Jump to content

Welcome to the Litigation Professional's Forum!

Sign In or Create my Account to gain full access to our forums. By registering with us, you'll be able to discuss, share and private message with other members of our community.

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/08/2017 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    Hey David, You can do exactly what you describe which is essentially chaining HDMI switches connecting your sources to HDMI Switch #1 which would feed the "private" monitors (counsel/judge/witness) along with HDMI Switch #2 which would feed the "public" monitors (project/jury monitors/etc.). HDMI Switch #2 would have your input from HDMI Switch #1 and then a blank input so that you could send a blank signal to your public monitors. Obviously, you will need some splitters in line as well to feed the separate outputs and take care to ensure that your monitors will not automatically shut off if they don't have signal for a period of time. This setup isn't too bad if you are the only person presenting or the only person that needs control over the switching, but it gets really messy if you need to be able to allow more than one person to control the switch (IE: if there is a hot seat on the other side as well). The other option is to use a matrix switch which has multiple inputs and multiple outputs, but each input is assignable to each output and a single inputs can be assigned to multiple outputs. This combines the chaining of HDMI switches into one box as opposed to multiple devices. You'll still need splitters, but you will cut down on a number of devices in the chain.
  2. 1 point
    Gloria: A few thoughts: Use the DepoView application and create a clip. Then look at the folder where the clip files are created. I don't think there is a format function in the file to change how the captions are shown within the player the client is using. I'm pretty sure the player drives the look. You fail to describe what the client doesn't like about the text display. It's hard to propose a different solution when you don't know what the client doesn't like about current solution. YesLaw is the normal alternate solution to inData. It has a different look and feel to the process that some people like and other people don't like. The fees are different than for the inData product, because you have no upfront costs with YesLaw. They make their money on the backend. inData has an upfront fee. YesLaw has a very reasonable charge for them doing the actual syncing and QC, even with 24 hour turnaround. inData's fees are much higher for fast turnaround of synced and QC'd files. YesLaw has a much higher per disc generation fee, which can be overcome via distribution on a flash drive. YesLaw does a nicer job of creating video clips. inData's encoding engine does not treat the video as well. YesLaw's QC key shortcuts are much better than inData's -- I can tweak the starting points much faster with YesLaw.
  3. 1 point
    Hi Gloria, the playback of closed-captioning from an SMI is partially dependent upon the software playing it back. For example, using VLC you can actually choose the size of the typeface as well as the color along with some other options, so you have the ability to customize it. There are other solutions available like Synchron Voice & Video, YesLaw, etc., but the playback of the SMI as closed captioning will be relatively similar regardless of the synchronization package used.
×