IN
It's all very brash. The saturated orange light over the wood panels and the inset lighting strips is too much, imo. Considering there's reasonable ceiling height, I'm surprised they don't have some LED panels to reduce the hard shadows everywhere.
The presentation display is quite a distance from the lectern, so it'll be difficult to get a reasonably tight shot of the speaker and the screen together.
ITV News might have boosted the colour on these photos, so I'm not going to judge that aspect until it appears on screen. Not looking great so far, though.
The presentation display is quite a distance from the lectern, so it'll be difficult to get a reasonably tight shot of the speaker and the screen together.
ITV News might have boosted the colour on these photos, so I'm not going to judge that aspect until it appears on screen. Not looking great so far, though.
MO
It was interesting they chose to put the presentation screen way off to one side. It probably would have made sense to just do a double screen either side of the lectern. But as some have said it was needed, but that cost does seem quite excessive. Something seems off.
MA
That'll be from the 'Opex', not the 'Capex' budget, (which is what the 2.6m is)
Hopefully the costs include a BSL interpreter, as well as the jobs and designs that will be needed in displaying information in a "televisual" way on those screens
That'll be from the 'Opex', not the 'Capex' budget, (which is what the 2.6m is)
RK
Here’s something I posted on Twitter.
I see all the cameras are they controlled by government? Or will there be a pooler controlling the cameras each day? Or will there be the option for broadcasters to choose ISOs? I am asking this for the freedom of the press. The way the cameras are setup along the wall it doesn’t look like the average photog can setup their camera without blocking one of those PTZ cameras.
I am contrasting this with the White House. Yes it’s cramped. But in the back there are equipment racks for each broadcaster and I believe the middle one is reserved for the pool operator. Each other broadcaster has one or two (such as doing hits for NBC and MSNBC simultaneous or FNC or FBC) cameras either mounted on their equipment rack or ceiling. Then next to the lectern there are cameras next to the podium where the pooler takes an image of the person asking the question along with other networks either getting a wide shot with an ENG camera or PTZ cameras on the ceiling.
The only time I’ve seen the WH cameras covered was when there was some sort of threat and they didn’t want cameras (which I believe are always or remotely controlled) to see their surveillance techniques.
The point I am trying to make is that the cameras in the White House are broadcaster controlled where the ones in 9 Downing Street appear to be government controlled.
I see all the cameras are they controlled by government? Or will there be a pooler controlling the cameras each day? Or will there be the option for broadcasters to choose ISOs? I am asking this for the freedom of the press. The way the cameras are setup along the wall it doesn’t look like the average photog can setup their camera without blocking one of those PTZ cameras.
I am contrasting this with the White House. Yes it’s cramped. But in the back there are equipment racks for each broadcaster and I believe the middle one is reserved for the pool operator. Each other broadcaster has one or two (such as doing hits for NBC and MSNBC simultaneous or FNC or FBC) cameras either mounted on their equipment rack or ceiling. Then next to the lectern there are cameras next to the podium where the pooler takes an image of the person asking the question along with other networks either getting a wide shot with an ENG camera or PTZ cameras on the ceiling.
The only time I’ve seen the WH cameras covered was when there was some sort of threat and they didn’t want cameras (which I believe are always or remotely controlled) to see their surveillance techniques.
The point I am trying to make is that the cameras in the White House are broadcaster controlled where the ones in 9 Downing Street appear to be government controlled.
HC
The point I am trying to make is that the cameras in the White House are broadcaster controlled where the ones in 9 Downing Street appear to be government controlled.
Govenment controlled or Civil Service controlled? If there is any control over the cameras out of 9 Downing Street then it's not the Conservative party running it.
You'd think these press conferences/briefings will be run like HM Queen's 10 minute festive ramble to the Commonwealth every December 25th. BBC run it for the first one, the second one it's Sky's turn, then ITN, then back to the BBC.
But with this administrations determined effort to constantly to spin the narrative away from probing questions, who knows?
The point I am trying to make is that the cameras in the White House are broadcaster controlled where the ones in 9 Downing Street appear to be government controlled.
Govenment controlled or Civil Service controlled? If there is any control over the cameras out of 9 Downing Street then it's not the Conservative party running it.
You'd think these press conferences/briefings will be run like HM Queen's 10 minute festive ramble to the Commonwealth every December 25th. BBC run it for the first one, the second one it's Sky's turn, then ITN, then back to the BBC.
