(Given maybe, a slight change in the brightness of blue)
Given that you're on the internet and prepared to post an old capture, it beggars belief that you simply didn't go to www.bbc.co.uk/news to see the answer for yourself in less than 10 seconds.
Eh... no, the ones that Moz linked to are the same ones on the BBC News website now, in posting the old capture, I was simple trying to provide an example of where I can't see that much of a difference between the ones in existence now, and the ones from e.g. when Gordon Brown became Prime Minister nearly a year ago, save the possible change in the brightness of the blue.
Seriously, am I blindly missing something huge here?
Seriously, am I blindly missing something huge here?
It's a completely different shade of blue. In fact, until you posted the image you did I hadn't even noticed that all hyperlinks on the site are dark blue! They are, but not in an in your face way. The 'aqua' blue of the new links is a definite departure.
Seriously, am I blindly missing something huge here?
It's a completely different shade of blue. In fact, until you posted the image you did I hadn't even noticed that all hyperlinks on the site are dark blue! They are, but not in an in your face way. The 'aqua' blue of the new links is a definite departure.
Right so, apologies, either one of two things must be happening:
1) Both my browsers are broken (IE and Firefox) as no matter how many times I cleared the cache and restarted, the images remained (and continue to remain) like the ones in the old captures for me (including the ones linked to by Moz on this page ) .
2) If those links are directing to some sort of i-player setup then maybe as I'm reading outside the UK, the alternative old version is being displayed.
Either way, sorry for the confusion, it was really weirding me out there for a second.
You can't - technically - rack something once it has been shot. Racking works prior to the generation of the video signal - so ensures the full signal capacity (i.e. all the bits) containg accurate video information.
Sorry, slightly badly worded there. What I was trying to say was in a proper OB shoot you (should) have someone back in the truck monitoring the signals and adjusting the CCUs. With a single camera shoot it is up to the camera operator to get it right first time on their own, which can be difficult in a tiny monochrome viewfinder.
noggin posted:
bvsh hovse posted:
Since outdoor light levels can go all over the place in the space of a minute I would give the benefit of the doubt. But inside a controlled studio environment there is NO excuse.
With single camera stuff it is much easier in some ways - as you are shooting everything on the same camera - so at least it matches. In a studio you have to ensure the cameras are racked so that they match each other.
While you don't have to worry about matching in a single camera shoot, you still need to make sure you are still getting a good picture. I've seen more examples of burned out pictures from single camera shoots than I have from a studio. And the only example of a seriously under exposed shot where a neutral density filter was left in place after shooting outside! This mess is then brought back to a poor SM to fix afterwards, who can't because the detail has been lost and cannot be restored. These sorts of things would never happen in a studio because there are other people looking at the picture on proper monitors who can see it is wrong.
noggin posted:
Zebras are irrelevant in a studio - the camera operator on the floor (if there is one) doesn't rack the cameras or do anything other than frame and focus.
I disagree. In the very small studios we have in Bush the gallery is run by 3 people. One on sound mix, one on vision mix and a director. You physically cannot fit anymore people in there. The vision mixer and director will share playing inserts from the Fork/Omneon system and driving the Clarity (Aston) generator. The waveform monitoring is done by an Omnitek system on a KVM switch with the Clarity - so you cannot see the waveforms while playing out graphics even if you are trained to use it. Lighting is a series of preset buttons in each studio, so no LD required. Oh, and due to the space constraints the monitors are all 'broadcast' LCD which are a couple of years old now. While the big Vutrix monitors are very good the smaller Sony monitors are less so, picture variations between the Sony monitors are often caused by being off axis - so racking by eye can be a bit hit and miss depending on where you stand in the limited space.
In this environment having the zebra on is useful, because it gives a very clear message to the camera operator that the exposure is wrong, who can then get on the talkback to the gallery.
I agree in a larger studio there is no point, but that does not hold true for all studios.
I would be surprised if it were a major element of the video branding.
All the research suggests that significant amounts of blue are cold and distancing, and blue also suffers as an accent colour when carried by component video systems (as it is lower luminance than green and red) as it isn't carried as cleanly as other colours.
Of course there is nothing to stop it featuring in the wider brand - online etc. - where there are different issues at play.
World Service has always been a large user of dark blue online, I suspect it will be phased out from the languages over the coming months as the new BBC branding is rolled out though.
) .
