MO
If you compare TC7 with N6, it looks like it's not just the lighting and screens which are an issue, but also the images in the background are different. The LH side seems almost the same, but the back seems quite different. Also the position of the desk is so that a different part of the backdrop is seen, so it looks all wrong.
Compare these images of the renewed TC7 provided by gregmc with the launch day images of N6 provided by ginnyfan...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3338/3177653610_085166a438.jpg
http://www.rp-network.com/tvforum/uploads/n6_1.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3122/3177655110_324d1568a9.jpg
http://www.rp-network.com/tvforum/uploads/n6_2.jpg
It'd help if TC7's lightboxes were a lot lower like the ones in N6 so there'd be less black above the back walls.
EDIT: Some of the experts on here say that the lighting rig is better in TC7 - but look at the shadows around the desk, and on George's shoulders. There are no shadows on the N6 images. I may be a layman, but I know which looks better to me!
Compare these images of the renewed TC7 provided by gregmc with the launch day images of N6 provided by ginnyfan...
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3338/3177653610_085166a438.jpg
http://www.rp-network.com/tvforum/uploads/n6_1.jpg
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3122/3177655110_324d1568a9.jpg
http://www.rp-network.com/tvforum/uploads/n6_2.jpg
It'd help if TC7's lightboxes were a lot lower like the ones in N6 so there'd be less black above the back walls.
EDIT: Some of the experts on here say that the lighting rig is better in TC7 - but look at the shadows around the desk, and on George's shoulders. There are no shadows on the N6 images. I may be a layman, but I know which looks better to me!
BN
Hmm, I'd disagree on the issue of the 6 actually...I actually find the N6 design rather dull, the red doesn't add life to it...maybe its a personal preference, but the backing in that shot of the 6 is more my cuppa!
chris posted:
As said above, TC7 does look fine with Newsnight and to a certain extent Breakfast, but because the set wasn't designed for the six, and the backdrop wasn't designed for TC7, it looks wrong. The image behind George looks so dull and just white and grey.
Hmm, I'd disagree on the issue of the 6 actually...I actually find the N6 design rather dull, the red doesn't add life to it...maybe its a personal preference, but the backing in that shot of the 6 is more my cuppa!
GS
Hi. I'm a lighting expert.
I can't see what they've got in the less tall studio, but I'd hazard a guess that there's a fair amount of fluorescent lighting - which by its nature sends light scattering in all directions, although can be controlled by using barn-doors (the flaps on the front of luminaires), flags and reflectors.
Fluorescent lighting has a number of advantages for small studios - the largest one being minimal heat. You can light your set and talent from much shorter distances, evenly, without burning their scalps. However, it tend to produce a flat, uninteresting quality of light.
Compare that with the taller studio rig - in that you can use more conventional studio lighting, such as a profile. A profile is a lantern with a lamp at the back - burning extremely bright and hot - with one or two glass lenses in a tube at the front. The lenses allow you to resize the beam of light's width, and sharpen or soften the edge of the beam.
What you can see in the picture above is a profile lantern back lighting George and the desk - with the resultant crisp shadow.
The benefits of conventional lights are many. The allow control to the nth degree. You can flatter the talent by increasing and decreasing their key and fill lights, dim the lights at the top and tail of the broadcast, and draw focus to areas of the set or the talent as required.
Fluorescent lights can be dimmed - but neither easily, nor effectively - and you can't do something interesting like back light the talent at the start of the show while leaving his camera facing side in silhouette.
So - and sorry for the wordy reply - "better" is subjective!
Gavin Scott
Founding member
Moz posted:
EDIT: Some of the experts on here say that the lighting rig is better in TC7 - but look at the shadows around the desk, and on George's shoulders. There are no shadows on the N6 images. I may be a layman, but I know which looks better to me!
Hi. I'm a lighting expert.
I can't see what they've got in the less tall studio, but I'd hazard a guess that there's a fair amount of fluorescent lighting - which by its nature sends light scattering in all directions, although can be controlled by using barn-doors (the flaps on the front of luminaires), flags and reflectors.
Fluorescent lighting has a number of advantages for small studios - the largest one being minimal heat. You can light your set and talent from much shorter distances, evenly, without burning their scalps. However, it tend to produce a flat, uninteresting quality of light.
Compare that with the taller studio rig - in that you can use more conventional studio lighting, such as a profile. A profile is a lantern with a lamp at the back - burning extremely bright and hot - with one or two glass lenses in a tube at the front. The lenses allow you to resize the beam of light's width, and sharpen or soften the edge of the beam.
What you can see in the picture above is a profile lantern back lighting George and the desk - with the resultant crisp shadow.
The benefits of conventional lights are many. The allow control to the nth degree. You can flatter the talent by increasing and decreasing their key and fill lights, dim the lights at the top and tail of the broadcast, and draw focus to areas of the set or the talent as required.
Fluorescent lights can be dimmed - but neither easily, nor effectively - and you can't do something interesting like back light the talent at the start of the show while leaving his camera facing side in silhouette.
So - and sorry for the wordy reply - "better" is subjective!
MO
Hi. I'm a lighting expert.
I can't see what they've got in the less tall studio, but I'd hazard a guess that there's a fair amount of fluorescent lighting - which by its nature sends light scattering in all directions, although can be controlled by using barn-doors (the flaps on the front of luminaires), flags and reflectors.
Fluorescent lighting has a number of advantages for small studios - the largest one being minimal heat. You can light your set and talent from much shorter distances, evenly, without burning their scalps. However, it tend to produce a flat, uninteresting quality of light.
