives up both costs and potential disappointment. In addition, every survey among cinema personnel and users point to the greatest satisfaction when the staff is constantly and consistently trained. They must be prepared to not only deal with a technical problem as it happens. They client service team must be aware of each individual’s need and be comfortably able to non-verbally describe the equipment’s set-up and use to a customer who can’t hear them well. They must practice making certain that a customer is comfortable with the equipment that they are receiving. Being able to communicate well when there is a problem is then just a natural extension of that ability. Access equipment adds complex requirements for the same reason as does every component in the digital cinema chain – the constant push against the upper limits of affordable quality, in order to deliver the director’s intent to the audience. At different price points and at different levels of technical achievement and personal comfort, all of these personal caption systems further achieve the director’s intent by creating a means for deaf and hard of hearing people to enjoy movies and other entertainment with family and friends.

Accessibility To Inclusion in Cinema Early 2013 15 of 20 “ I have always loved film. I lost my sight at the age of 17 and have since missed many, many, many years of cinema. Audio description at the cinema has been a life-changing experience. It has enabled me to 'see' the crazy action of a Michael Bay film, and to experience the origin of time and infinity, with evolving galaxies and beautiful nebulae, in a Terence Malick film. It has taken me to places I've only ever dreamed of, where I've locked horns with an evil rival, and gone home with the prettiest girl just in time for dinner. I love the cinema all over again. I go with my friends who are sighted and they no longer need to talk to me throughout the film, explaining what's going on (not fun for anyone!). Thanks. You have really changed my life.”31 Specialized Audio Systems for the Blind and Partially Sighted Audio enhancement equipment is designed to bring the director’s intent for blind and partially sighted people as well as those with hearing difficulties. Descriptive narration – the equipment’s VI-N channel – brings narration to those who cannot see the action. Enhanced dialog – the equipment’s HI channel – brings up the voice frequencies for those who find the effects and/or music tracks too loud. These systems are also an evolution of existing technologies. Early systems used technology that worked directly with hearing aids. Technology and needs evolved, often driven by solutions from other public spaces, with the techniques then brought to the cinema theater. Audio processors changed to make it simple to interface the different personal sound systems. Over time a few companies put in special efforts to cater to the cinema market. Standards were developed to make certain that the HI and VI tracks were always in the same place in the signal flow. Williams Sound is a company that fills a wide range of client needs, but entirely catering to the need for assisted listening in public spaces. They developed their simple to use infrared-based technology to solve the common problems with the then current hearing aid loop systems, which had large installation costs and had room to room sound leakage issues. The emitter portion of the Williams Sound system plugs into the HI and VI-N channels of the audio processor. It is then mounted in the rear of the auditorium, pointing at the screen. The screen then reflects the signal to user headphones with built-in receivers. One channel carries a specially mixed audio channel to the headphones that emphasizes the dialog of the movie. There is an adjustment that controls the sound level so that the dialog can be distinct while still hearing other sounds from the theater audio system. The other channel carries the descriptive narration track, which feeds more story information for the blind patron, in between dialog and in addition to the all the other sounds of the movie. [Examples on the Links page that follows.] There are several product variations that allow for different room sizes and choice of frequencies, or even multiple frequencies in case the environment changes at the site. USL, Inc. also builds several LED-based audio assist systems, which install and perform in a similar manner. Their engineering team has been a major, long-term, industry driver in making a standards- based system perform well at the aforementioned plugfests. One of their recent innovations allows their closed caption system to use the same LED-emitter package that the audio systems use. They also deliver various packages that are chosen based on room size, frequency and other requirements. Doremi chose to use a standards-based wireless technology named DECT for their Fidelio audio system. Like the CaptiView system, it is designed to take signals directly from their very popular media server, but it will work with other servers using Doremi’s optional AccessLink device. The Doremi CaptiView caption system transmitter can even plug into the Fidelio transmitter for convenience. The wireless signal is picked up by a receiver unit which fits into a patron’s pocket, or can be clipped to a belt or hung from a lanyard. Any set of headphones with a mini stereo jack can be plugged into the receiver unit. The choice of HI, VI-N, or both, are set up by theater personnel at the charging station.

