Search Results
You are looking at 1 - 2 of 2 items for
- Author or Editor: Jan-Louis Kruger x
- Refine by Access: All Content x
Audio description (AD) often emphasises the visual elements of a film rather than the way these elements are presented. However, what is seen and the way it is shown are equally important for creating meaning in film. The term mise-en-shot refers to the way in which visual aspects are shown to the audience. In order to determine whether the stylistic elements of film created by means of mise-en-shot could influence the reception of audio described film, the article investigates the effect of the presence or absence in the AD of these elements on the immersion of a sighted audience into the fictional world. Immersion is measured by means of sub-scales on character identification as well as transportation. In order to measure the effect of stylistic elements, the self-reported immersion of one group of sighted participants who sees a scene with the original soundtrack is compared to that of another sighted group who only hears the audio-described soundtrack of the scene. The findings suggest that although the absence of some mise-en-shot elements in the audio described version of the film does not influence transportation, it does influence the way in which a sighted audience identifies with characters in the film. It would therefore seem that these stylistic elements do have an important role in the immersion of audiences, which could have significant implications for AD.
In this paper we examine the influence of text editing (edited vs. verbatim subtitles) and subtitle presentation rates (12 vs. 15 characters per second) on the comprehension and reading patterns of interlingual and intralingual subtitles among a group of 44 deaf, 33 hard of hearing and 60 hearing Polish adult subjects. The results of the eyetracking study show no benefit of editing down the text of subtitles, particularly in the case of intralingual subtitling and deaf viewers. Verbatim subtitles displayed with the higher presentation rate yielded slightly better comprehension results, were skipped less often, and resulted in more effective reading patterns. Deaf and hard of hearing participants had lower comprehension than hearing people; they also had a higher number of fixations per subtitle and were found to dwell on subtitles longer than the hearing.
