BSkyB have HD Channels (Sky 1 HD, Sky movies HD 1, etc), but Sky News is not HD.
Several half hour films have been made in HD for News and have been viewed to full advantage on the Anytime service and the inauguration of Obama was the first live broadcast in HD for Sky News.
In addition, much new material is filmed in HD, but to date that is all.
BSkyB have HD Channels (Sky 1 HD, Sky movies HD 1, etc), but Sky News is not HD.
Several half hour films have been made in HD for News and have been viewed to full advantage on the Anytime service and the inauguration of Obama was the first live broadcast in HD for Sky News.
In addition, much new material is filmed in HD, but to date that is all.
There are no plans for a new logo
There are no plans for a relaunch
There are no plans for a new set
There are no plans for new music
The rumors are just that. The next time there will be any major changes, will be if and when Sky News goes HD (NB. that's just to feed the next set of rumors )
There are no plans for a new logo
There are no plans for a relaunch
There are no plans for a new set
There are no plans for new music
The rumors are just that. The next time there will be any major changes, will be if and when Sky News goes HD (NB. that's just to feed the next set of rumors )
Unfortunately, Mr. Mustard, forums promote free speech - you know, the idea that anybody can comment on a subject without being scrutinised?
Personally, I do not find any problem with the comments you are whining about - why not just glance over to a different thread, or another post?
interesting that you would take my comment as some form of censure of freedom of speech, far from it. At the very foundation of free speech is the fact that it should be scrutinized, rather than just accepted. If we didn't scrutinize and just blindly accepted much of what is spouted with this defence, then the world would have a very different complexion today. I would respectfully suggest your negation of my reply as such is the true barrier to freedom.
However, you miss my point, in that I deny no one their opinion, ("...and it's right to debate the merits of each") this is key to any creative area. What I find fruitless, is the idea that we should look to the past instead of the future. Too many times this is dressed up as salvation when in essence all it does is generate a lack of progression, new ideas and growth in general. Someones opinion that a previous piece of work is better, is valid, but to suggest a return to previous perceived strengths is pointless.
“People demand freedom of speech as a compensation for the freedom of thought which they seldom use.” Kierkegaard[I]
Been looking back at the 2006 relaunch again. I do miss those graphics, makes the current set of on screen graphics look appalling. Its a shame they cant just 'tweak' the 2005 ones and bring them up to date.
I also rather miss that TOTH, although it did date rather easily atleast it was more exciting than the current crap.
Sorry, but what exactly is the point of statements like these? Oooh it's not like it was I was a lad eh? Jumpers for goalposts? Why do so many people live in the past? Everyone has an opinion on whether a previous brand is better than a current one, in all areas of presentation, and it's right to debate the merits of each, but to suggest we should revisit old styles entirely misses the point. How would anyone move forward if theyy just kept reinventing the same old. It's essential to try new or different approaches, even when they fail.
every time they relaunch their graphics, hardly anything is left alone, adding to the confusion.
Isn't that kind of the point of a relaunch?
The brand colours are the same, the glassy look is brought in line with the rest of the Sky brand.
I agree that the architecture is now spread around the screen, but, for me at least, this has the effect of negating the barrier that traditional lower thirds create. There has been a move in recent years on news channels to a 'on size fits all' solution. Well, I'm sorry but it doesn't; not for me. This is disparate information which requires its' own emphasis.
Percentage-wise with this treatment, you actually see more vt, more of the time than you do on N24 (as was).
As an addition, sport is, in my opinion, fantastic. Far more dynamic than any other news output.
Not really - if nearly everything is changed every time the brand is somewhat lost. If the rebrands were further apart, fine. People should be able to get used to graphics - but not so that it becomes stale.
Fair enough, you may get to see more of the VT - but if things are slapped all over the screen, you tend to focus on the middle - not on the edges where you may be able to spot an extra tree, or a picture frame.
Fair points B.A. I agree in particular, that all NewsChannels relaunch too often, dilluting the brand.
I think it comes down to ensuring you retain the strong elements of brand, and these transcend graphics. Editorial presentation, focus and style; audio (ITN and the Bongs - the strongest brand recognition on UK News); set and graphics all have a significant part to play.
In terms of the graphics you should always retain the strongest brand elements and this is where the confusion lies in REBRAND vs REFRESH. I don't beieve that either the BBC or Sky have REBRANDED on this occasion, as both have retained core elements of all the key components. Sky retained Red White and Blue in terms of graphical presentation, their font; and developed or evolved from other key areas (use of 3D, glass, gloss, depth), but they did change the way in which these elements were used (animation, layout, emphasis)
The BBC retained the globe albeit in a different form (a return to an older style) and their core brand colours, although these were developed.
I see your point of the scatter effect of graphics across the screen...each to their own
every time they relaunch their graphics, hardly anything is left alone, adding to the confusion.
Isn't that kind of the point of a relaunch?
The brand colours are the same, the glassy look is brought in line with the rest of the Sky brand.
I agree that the architecture is now spread around the screen, but, for me at least, this has the effect of negating the barrier that traditional lower thirds create. There has been a move in recent years on news channels to a 'on size fits all' solution. Well, I'm sorry but it doesn't; not for me. This is disparate information which requires its' own emphasis.
Percentage-wise with this treatment, you actually see more vt, more of the time than you do on N24 (as was).
As an addition, sport is, in my opinion, fantastic. Far more dynamic than any other news output.
)