Accessibility To Inclusion in Cinema Early 2013 16 of 20 As the most recent technology to appear on the market, the Sony implementation (named the Sony Entertainment Glasses with Audio) also takes advantage of a separate rechargeable receiver unit. This receiver is the same device used for the caption glasses. When a headset is plugged in, the receiver automatically switches to deliver audio. The set up for HI or VI-N use can be done at the charging station or, prompted by the receiver itself, in the theater by the patron. Like the Sony Entertainment Access Glasses, the audio system can be configured to pick up one of 6 different languages. [It hasn’t been a topic in this paper, but multiple languages is a feature for countries who have audiences who use multiple languages. The SMPTE/ISO standards allow for this, so if a movie is distributed with different language choices, the various systems can take advantage of this to varying degrees.] Since this system was designed after the SMPTE CSP/RPL interface standards were completed, it is also natively compliant with all SMPTE compliant server systems. The transmitter uses a variant of the evolving 802.15.4 standard signal that is broadcast into the auditorium. Some argue that radio signals are one more potential point of failure to manage, especially if the radio signals go through the theater walls and interfere with each other. The manufacturers point out that these are generations removed from the loop or even Wi-Fi era, and once set up correctly are easy to manage – a small item on the list of things to correctly manage in the digital projection room and theater. Since LEDs can also fail and require maintenance, it isn’t a clear case of choosing one technology because of problems with the other. Smartphone or PDA audio technology that works well in other auditoriums, doesn’t work in the cinema space for the same reasons that streaming text doesn’t work. There are enough piracy concerns to make the camera and recorder capabilities of a phone inappropriate in addition to the bright lights and other distractions that a phone could bring. In Summary The purpose of this white paper has been to bring up to date a segment of digital cinema’s transition that involved 12 years of evolution in politics, law and technology with an intermingled viewpoint of all the parties involved. Cultural attitudes and technology have both changed dramatically in the interim, as have the costs to implement the technology. No one would say that they have changed as fast as anyone expected or wanted them to. But the change has arrived with good potential for continued evolution. The two separate tracks – full SMPTE/ISO compliance for digital exhibition technology and cultural access as a human right – have been introduced, though neither is fully developed, implemented or widespread. Finally, indications are that they will be. Cinemas themselves are evolving (again) to meet challenges as client expectations and external technologies affect them. They are bringing new capabilities and forms of entertainment that require implementing satellites and high-speed fiber to successfully bring live opera and sports from distant lands, or “film festivals as files” from cultures and artists that might only fit niches of a particular local community. Over time, there will be many other advantages of having created and participated in the industry’s evolution of capabilities that secure and high quality digital technology brings. The inclusion of more people into this cultural phenomena with high-quality and consistently performing access tools, like every step of the digital transition, has sometimes been difficult, often very expensive, then sometimes surprisingly simple – bring your own headset!

As one studio executive said during interviews for this piece, “It is the right thing to do.”

Accessibility To Inclusion in Cinema Early 2013 17 of 20 Personal Closed Caption and Assisted Listening Equipment for Cinemas

Table of Comparative Equipment Information

Sony–Entertainment WGBH–Mopix: Rear Sony–EntertainmentUSL–Assetive Williams Sound – Doremi – CaptiView USL – CCS/CCR-100 Doremi – Fidelio Access Glasses Window Captioning Access Audio Listening SystemsSoundPlus TX90 Seat-Mount Seat-Mount Transparent Separate Separate Attached Attached Style Swan Neck Glasses Swan Neck Reflector Headset/ Headset/ Headset/ Headset/ Display Display Swan Neck Receiver Receiver Receiver Receiver Transmission Reverse Technology ZigBee 802.14 Infrared Reflection DECT 6.0 802.14 Infrared Infrared

40 meter 100 40 meter Varies by 100 80 meters Sweet 100 meters Transmission Range radius meters Spot radius System meters * IR is not * IR is not * IR is not Transmitter Channels < 14 7 channel Reflections 32 7 channel channel Channels Channels constrained – N/A – Channels Channels constrained bound Virtual User User Headset Headset Holograph Distance Laws of Receiver Technology OLED Physics headset headset with built-in with built-in LED OLED possible possible electronics electronics Service Service Service In Service Service Receiver Setup Desk or Desk or Desk or Desk Desk or In Theater In Theater In Theater In Theater In Theater Theater In Theater

Simultaneous Languages 6 6 4 1 1 6 1 1

CSP/RPL Compliant** No Yes Yes N/A No Yes Yes N/A

Doremi + Doremi + Server Compatibility Optional All All All Optional All All All

DSC Encryption AES 128 AES 128 N/A N/A 64 bit AES 128 N/A N/A

Battery Low Indicator No Yes No N/A Yes Yes No Yes

10 Optional 10 10 Long life Long life Charging Station USB Hub Receivers USB Hub N/A Receivers Receivers Batteries Batteries

80 hours 80 hours Battery Life 16 hours 6 hours 30 hours Infinite 12 Hours 6 hours (IRH-230) (Rx15-2)

Web link CaptiView EA Glasses IR CCS Mopix Fidelio EA Audio UPC SoundPlus

* Infrared (IR) transmissions do not leak into adjacent rooms, so this is uncomparable with the wireless channels data. ** CSP/RPL Compliant refers to SMPTE ST 430-10 and 430-11: Content Synchronization Protocol / Resource Presentation List Information understood to be correct as of 1 November 2012 for equipment then in production.