Compare that with the taller studio rig - in that you can use more conventional studio lighting, such as a profile. A profile is a lantern with a lamp at the back - burning extremely bright and hot - with one or two glass lenses in a tube at the front. The lenses allow you to resize the beam of light's width, and sharpen or soften the edge of the beam.
What you can see in the picture above is a profile lantern back lighting George and the desk - with the resultant crisp shadow.
The benefits of conventional lights are many. The allow control to the nth degree. You can flatter the talent by increasing and decreasing their key and fill lights, dim the lights at the top and tail of the broadcast, and draw focus to areas of the set or the talent as required.
Fluorescent lights can be dimmed - but neither easily, nor effectively - and you can't do something interesting like back light the talent at the start of the show while leaving his camera facing side in silhouette.
So - and sorry for the wordy reply - "better" is subjective!
You haven't actually said which looks better to you in the example I've given.
Gavin Scott posted:
Moz posted:
EDIT: Some of the experts on here say that the lighting rig is better in TC7 - but look at the shadows around the desk, and on George's shoulders. There are no shadows on the N6 images. I may be a layman, but I know which looks better to me!
Hi. I'm a lighting expert.
I can't see what they've got in the less tall studio, but I'd hazard a guess that there's a fair amount of fluorescent lighting - which by its nature sends light scattering in all directions, although can be controlled by using barn-doors (the flaps on the front of luminaires), flags and reflectors.
Fluorescent lighting has a number of advantages for small studios - the largest one being minimal heat. You can light your set and talent from much shorter distances, evenly, without burning their scalps. However, it tend to produce a flat, uninteresting quality of light.
Compare that with the taller studio rig - in that you can use more conventional studio lighting, such as a profile. A profile is a lantern with a lamp at the back - burning extremely bright and hot - with one or two glass lenses in a tube at the front. The lenses allow you to resize the beam of light's width, and sharpen or soften the edge of the beam.
What you can see in the picture above is a profile lantern back lighting George and the desk - with the resultant crisp shadow.
The benefits of conventional lights are many. The allow control to the nth degree. You can flatter the talent by increasing and decreasing their key and fill lights, dim the lights at the top and tail of the broadcast, and draw focus to areas of the set or the talent as required.
Fluorescent lights can be dimmed - but neither easily, nor effectively - and you can't do something interesting like back light the talent at the start of the show while leaving his camera facing side in silhouette.
So - and sorry for the wordy reply - "better" is subjective!
You haven't actually said which looks better to you in the example I've given.
GS
In that particular shot the shadowless light is more pleasing.
However, it may be that the close ups look less good by compassion. I prefer to see a stronger key and back light. It gives dimension to faces and more separation from the background.
So if the news was delivered from that shot with shouting presenters, then I would agree with you.
Gavin Scott
Founding member
Moz posted:
You haven't actually said which looks better to you in the example I've given.
In that particular shot the shadowless light is more pleasing.
However, it may be that the close ups look less good by compassion. I prefer to see a stronger key and back light. It gives dimension to faces and more separation from the background.
So if the news was delivered from that shot with shouting presenters, then I would agree with you.
CH
Hmm, I'd disagree on the issue of the 6 actually...I actually find the N6 design rather dull, the red doesn't add life to it...maybe its a personal preference, but the backing in that shot of the 6 is more my cuppa!
That Ben Brown shot is pretty poor. Compare with the below picture of Fiona. I know it's the darker backdrop, but even on the one this looks so much better:
http://www.rp-network.com/tvforum/uploads/ten_fiona.jpg
Breakfast News posted:
chris posted:
As said above, TC7 does look fine with Newsnight and to a certain extent Breakfast, but because the set wasn't designed for the six, and the backdrop wasn't designed for TC7, it looks wrong. The image behind George looks so dull and just white and grey.
Hmm, I'd disagree on the issue of the 6 actually...I actually find the N6 design rather dull, the red doesn't add life to it...maybe its a personal preference, but the backing in that shot of the 6 is more my cuppa!
That Ben Brown shot is pretty poor. Compare with the below picture of Fiona. I know it's the darker backdrop, but even on the one this looks so much better:
http://www.rp-network.com/tvforum/uploads/ten_fiona.jpg
JW
On the contrary, I think that's a rather nice shot of Mr. Brown and would actually consider that particular capture to be the best one on this whole page. (From a lighting perspective, which incidentally I know nothing about technically, but as a viewer.......)
SP
That shot of Ben brown *is* in N6 (unless I'm terribly mistaken)... so perhaps you do agree with me?
BBC WORLD posted:
On the contrary, I think that's a rather nice shot of Mr. Brown and would actually consider that particular capture to be the best one on this whole page. (From a lighting perspective, which incidentally I know nothing about technically, but as a viewer.......)
That shot of Ben brown *is* in N6 (unless I'm terribly mistaken)... so perhaps you do agree with me?
JW
That shot of Ben brown *is* in N6 (unless I'm terribly mistaken)... so perhaps you do agree with me?
Oh, unquestionably Spencer, I totally DO agree with you dear! I was actually disagreeing with someone else on the page, but not sure whom. On another subject, who is currently presenting the One o'Clock News in London today. Is it still Sophie Raworth who is the regular nominated presenter?
Spencer For Hire posted:
BBC WORLD posted:
On the contrary, I think that's a rather nice shot of Mr. Brown and would actually consider that particular capture to be the best one on this whole page. (From a lighting perspective, which incidentally I know nothing about technically, but as a viewer.......)
That shot of Ben brown *is* in N6 (unless I'm terribly mistaken)... so perhaps you do agree with me?
Oh, unquestionably Spencer, I totally DO agree with you dear! I was actually disagreeing with someone else on the page, but not sure whom. On another subject, who is currently presenting the One o'Clock News in London today. Is it still Sophie Raworth who is the regular nominated presenter?