I’d be very surprised if this actually worked very well. I’ve used a supposedly great VR product, Dragon Naturally Speaking, to transcribe interviews, and it would only work if I revoiced each line into a mic, because it needed to “learn” a particular voice. That said, Naturally Speaking (ver. 9) did pretty well, but not perfectly, especially for unexpected words. Amazingly, context and grammar seemed to give the software cues which improved the accuracy. Fun to watch it change its mind about the third word in a sentence when it heard the last phrase.
As for percentage of accuracy, it’s not only a matter of percentage. Usability also depends on two more subtle factors: what KIND of errors, and HOW you’re using the transcripts.
What kind of errors:
Human errors are more tolerable to other humans (like myself and probably you) than software-generated errors. It’s an odd thing, but it’s true. Even “professional” transcripts are rarely more than about 98% accurate, but that 2% doesn’t slow me down, because a human made the mistake, it’s understandable, and you can easily “get it.” On the other hand, software errors are so far out in left field that they can really make a transcript hard to read.
How you’re using the transcripts:
If you’re using it to read an immense quantity of material, less than 95-98% accuracy is going to be very tedious (especially because of the TYPE of errors – see above). But if you only use it to find the occasional word with a computerized search, it will be useful at much lower percentages of accuracy.
Would someone enlighten me as to how this VR feature compares with Avid’s similar efforts at text-based editing?
Bob C