Audio description (AD) provides linguistic descriptions of movies and allows visually impaired people to follow a movie along with their peers. Such descriptions are by design mainly visual and thus naturally form an interesting data source for computer vision and computational linguistics. In this work we propose a novel dataset which contains transcribed ADs, which are temporally aligned to full length movies. In addition we also collected and aligned movie scripts used in prior work and compare the two sources of descriptions. We introduce the Large Scale Movie Description Challenge (LSMDC) which contains a parallel corpus of 128,118 sentences aligned to video clips from 200 movies (around 150 h of video in total). The goal of the challenge is to automatically generate descriptions for the movie clips. First we characterize the dataset by benchmarking different approaches for generating video descriptions. Comparing ADs to scripts, we find that ADs are more visual and describe precisely what is shown rather than what should happen according to the scripts created prior to movie production. Furthermore, we present and compare the results of several teams who participated in the challenges organized in the context of two workshops at ICCV 2015 and ECCV 2016.

Recent progress in using recurrent neural networks (RNNs) for image description has motivated the exploration of their application for video description. However, while images are static, working with videos requires modeling their dynamic temporal structure and then properly integrating that information into a natural language description model. In this context, we propose an approach that successfully takes into account both the local and global temporal structure of videos to produce descriptions. First, our approach incorporates a spatial temporal 3-D convolutional neural network (3-D CNN) representation of the short temporal dynamics. The 3-D CNN representation is trained on video action recognition tasks, so as to produce a representation that is tuned to human motion and behavior. Second we propose a temporal attention mechanism that allows to go beyond local temporal modeling and learns to automatically select the most relevant temporal segments given the text-generating RNN. Our approach exceeds the current state-of-art for both BLEU and METEOR metrics on the Youtube2Text dataset. We also present results on a new, larger and more challenging dataset of paired video and natural language descriptions.

In this paper we present the techniques used for the University of Montréal's team submissions to the 2013 Emotion Recognition in the Wild Challenge. The challenge is to classify the emotions expressed by the primary human subject in short video clips extracted from feature length movies. This involves the analysis of video clips of acted scenes lasting approximately one-two seconds, including the audio track which may contain human voices as well as background music. Our approach combines multiple deep neural networks for different data modalities, including: (1) a deep convolutional neural network for the analysis of facial expressions within video frames; (2) a deep belief net to capture audio information; (3) a deep autoencoder to model the spatio-temporal information produced by the human actions depicted within the entire scene; and (4) a shallow network architecture focused on extracted features of the mouth of the primary human subject in the scene. We discuss each of these techniques, their performance characteristics and different strategies to aggregate their predictions. Our best single model was a convolutional neural network trained to predict emotions from static frames using two large data sets, the Toronto Face Database and our own set of faces images harvested from Google image search, followed by a per frame aggregation strategy that used the challenge training data. This yielded a test set accuracy of 35.58%. Using our best strategy for aggregating our top performing models into a single predictor we were able to produce an accuracy of 41.03% on the challenge test set. These compare favorably to the challenge baseline test set accuracy of 27.56%.