Accessibility To Inclusion in Cinema Early 2013 18 of 20 Links Examples – Descriptive Video Descriptive Video Works - GreenMile described video demo - YouTube Masterpiece Theatre | The Wind in the Willows | Video Description Examples – Captioning Subtitled Trailers! Your Local Cinema – UK Regal Access – Glasses [HD] Tools Amara - Universal subtitling: caption, translate, subtitle and transcribe video MovieReading FAQs WGBH - Media Access Group - MAG Guide Vol. 13 The Audio Description Project (ADP) Digital Cinema Accessibility – MKPE Equipment in Comparitive Table

CaptiView EA Glasses IR CCS Mopix

Fidelio EA Audio UPC SoundPlus

Special Thanks to: Derek Brandon of Your Local Cinema Cathlene Egbert of Editor This~! Joan Greening – Audio Description Consultant Melissa Keeping of Event Cinema Association Allayne Woodford of Media Access Australia

Copyright Notice

© C J Flynn | DCinema Compliance Group | November 2012 All trademarks mentioned herein belong to their respective owners. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License.

Accessibility To Inclusion in Cinema Early 2013 19 of 20 In 2011 per capita annual movie attendance dropped to 3.9 overall. Both men’s and women’s per capita attendance decreased from 2010, and women’s attendance remained below its high of 4.8 per capita in 2009. Footnotes Per Capita Attendance by Gender 1 Elizabeth D. Botts; Comment10 to US Department of Justice Request of comment #RIN 1190-AA63 2 In the United States the8 term ‘theater’ is used more frequently than ‘cinema’. In this movie-centric- cinema document, either term might be used to mean the movie-centric2009 auditorium. 6 4.8 3 4.2 SMPTE ST 430-10 and 430-11:4.0 Content4.0 Synchronization 4.0 Protocol 3.9 / Resource2010 Presentation List. ISO numbers use 26-SMPTE4 number. Other Access SMTPE numbers: 428-2 and 10, 429-2 and 12 2011 4 YourLocalCinema.com2 – Quotes 5 Community and Culture0 - Frequently Asked Questions | National Association of the Deaf 6 Agreement on Terminology – InternationalMale Federation ofFemale Hard of Hearing People 7 How older viewers are rescuing cinema | Film | Guardian In 2011 nearly all age groups went to the movies less frequently than in 2010, with the largest decline among 12-17 year 8olds. MPAA By contrast, Theatrical attendance Market increased Statistics slightly 2011 in |the Page 60+ 14,age groupPer Capita and among Attendance the 40-49 byyear Age olds. Note: 2009 and part of 2010 was the unique year of Avatar’s huge attendance. Per Capita Attendance by Age 10 8.4 7.9 8 7.6 7.0 6.8 6.2 6 2009 5.0 4.7 4.3 4.1 3.9 2010 4 3.4 3.0 3.0 3.2 3.0 2.9 2.7 2.4 2.4 2.7 2011 2

0 2-11 12-17 18-24 25-39 40-49 50-59 60+

9 ‎Washington State Communication Access Project Final Order and Closed Caption Suit Succeeds Hispanics10 Janice and Doherty ethnicities of the identified Spokane as “Other” Fire Department;(including Asian Comment Americans) toreport US theDepartment highest annual of Justice attendance Ibid per capita, attending on average 5 times per year, compared to less than 4 times per year for African Americans and Caucasians.11 Just like All the ethnicities word ‘cinema’, report attending some culturesless frequently interchange in 2011, with the the terms exception subtitle of those and identifieddescriptive as “Other.” captions. 12 Accessibility at AMC Theaters - In Theaters and Online Per Capita Attendance by Ethnicity 13 Association of Science–Technology Center; What Captioning Is and Who Uses It; also see What Audio10 Description Is and Who Uses It and Accessible Practices - Links and Publications 14 NATO Comments.8 April 2000; Washington DC Movie6.8 Captioning Lawsuit 15 6.0 YourLocalCinema.com – Quotes 5.5 6 5.3 5.0 2009 16 Report to Film Council4.0 - UK Film 4.0Council - British Film Institute 4.2 3.5 3.5 3.7 3.7 2010 17 Inclusion Daily4 Express -- One In Seven UK Cinemas Offers Captioning And Audio-Description | 2011 Cinema Technology2 Article - September 2008 18 Digital Screen Network Content Specification V1.1; 20 December 2005 [pdf] 0 19 Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability by Public Accommodations and in Commercial Facilities Caucasian African American Hispanic Other 14 20 Digital Cinema Specification Documents List 21 YourLocalCinema.com – Quotes 22 ISDCF Meeting Notes, 20090604 and ISDCF Predictied Timeline for Accessibility Roll-out 23 Internet quote 24 Screen Australia: Research - Cinema - Screens and theatres - Totals | - By exhibitor 25 YourLocalCinema.com – Quotes 26 E.g., countries with ‘shared’ languages need modifications of different slang and ‘un-shared’ words. 27 As this goes to press, new laws are going into effect in several countries requiring a percentage of live or near live event coverage to have captioning and a narration track. 28 Celluloid Junkie » Q & A: Mark Christiansen Talks About Paramount’s VPF Deal, MKPE’s Digital Cinema Business FAQs, Broadwell’s Observations on film art : Pandora’s digital box: In the multiplex 29 The NAD Advocates for Access to Quality Captioning | National Association of the Deaf 30 Manager of a theater of a cinema chain: Personal interview 31 YourLocalCinema.com – Quotes

Accessibility To Inclusion in Cinema Early 2013 20 of 20