When going from the old studio to Sky Sports News studio the difference is really apparent.
Honestly from the old studio I can switch from Sky News HD to normal Sky News and there is VERY little difference if you ignore the graphics (which are overlaid anyway)
Stating that it is to do with cameras is missing the point.
Sky News at the old studio doesn't look so bad because of the fact that we are used to seeing better cameras in the new studio, to suggest that may be what someone would want viewers to think, but it simply isn't the case.
I have on my Sky Box a press preview from 12 months ago and one from this week. The first one is crisp, solid colours with details and very sharp and no picture noise or grainy appearance on the blue background. The one recorded this week is blurry, lots of picture noise, not very sharp and colours are very grainy.
The difference in quality is visible between 12 months ago and this month in the same studio using the same camera positions, bringing the glass box and what cameras into this debate is a complete red herring by people who don't want to answer why the quality in the old studio has fallen so much in the last 12 months.
I think I mentioned about the picture quality of the main studio deteriorating a few months ago when they launched the glass box..
There's lots of noise as well on any blue backgrounds and very grainy and washed out, it's certainly not HD anymore and looks even poor for standard definition.
Is there a fault, or is this a case of dumbing down the output standard to make the glass box look better, or simply another cost cutting measure?
Th picture on some of the cameras in the Osterley studio is terrible, have they replaced all the HD cameras with SD cameras? They are so fuzzy and poor quality in the studio.
Outside broadcasts are fine as are graphics, it's just the cameras are so fuzzy and blurred it's horrible.
I said it was perfectly fine to talk about the error. It is, however, nothing short of idiotic to suggest it will have have wider implications.
As for your suggestion that it was a deliberate decision and my explanation is "PR", company policy prohibits me from sharing internal scripts and running orders, so you'll just have to take my word for it. In the meantime, I suggest you get a less-active imagination and/or a healthier hobby.
If you want to call me an idiot or make insults really that is your choice, but quite frankly I'm not going to get involved in schoolyard arguments because I'm more mature than that. Happy to discuss your point of view but no need to make it personal.
By the way, I never said that it was the case I was just suggesting that these things happen all of the time in every industry, it's the cornerstone of good PR and I'd be disappointed if my PR firm didn't tell me to go to damage limitation mode!
Really? I doubt Sky will pull Sky News off the air if Fox take over. There's media plurality issues that Fox have to consider - and Sky's heart is clearly into the channel, compared to say, ITV plc's overzealous multichannel expansion which eventually killed their NC and the cuts facing the BBC News Channel.
I don't mean death in a literal sense that the channel will not exist.
I just believe that it will simply accelerate it's decline to a point where the channel will be a shadow of it's former self. If I think back to where Sky News was 12 months ago, it was certainly better then, 6 months ago maybe not as good as it was a year ago but still better than it is now.
I just don't trust Fox or Murdoch ownership in full to run the channel to the same values that Sky has in the past, of course there are rules on neutrality but at the same time it doesn't mean that owners can't influence the agenda or the running order for instance which can seem to give a different political slant on things for example.
Yes, the close of the show did not go as it should have, but I can assure you the plan wasn't explicitly to cut the PM off JUST so the jib shot could be taken. Sophy had finished her interview (which needed to be allowed to over-run), the top of the hour had already been passed, and it was down to a technical error, rather than a deliberate presentational decision.
Even if it was a presentation decision I doubt anyone from Sky is going to admit it. Through my 25 year working life history has told me when something goes wrong the reasons for it given will always be what is least damaging. That's basic PR. I'm not saying that this happened here, what you say I have no reason to doubt is right, but companies will always choose the least damaging explanation when something goes wrong.
Quote:
Take your blinkers off and realise that while it's true that it went awry pres-wise in the final few seconds, that's not what anyone else other than in spaces like this will be talking about.
Apologies, what was the title of this thread? Are you saying we should be posting off-topic rather than on-topic? I didn't realise you were the moderator. It's pretty strange you come on this forum, then start to moan at people for actually talking about things that the forum is for.
By the way, for the record I never said that alone SROS and what happened today or the purchase by 21st Century Fox will bring down the channel, so please stop putting words into my mouth because it is not very nice and is taking my quotes totally out of context in the way that the Daily Mail would for instance.
My issue with Sky is the extremely poor Sunrise team of SJM and JS who lack any kind of chemistry, the poor sound and new studio, the departure of key presenters, the over-promotion of people into roles they are not ready for, the general state of presentation to the point where everyday presentation has been cut back but vanity shots have been increased and the general cost cutting nature of the channel over the past 12-18 months.
They are only one more departure away from real trouble. If any one of Anna Botting, Dermot Murnaghan or Kay Burley (extremely unlikely) left unless they get someone like Mark Austin, then the channel will be in real trouble based on the fact that way too many people have gone, I watch less and less Sky News these days and more and more BBC, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
Last edited by IrelandIsle on 8 January 2017 2:18pm
They then sat at an external shot of the cube for a while so there was plenty time to let her speak...
Vanity shot of the "Look at our new office building isn't it impressive?" type. Jus
All the more ironic considering in this forum over the past two years people have been shot down for moaning that the presentation style of Sky has become less flashy and more basic and were always told that the quality of the journalism should always come above some nice graphics and flashy elements and show-off camera pans and no blue and red elements are not needed.
We now have on a weekly basis more and more background lighting being put in and on Friday and today another blue and red panel like on the left has also been installed on the right, but according to some people on here that would never happen because of the fact it was already fine as it was and would constitute presentation tweaks for presentations tweaks sake and the new more basic way is better.
Now in one of the most important interviews of the year for Sky, they have decided that it's perfectly acceptable to cut off a presenter in said interview, because being flashy and showing off does indeed appear to be more important than actually letting the news do the talking and finishing an interview and the first show in a proper and dignified way.
This constant trophy showing off of the glass box is getting pretty pathetic especially when now it is being deemed more important than the actual content of the channel, for all the moaning on this forum about "over the top presentation." in the past, they never ever decided to cut someone off just to do a nice animation or a nice shot.
And if Fox end up taking over Sky, it really will be curtains to a channel that is dying a slow death.
She just didn't have the presence for me. The way the show started very robotic and felt that way and wooden through the whole lot of it. The interview wasn't bad but for sky news standards it was very average. Certainly missed Dermot and I have said this before and will say this again.
Sophy is an excellent political reporter and hack who is great at that role add could go right to the very top of that field. But she is being promoted at a ridiculously fast speed through the ranks. The ways it's going it's like she will be the number one anchor within a couple of years.
I get bored listening to her. Forced delivery. Monotone style no energy. But she's clearly liked at sky by important people and clearly delivery and presence is not everything else she would not have her own show and Gamal would not be appearing on mostly nights only.
Last edited by IrelandIsle on 8 January 2017 12:24pm
So basically a vain "Isn't our office great Prime Minister" moment.
Sky appear to think it's a trophy to show off to everyone rather than a studio, although to be fair in the article someone linked to a few pages back they pretty much said it was designed to be like that, but thankfully in recent weeks they have started to make an effect to rectify that.
Notice they have gone to full size keyboards now on the desk and the screen setup appears similar to that of the old studio rather than the way it was on Glass Box Day 1.