NG
noggin
Founding member
NG
Poland would have done worse, and the UK would have been a couple of places higher.
Haven't done the maths myself so this may be rubbish - but the total separation of jury and phone/app/text votes is possibly a bit more similar (though still not identical as it is more granular) to the original system we had when juries were first reintroduced and the two votes were 1-8/10/12 ranked only then added together to generate a further 1-8/10/12.
noggin
Founding member
Eurovision 2016
Apparently - if the maths of last year (where countries ranked jury votes and phone votes separately then added them together and then delivered the 1-8/10/12 based on the combined rankings) were used then Australia would have won, Ukraine would have come second, Russia third.Poland would have done worse, and the UK would have been a couple of places higher.
Haven't done the maths myself so this may be rubbish - but the total separation of jury and phone/app/text votes is possibly a bit more similar (though still not identical as it is more granular) to the original system we had when juries were first reintroduced and the two votes were 1-8/10/12 ranked only then added together to generate a further 1-8/10/12.
NG
A rights issue according to an American friend.
The only thing I can think of would be another network having exclusivity on a debut performance. Find it a bit strange though.
Could be that the ESC only had rights for EBU members - suspect Logo are not EBU members and bought the show separately ?
Suspect the Justin Timberlake performance was not covered under a sub-licence.
AIUI the SF1 interval act 'The Grey People' (not shown in the UK as BBC Four had opted out) was used to replace Justin Timberlake for US viewers (and was played out from Sweden to the US as a replacement - rather than Logo replacing it)
noggin
Founding member
Eurovision 2016
Apparently Logo couldn't broadcast JT, and showed the SF1 interval The Grey People.
A rights issue according to an American friend.
The only thing I can think of would be another network having exclusivity on a debut performance. Find it a bit strange though.
Could be that the ESC only had rights for EBU members - suspect Logo are not EBU members and bought the show separately ?
Suspect the Justin Timberlake performance was not covered under a sub-licence.
AIUI the SF1 interval act 'The Grey People' (not shown in the UK as BBC Four had opted out) was used to replace Justin Timberlake for US viewers (and was played out from Sweden to the US as a replacement - rather than Logo replacing it)
NG
Dunno; were they ? I can't remember, was that the year the Beeb managed to play out the first hour or so in just 1.0 audio on BBC HD ?
Yep - major metadata issue between TV Centre studio and playout area - and because it was BBC HD which was not really run as a separate channel in operational terms, the sound monitoring wasn't full 5.1 WITH metadata (all the 5.1 audio channels were leaving the suite - it's just that the Dolby encoder was flagged to be Centre channel - which that year - as many since - only contained clean vocals and no backing track - so it was 'reverse karaoke') Even when BBC HD were made aware (they couldn't hear the problem in the playout area...) they couldn't - at that point - drop back to the stereo mix from TV Centre, that was also taken by BBC One SD, so they took BBC One SD up-converted ISTR.
noggin
Founding member
Eurovision 2016
How come the graphics were so awful in 2008 then?
Dunno; were they ? I can't remember, was that the year the Beeb managed to play out the first hour or so in just 1.0 audio on BBC HD ?
Yep - major metadata issue between TV Centre studio and playout area - and because it was BBC HD which was not really run as a separate channel in operational terms, the sound monitoring wasn't full 5.1 WITH metadata (all the 5.1 audio channels were leaving the suite - it's just that the Dolby encoder was flagged to be Centre channel - which that year - as many since - only contained clean vocals and no backing track - so it was 'reverse karaoke') Even when BBC HD were made aware (they couldn't hear the problem in the playout area...) they couldn't - at that point - drop back to the stereo mix from TV Centre, that was also taken by BBC One SD, so they took BBC One SD up-converted ISTR.
NG
They probably let the RTS team handle some of the design - I think they did the postcards. The Swede's will have run the show technically and in direction terms - but in terms of production they will have had to have included input from the host broadcaster.
The postcards were SD ISTR...
noggin
Founding member
Eurovision 2016
How come the graphics were so awful in 2008 then?
They probably let the RTS team handle some of the design - I think they did the postcards. The Swede's will have run the show technically and in direction terms - but in terms of production they will have had to have included input from the host broadcaster.
The postcards were SD ISTR...
NG
I still don't think NTU are going to be able to pull this off. I know they've hosted before, but the likes of NRK and SVT have really raised the bar since then and set a new standard. I won't be particularly bothered about BBC opt outs next year as I imagine NTU's filler will be about as funny as a wet fart.
If you mean 2005 - NTU did almost nothing in on-screen terms. SVT effectively did it. The production team were Swedish in a Swedish OB truck and a Swedish Radio sound truck...
NTU were probably responsible for the presenters and some of the scripting.
noggin
Founding member
Eurovision 2016
I still don't think NTU are going to be able to pull this off. I know they've hosted before, but the likes of NRK and SVT have really raised the bar since then and set a new standard. I won't be particularly bothered about BBC opt outs next year as I imagine NTU's filler will be about as funny as a wet fart.
If you mean 2005 - NTU did almost nothing in on-screen terms. SVT effectively did it. The production team were Swedish in a Swedish OB truck and a Swedish Radio sound truck...
NTU were probably responsible for the presenters and some of the scripting.
Last edited by noggin on 15 May 2016 4:25pm
NG
Is that confirmed? My understanding was that whilst it is now expected for the broadcaster who sent the winning song to host (and you commit to being able to do so when you enter), there is still the possibility that the EBU could take a pragmatic decision with the host broadcaster to host elsewhere. (Particularly for security / safety reasons)
Both the UK and The Netherlands hosted for this reason in the earlier decades of the contest. (Israel won two years in a row, and NOS agreed to host the contest the second time rather than the Israeli broadcasters. The BBC did it a couple of times too)
My personal feeling is that every possible way of making the show happen in Ukraine will be explored. I wouldn't expect Russia to attend, but it would be a massive statement if they were to. (Particularly as they won the European televote - if we were back in the non-jury era Russia would have won the contest)
noggin
Founding member
Eurovision 2016
No the BBC cannot host it during these current circumstances unless it's with SBS Australia.
Is that confirmed? My understanding was that whilst it is now expected for the broadcaster who sent the winning song to host (and you commit to being able to do so when you enter), there is still the possibility that the EBU could take a pragmatic decision with the host broadcaster to host elsewhere. (Particularly for security / safety reasons)
Both the UK and The Netherlands hosted for this reason in the earlier decades of the contest. (Israel won two years in a row, and NOS agreed to host the contest the second time rather than the Israeli broadcasters. The BBC did it a couple of times too)
My personal feeling is that every possible way of making the show happen in Ukraine will be explored. I wouldn't expect Russia to attend, but it would be a massive statement if they were to. (Particularly as they won the European televote - if we were back in the non-jury era Russia would have won the contest)
NG
- No French (let alone Swedish) spoken at all this year, unless I missed something. Even the French jury spokesperson seemed to have been forced to deliver her actual line "12 points to ..." In English. Do we assume that's it then, all future contests will be in English only?
No - Måns and Petra both spoke French, as usually, during the explanation of the voting - but Graham apologises for talking over them to explain the UK differences (no SMS voting) and the BBC dip their level very significantly to make Graham as easy to hear as possible. I think that was the only real French dialogue. (There was next to no Swedish either).
There was no vote repetition in the 'other' language though.
They also changed the way the voting spokespeople were co-ordinated this year, with more simultaneous circuits used (as the voting was much faster), and not all voting contributions were via satellite, as it was clear that some IP circuits were in use (Probably using Eurovision Flex - which is a badged-version of WMT)
- creeping commercialisation of the contest was more evident this year than ever, especially with the Timberlake interval act. It was as if the US has finally noticed a way to sell a new single to the whole of Europe in one go via, as he called it, Euro-Vision.
To a degree - though I think some canny US music execs have realised that the Eurovision Song Contest interval act is kind of the European equivalent of the Super Bowl half-time act. A great way of hitting the most eyeballs in Europe with an artist. (Apparently his performance wasn't carried in the US by the network that picked it up - as their were US rights issues - instead they got the interval act from Semi Final 1)
- the silence (or at least total lack of atmosphere) in the auditorium during the final stage of the voting. It seemed to me that even the audience hadn't got a clue what was going on.
Yes - though remember last year most of the 'atmosphere' was pre-recorded, unlike this year. (ORF plastered on pre-recorded applause during songs and during the voting...)
noggin
Founding member
Eurovision 2016
- No French (let alone Swedish) spoken at all this year, unless I missed something. Even the French jury spokesperson seemed to have been forced to deliver her actual line "12 points to ..." In English. Do we assume that's it then, all future contests will be in English only?
No - Måns and Petra both spoke French, as usually, during the explanation of the voting - but Graham apologises for talking over them to explain the UK differences (no SMS voting) and the BBC dip their level very significantly to make Graham as easy to hear as possible. I think that was the only real French dialogue. (There was next to no Swedish either).
There was no vote repetition in the 'other' language though.
They also changed the way the voting spokespeople were co-ordinated this year, with more simultaneous circuits used (as the voting was much faster), and not all voting contributions were via satellite, as it was clear that some IP circuits were in use (Probably using Eurovision Flex - which is a badged-version of WMT)
Quote:
- creeping commercialisation of the contest was more evident this year than ever, especially with the Timberlake interval act. It was as if the US has finally noticed a way to sell a new single to the whole of Europe in one go via, as he called it, Euro-Vision.
To a degree - though I think some canny US music execs have realised that the Eurovision Song Contest interval act is kind of the European equivalent of the Super Bowl half-time act. A great way of hitting the most eyeballs in Europe with an artist. (Apparently his performance wasn't carried in the US by the network that picked it up - as their were US rights issues - instead they got the interval act from Semi Final 1)
Quote:
- the silence (or at least total lack of atmosphere) in the auditorium during the final stage of the voting. It seemed to me that even the audience hadn't got a clue what was going on.
Yes - though remember last year most of the 'atmosphere' was pre-recorded, unlike this year. (ORF plastered on pre-recorded applause during songs and during the voting...)
Last edited by noggin on 15 May 2016 10:43am
NG
Don't forget SVT effectively produced the 2005 contest in Kiev... (They also did the same in Latvia and Riga earlier that decade)
noggin
Founding member
Eurovision 2017
As discussed in the unofficial thread, I can't see Ukraine being in any position to put this show on, and certainly not to the standard we've come to expect this decade.
Don't forget SVT effectively produced the 2005 contest in Kiev... (They also did the same in Latvia and Riga earlier that decade)
NG
Sven Stojanovic who was the live director in Kiev in 2005 (and directed a couple of other contests in the 00s) was the Show Producer of the Eurovision this year
noggin
Founding member
Eurovision 2017
When Kiev hosted in 2005 it was effectively produced (certainly directed and technically covered) by SVT (and SR)... Be interesting to see how many of the team involved in this year's contest are involved...Sven Stojanovic who was the live director in Kiev in 2005 (and directed a couple of other contests in the 00s) was the Show Producer of the Eurovision this year
NG
Think the whole thing is battery powered - camera is also running off batteries AIUI. Not sure whether the video gets back RF or over fibre (which presumably is handled like one of the support wires and is also used foer control) There certainly isn't any SMPTE fibre carrying power involved...
Judging by the pictures it is using a Sony P1 or very similar as the camera - which produces pictures identical to other Sony lightweight and full-size studio cameras (same sensor and processing, just no SMPTE or Triax back-end stuff or prompt/talkback)
The 3D Spiders that have been used in previous years have a compromised payload weight I think - so the cameras are usually smaller and lower quality (they often show 'small lens' artefacts and have had 'white lined' on highlights in the past)
The PDF specifications that signals head back via "glass fiber" and the standard heads include the Sony P1, PMW-F55 and two Panasonic models.
http://www.spidercam.tv/daten/uploads/Features_and_Specifications_Bowcam_en_V1.5.pdf
P1 almost certainly - so it matches the full-size cameras being used elsewhere.
noggin
Founding member
Eurovision 2016
[edit - Noggin has just answered much of this…]
Re: Spidercam - trying to understand from that video how they've arranged it… by the looks of it they can fly it right up into the ceiling and out of shot? Also, is the dolly is designed to run on battery power (the specs say up to 8 hours) or is that just a backup and it normally uses the same source as the camera?
What impresses me is how quiet it is (45db) considering the considerable weight (30kg) – although I suppose the point is it's distributed between the winches and having four of them is what makes it safe? Still, they claim it can withstand 10 times the normal stress?
Would be interesting to see how much it shakes with the gyroscope off…
Re: Spidercam - trying to understand from that video how they've arranged it… by the looks of it they can fly it right up into the ceiling and out of shot? Also, is the dolly is designed to run on battery power (the specs say up to 8 hours) or is that just a backup and it normally uses the same source as the camera?
What impresses me is how quiet it is (45db) considering the considerable weight (30kg) – although I suppose the point is it's distributed between the winches and having four of them is what makes it safe? Still, they claim it can withstand 10 times the normal stress?
Would be interesting to see how much it shakes with the gyroscope off…
Think the whole thing is battery powered - camera is also running off batteries AIUI. Not sure whether the video gets back RF or over fibre (which presumably is handled like one of the support wires and is also used foer control) There certainly isn't any SMPTE fibre carrying power involved...
Judging by the pictures it is using a Sony P1 or very similar as the camera - which produces pictures identical to other Sony lightweight and full-size studio cameras (same sensor and processing, just no SMPTE or Triax back-end stuff or prompt/talkback)
The 3D Spiders that have been used in previous years have a compromised payload weight I think - so the cameras are usually smaller and lower quality (they often show 'small lens' artefacts and have had 'white lined' on highlights in the past)
The PDF specifications that signals head back via "glass fiber" and the standard heads include the Sony P1, PMW-F55 and two Panasonic models.
http://www.spidercam.tv/daten/uploads/Features_and_Specifications_Bowcam_en_V1.5.pdf
P1 almost certainly - so it matches the full-size cameras being used elsewhere.
NG
Ah - I'll presume that's why Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares USA (a Fox programme) goes out in 16:9 on Channel 4 here in the UK but not HD.
Could be a budget thing - Fox has been 720p for a LONG time in the US. They were only 480i (with 480p tx) for the first few years of digital TV in the US (1998 launch like the UK)
I think Fox continued with 16:9 SD production after they moved to 16:9 720p HD broadcast - as 16:9 SD was a lot cheaper for a while (until tapeless HD really kicked in) So that could be a reason, or it could be the UK compliance editing is done SD not HD.
noggin
Founding member
BBC World News from New Broadcasting House
Fox used Widescreen 480i 16:9 as their production format when ABC, NBC and CBS went 720p and 1080i. Fox then deinterlaced this to 480p 16:9 for distribution. They switched to 720p later, but still years ago.
16:9 SD is rare - but not unheard of - in the US, but hasn't taken off as it has elsewhere.
16:9 SD is rare - but not unheard of - in the US, but hasn't taken off as it has elsewhere.
Ah - I'll presume that's why Ramsay's Kitchen Nightmares USA (a Fox programme) goes out in 16:9 on Channel 4 here in the UK but not HD.
Could be a budget thing - Fox has been 720p for a LONG time in the US. They were only 480i (with 480p tx) for the first few years of digital TV in the US (1998 launch like the UK)
I think Fox continued with 16:9 SD production after they moved to 16:9 720p HD broadcast - as 16:9 SD was a lot cheaper for a while (until tapeless HD really kicked in) So that could be a reason, or it could be the UK compliance editing is done SD not HD.