But with this administrations determined effort to constantly to spin the narrative away from probing questions, who knows?
MA
Perhaps the best and easiest solution is a nominated crew from one of the UK broadcasters, mans the gallery?
However, who pays for that, if it's the government then that's tricky again, if it's the broadcasters, why should they spend cash on something, some days, none of them will possibly show?
Here’s something I posted on Twitter.
I see all the cameras are they controlled by government? Or will there be a pooler controlling the cameras each day? Or will there be the option for broadcasters to choose ISOs? I am asking this for the freedom of the press. The way the cameras are setup along the wall it doesn’t look like the average photog can setup their camera without blocking one of those PTZ cameras.
I am contrasting this with the White House. Yes it’s cramped. But in the back there are equipment racks for each broadcaster and I believe the middle one is reserved for the pool operator. Each other broadcaster has one or two (such as doing hits for NBC and MSNBC simultaneous or FNC or FBC) cameras either mounted on their equipment rack or ceiling. Then next to the lectern there are cameras next to the podium where the pooler takes an image of the person asking the question along with other networks either getting a wide shot with an ENG camera or PTZ cameras on the ceiling.
The only time I’ve seen the WH cameras covered was when there was some sort of threat and they didn’t want cameras (which I believe are always or remotely controlled) to see their surveillance techniques.
The point I am trying to make is that the cameras in the White House are broadcaster controlled where the ones in 9 Downing Street appear to be government controlled.
I see all the cameras are they controlled by government? Or will there be a pooler controlling the cameras each day? Or will there be the option for broadcasters to choose ISOs? I am asking this for the freedom of the press. The way the cameras are setup along the wall it doesn’t look like the average photog can setup their camera without blocking one of those PTZ cameras.
I am contrasting this with the White House. Yes it’s cramped. But in the back there are equipment racks for each broadcaster and I believe the middle one is reserved for the pool operator. Each other broadcaster has one or two (such as doing hits for NBC and MSNBC simultaneous or FNC or FBC) cameras either mounted on their equipment rack or ceiling. Then next to the lectern there are cameras next to the podium where the pooler takes an image of the person asking the question along with other networks either getting a wide shot with an ENG camera or PTZ cameras on the ceiling.
The only time I’ve seen the WH cameras covered was when there was some sort of threat and they didn’t want cameras (which I believe are always or remotely controlled) to see their surveillance techniques.
The point I am trying to make is that the cameras in the White House are broadcaster controlled where the ones in 9 Downing Street appear to be government controlled.
Perhaps the best and easiest solution is a nominated crew from one of the UK broadcasters, mans the gallery?
However, who pays for that, if it's the government then that's tricky again, if it's the broadcasters, why should they spend cash on something, some days, none of them will possibly show?
VA
Unless someone here has insider knowledge then we can only hypothesise about how it is going to work. And we don't know yet whether those PTZ cameras at the rear are just a temporary COVID measure or the permanent setup.
The point I am trying to make is that the cameras in the White House are broadcaster controlled where the ones in 9 Downing Street appear to be government controlled.
Unless someone here has insider knowledge then we can only hypothesise about how it is going to work. And we don't know yet whether those PTZ cameras at the rear are just a temporary COVID measure or the permanent setup.
DO
Is having them government controlled really an issue? The cameras in parliament are controlled by parliament, and other than being a bit conservative (small c) in their output, there's rarely any complaints or issues with the coverage. They're using the room for in-person press conferences, so it's not like they'll be able to hide what's happening in the room from the press if someone asks an awkward question.
RK
I asked something similar to some journalists here about having a if there’s a permanent pooled camera and a beauty shot provided by the White House among other things, and their answer was no. It had to do with church and state and they wouldn’t want one. I’ve seen some issues where they don’t like that the WH provides a preproduced webstream for there Covid updates and that it’s not fed on the White House fiber ring.
Is having them government controlled really an issue? The cameras in parliament are controlled by parliament, and other than being a bit conservative (small c) in their output, there's rarely any complaints or issues with the coverage. They're using the room for in-person press conferences, so it's not like they'll be able to hide what's happening in the room from the press if someone asks an awkward question.
I asked something similar to some journalists here about having a if there’s a permanent pooled camera and a beauty shot provided by the White House among other things, and their answer was no. It had to do with church and state and they wouldn’t want one. I’ve seen some issues where they don’t like that the WH provides a preproduced webstream for there Covid updates and that it’s not fed on the White House fiber ring.