 |
 |
One would think that this would be easy, but it's not a mirror, it's a front and back switch as well, you are looking through the back of the person so the arrows and directions change systematically. I tried just mirroring and it's not a left-right mirror, it's a front back mirror. Charles Butler [log in to unmask] 240-764-5748 Clear writing moves business forward. ________________________________ From: Oscar Koller <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Tuesday, October 2, 2012 11:17 AM Subject: Re: annotation in receptive rather than expressive view point Just another idea: what about simply mirroring the video to be transcribed? That could be easily done! And then, the transcription is easily done in expressive form. Oscar. Am 02.10.2012 14:56, schrieb Charles Butler: > Thanks Ingvild, > > I am steadily going through the DEIT LIBRAS dictionary and putting it on > line (with permission). It gives me a chance to read the description, > look at both the illustration and the signwriting and transcribe it > again. It's more than 8000 signs, so by the time we get it all in, it > should rival the ASL dictionary in scope. I'm hoping to get permission > to work with INES (the sign language school in Rio de Janeiro) to add > the signs they have which are not currently in DEIT Libras. > Charles Butler > [log in to unmask] > 240-764-5748 > Clear writing moves business forward. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Ingvild Roald <[log in to unmask]> > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 2, 2012 7:02 AM > *Subject:* Re: annotation in receptive rather than expressive view point > > Hi Charles, > > I was answering to the 'translate in your head' problem - which I see as > easier if it is done manually, not just cognitively. I do understand the > differnce between machine translation and manual/ personal translation, > and I do see your point. I hope that someday w will have an automatic > translation from video, but that will be at least as hard as > voice-recognition systems. For natural langugaes, that is most often a > huge task, because of the many personal and dialectical differences. - I > think that making an avatar signing from what is written in expressive, > to be viewed in receptive mode, is an easier and therefore more > available sort of program. To acheive this, the automatic transformation > between expressive and receptive writing would be a step. But this needs > time, and funding. In teh meantime, we have to struggle along doing this > tranformation by body and mind, and making the dictionary puddles as > well as the litterature puddles and others seadily bigger and better. > > Ingvild > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2012 03:36:31 -0700 > From: [log in to unmask] > Subject: Re: annotation in receptive rather than expressive view point > To: [log in to unmask] > > Ingvild, I understand, what I am talking about is machine translation, > and the machine has to be taught to read a video, as is, receptive, and > translate that into expressive. The point of machine translation is just > that, having a sufficiently large recognition program to translate a > third-party into expressive. Humans can internalize and write, a machine > has to be taught to do so. > > Sometimes watching a video I may get a hand wrong, or a twist in the > wrong direction, and if I write down what I see, I can then correct it > to the opposite. That's my bias, and my early history with SignWriting, > writing whatever I see, whether on my hands or someone else's. > Charles Butler > [log in to unmask] > 240-764-5748 > Clear writing moves business forward. > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Ingvild Roald <[log in to unmask]> > *To:* [log in to unmask] > *Sent:* Tuesday, October 2, 2012 6:09 AM > *Subject:* Re: annotation in receptive rather than expressive view point > > As I see it, the easier way to convert from receptive to expressive for > writing, is to view the video and copy the sign you see by doing it > yourself. Then you write what you do, the sign as you are making it from > viewing the video. That is, do the translation /transistion manually > rather than 'in your head'. > > All the best, > > Ingvild > > > Date: Mon, 1 Oct 2012 15:02:50 +0200 > > From: [log in to unmask] > > Subject: annotation in receptive rather than expressive view point > > To: [log in to unmask] > > > > Hi Charles, > > > > thanks for your answer. > > > > > Oscar, as you have an assistant annotating video tapes, trying to > > > translate in your head to an expressive point of view may be driving > > > you crazy. > > > > Yes, I have been thinking about that too. And it would be preferable to > > do annotation from the receptive view point. However, I need the > > transcriptions in an expressive view point in order to match all the > > other entries in SignPuddle (as I use them to initialise my system). The > > manual annotations are intended to serve as evaluation of the > > initialized system, thus they need to match. > > > > If there was an automatic (mathematical) way of converting receptive > > into expressive view points, then we could do the "easier" annotation. > > But I learnt from Steve Slevinski, that this has not been implemented > > and to me it doesn't seem trivial to implement it. > > > > Or does anybody think differently? > > > > Regards, Oscar. > > > > > > Am 28.09.2012 13:51, schrieb Charles Butler: > > > Oscar, as you have an assistant annotating video tapes, trying to > > > translate in your head to an expressive point of view may be > driving you > > > crazy. One project in Belo Horizonte is using receptive SignWriting > > > specifically when annotating video tapes so that you see parallel > > > movements, not mirror movements when you look at them side by side. You > > > write what you see on the videotape, not reverse it to your own hands. > > > > > > What this means is that the videotaped person's left hand is on your > > > right, and the videotaped person's right hand is on your left. You have > > > to remember that you are writing another person's hands, not your own, > > > so when you look in a dictionary like Delegs or any of the current > > > SignPuddles, you will not find what you see on a videotape, but its > > > expressive equivalent. > > > Charles Butler > > > [log in to unmask] > > > 240-764-5748 > > > Clear writing moves business forward. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *From:* Charles Butler <[log in to unmask]> > > > *To:* [log in to unmask] > > > *Sent:* Friday, September 28, 2012 7:29 AM > > > *Subject:* Re: help with signwriting > > > > > > Oscar, > > > > > > Reply, in the first sign, you are using a "both hands" arrow when the > > > hands are moving separately. If you are bringing the hands back toward > > > yourself, you need two arrows toward yourself, put them next to each > > > hand rather than in the middle. This is a common mistake as I'd be able > > > to read it, but the hands are not moving in a common path. This is a > > > common mistake, a single arrow is only used when both hands are > actually > > > together. > > > > > > In the second sign, your left hand is pointed downward, but you are > > > using a right hand arrow moving twice. Use a left hand arrow or a right > > > hand, not a mix. You could move your right hand in this fashion, but > > > your hand would be twisted outward rather awkwardly, unlikely that this > > > is what you mean. > > > Charles Butler > > > [log in to unmask] > > > 240-764-5748 > > > Clear writing moves business forward. > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > *From:* Oscar Koller <[log in to unmask]> > > > *To:* [log in to unmask] > > > *Sent:* Friday, September 28, 2012 6:06 AM > > > *Subject:* help with signwriting > > > > > > Hello everybody, > > > > > > I added following appended 4 entries to the German Sign Puddle. The > > > editors noted in each case that the writing is not correct. Could > > > anybody explain to me, what should be changed? > > > > > > Thanks > > > Oscar. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >