NO MORE NZnewswatch

Mr Q never said that set designs shouldn't adhere to guidelines, he essentially said that it was optional.

*ignore*

But my point was they shouldn't be optional. Studio dimensions are to set design, what safe zones are to graphic design - you can't go outside the boundaries. If you want a new studio then fine, I wish to see the entire new building and how that studio would fit in. Many studio dimensions are available online somewhere, otherwise take an educated estimate. Just don't put a mock for BBC Look East in a studio the size of TC7, as it is clearly failing in two of my criteria for a good mock - likelihood and safezones.

I don't believe that a new design needs to be based in an existing studio, or that creating a studio means you need to design the whole building, but it must be based in the real world. You're not going to have a weekday morning magazine programme presented in a space the size of Wembley Arena (as some have drawn). If you're going to base your programme at the London Studios, you need to use one of their studios. If you're going to create a news studio for a Local TV station, then you need to be thinking small and compact, probably office height, not TC1 with windows to the outside.

If someone was to start mocking a studio design for the Rugby World Cup this year, saying they have to use an existing studio, or design the entire space would be ridiculous. Provided they keep the design within what any reasonable person would expect the bounds to be I have no problem with that (e.g. no 5m jib moves inside an executive box).

What's happened to this place - used to be a great little environment where mocks were treated for what they were and more importantly those who took the time to create them and share them were treated with respect.

If you're happy spending your life recreating BBC World mocks fair enough - but don't go writing blog posts attacking others for posting their creations, especially when as in this thread they are actually fairly decent attempts and way above some of the amatuer efforts posted here.

Rankings here are collective - your personal reasonings for your rankings are completely irrelevant and ultimately of little interest to anybody else here. I suspect most contributers prefer feedback over marks anyway, and most of us here are mature enough to put aside personal opinions to judge each effort for what it is, whether we're looking at the technical quality or the creativity of the basic idea.

Agree completely with what dosxuk said - although mocks should be in the real world they shouldn't be contrained by them. The idea of this place after all is for people to use their imagination and actually present what they'd like to see on TV, not what they're already seeing on TV.

In defence of SomeRandomStuff, I don't think he did anything wrong! His post was thoughtful and level-headed, generally clear (although perhaps less so when figuring out what applies to this mock) and it cannot be interpreted as rude - he gave his thoughts and opinions and did it in, as he said, a 'neutral-tempered' way. Furthermore, SRS explained why he rates mocks the way he does as a way to provide feedback, as had he simply replied '1/5' he would have been attacked for not giving criticism and also probably by the OP for being mean because it wasn't the response he wanted. Ultimately, NZnewswatch overreacted to a fairly nice post but this whole thing has been blown out of proportion by MatthewFirth who then called SomeRandomStuff out for going 'too far' when he hadn't really done anything - this is Matthew's inability to take criticism though, as seen in his own mocks.

I'm confused why everyone agrees that safe areas should be adhered to, but that having a set mock fit in a sensible studio isn't necessary. If believing that a set should fit in a studio is a 'personal opinion' to be set aside, then surely every response to a mocker who hasn't followed the safe areas rating them down because of that is wrong, because safe areas are just an 'opinion'. If it's acceptable for a mocker to specify his own dimensions, why is not acceptable for a mocker to specify his own screen dimensions? In the same way that someone makes a set mock in a fictional studio, surely a mock not following the safe areas is just one where the mocker is operating in a fictional world where they don't matter or aspect ratios are different! I'm not suggesting safe areas should be ignored and that there should now be an influx of 2024x863 sized graphics mocks, nor am I saying if you're using a fictional studio you must design the entire building and present a floor plan, but it's almost double standards to have stringent rules for OSG that don't matter seemingly when designing a set.

Also, I think dosxuk and DTV have a lot of common ground in relation to their views over studio mocks. Ultimately you both agree that a set mock should fit in with reality, and physically fit into a studio space, as dosxuk mentioned with the London Studios. DTV would seem to take the same view, as would SomeRandomStuff, but both perhaps think more precision is required, as you wouldn't design graphics for TV that vaguely fit near the safe areas. Ultimately, you take the same view so I'm not sure why this has provoked such argument/debate!

-

In terms of the mock, I'm surprised that it was so well received, as I don't think it was anything special. The render wasn't that impressive and the design itself not particularly good. It was ultimately a boring, rectangular desk with some screens the opposite side that had some SketchUp warehouse chairs plonked in front of them. I don't think this kind of mock would have taken a great amount of skill, and compared to something like the Sky News Arabia studio, it's not very impressive, is it? There was also an element of laziness as rather than making a separate texture for the portrait sized screens, the OP had just repositioned the 'Sky News News Day' graphic, hence why it said 'Sky News News' - time should have been spent making sure these little issues were not present.

It's simple - there are conventional standards for aspect ratios, but not every studio has to be built to the same specification.

At the end of the day it's not even about that - it's about basic manners and how we treat each other here, and SomeRandomStuff gets 1/5 for that.

SomeRandomStuff was not out of line - he wasn't impolite and certainly wasn't bad mannered. Ever since the flood gates were opened upon the launch of GMB there has been a pettiness and unwillingness to criticise in the Gallery. Quite frankly it's pointless uploading mocks on here if one isn't going to accept criticism or want it. This whole situation has been escalated by the OPs decision to 'quit' and MatthewFirth's insinuation that SRS was out of line. If people are wondering why most of the more 'senior' members rarely take a dip into The Gallery it is because of situations like this. There is no point in patting everyone on the back and saying that's great, then nobody learns. My first mocks are terrible, my first N8 is approximately 1/1,000,000 of the quality of my latest one. I was criticised - I learnt - I got better. I was slated for having 24 sided circles, I changed it. If someone hadn't have bought it up, I wouldn't have. Criticism is good and allows people to improve.

On the studios issue, it appears there are now two camps - so lets leave it there. Those who think it is an issue (coincidentally the members who I have worked with on this issue at various times) will continue to believe it is an issue. Those who don't rate it as an issue will carry on not caring about it.

Let's be honest, here: if I told my brother that I was working on a mock studio for Sky News or a new set of graphics for BBC Breakfast, he'd think I was a weirdo, as would everyone else I know. I mentioned, in passing, to my father that Good Morning Britain had returned from the Christmas break with a new desk. He looked at me like I asked him if he fancied a sip of my slug and cyanide smoothie. But that's why TVForum is (or should be) such a nice place to be - as we're all like-minded people who have similar interests and don't shout each other down for noticing things others would not, or having particular ideas about how graphics and sets could be improved.

If someone has posted a mock, the poster should be willing to accept appropriate criticism. On that, I imagine, we all agree. I have only posted one mock to this forum, but the feedback I received was very helpful in allowing me to tweak aspects of my design in order to make it as good as possible. Those who comment on people's mocks, though, should bear in mind that somebody has put a lot of work into the still images or video you're thinking about ripping to shreds from behind your keyboard.

"I quite like [this aspect], but I'm not sure about the way [this aspect] is, because..." is much more of an appropriate manner of giving criticism than writing comments like "horrible, clearly took you no time at all, stop posting mocks, 1/5" as I've seen before. Pretending a mock you don't particularly like is great won't help anyone, but, either don't comment on it, or, if you feel you've worthwhile input to give, do so politely.

It's rather an idealistic (and probably unrealistic) aspiration, but I think if we all made the effort to bear this in mind before we made our comments, we would not be in a situation where a poster felt so lambasted that they decided to permanently leave our 'community', (which I think is a crying shame).

I'm more worried that this community is setting the bar too high. If you don't have a decent skill or nac with designing or creating content, then you have little hope of getting high praise.
But also, some people may come looking *only* for high praise.

Both submitters and reviewers need to be very careful about what they want to post, and how can you handle the feedback you get.

I've *recently* put up something, and one error returned me some feedback which I didn't take to we'll. Because of that, I chose to take a break and review my work and reconsider how I share my progress. It wasn't the feedback I was expecting, but I chose to handle it in a reasonable manner.
Mind you I was sharing my work for the wrong intentions, and at the wrong time.

In respect to Grady's work. I personally think is was fine. It wasn't a complete recreation or something that needed functionality. It was more along the lines of concepts. Which is grey area for this particular section of the forums. Still, kudos to Grady!