What presentation studios? Regions had these - but the BBC shut their network presentation studios many years ago (Pres A and Pres B were closed down when TC9 became the home of CBBC on One presentation ISTR) They became the DTA - the first home of presentation for the digital versions of BBC One and Two, and initially BBC Choice and BBC Knowledge. They have now re-located to the Broadcast Centre, and AFAIK there are no presentation studios at Red Bee.
I've been told that a couple of the con booths are slightly larger than the others, in case there's ever a need to put a camera back in them...
noggin posted:
Think you're confusing the Clip Studio - which is used for pre-recorded links for the BBCi News Loop bulletins (the Press Red people), and Regional down the lines from TV Centre - and the Signing studio, which is a separate operation that does signing for News 24 as well as other recorded shows.
Since signing's handled by Red Bee's Access Services department, I believe the signing studio is moving out of TVC and into a new studio in the Broadcast Centre.
What presentation studios? Regions had these - but the BBC shut their network presentation studios many years ago (Pres A and Pres B were closed down when TC9 became the home of CBBC on One presentation ISTR) They became the DTA - the first home of presentation for the digital versions of BBC One and Two, and initially BBC Choice and BBC Knowledge. They have now re-located to the Broadcast Centre, and AFAIK there are no presentation studios at Red Bee.
I've been told that a couple of the con booths are slightly larger than the others, in case there's ever a need to put a camera back in them...
noggin posted:
Think you're confusing the Clip Studio - which is used for pre-recorded links for the BBCi News Loop bulletins (the Press Red people), and Regional down the lines from TV Centre - and the Signing studio, which is a separate operation that does signing for News 24 as well as other recorded shows.
Since signing's handled by Red Bee's Access Services department, I believe the signing studio is moving out of TVC and into a new studio in the Broadcast Centre.
Both would make sense - though a camera in a con-booth does not a studio make! (In the accepted sense of a studio - i.e. something with a high enough ceiling to light properly etc.)
The next point is surely this- does 60 seconds need an in-vision presenter?
All that time in make-up, getting dressed up for barely 15 seconds in vision per hour.
Seems an utter waste of effort and money- they should just have a voice-over using the multi-screen approach that they do currently. I'm sure it would take several views by most regular viewers to notice any difference whatsoever.
The next point is surely this- does 60 seconds need an in-vision presenter?
All that time in make-up, getting dressed up for barely 15 seconds in vision per hour.
Seems an utter waste of effort and money- they should just have a voice-over using the multi-screen approach that they do currently. I'm sure it would take several views by most regular viewers to notice any difference whatsoever.
What time in make-up? Do you think the presenters go to make-up? Like most regional operations - the presenters usually do their own!
Having a presenter in-vision doesn't massively increase the cost of the bulletin over having them voice it live (pre-recording the voice would be too dangerous as you wouldn't be able to update) - and it makes it far less impersonal and more watchable. There is very little difference in cost - the presenter isn't just a "gob on a stick" - they help out with the production of the bulletins as well.
It is TV after all, and part of the established 60 Seconds format that is widely regarded as a success...
The next point is surely this- does 60 seconds need an in-vision presenter?
All that time in make-up, getting dressed up for barely 15 seconds in vision per hour.
Seems an utter waste of effort and money- they should just have a voice-over using the multi-screen approach that they do currently. I'm sure it would take several views by most regular viewers to notice any difference whatsoever.
What time in make-up? Do you think the presenters go to make-up? Like most regional operations - the presenters usually do their own!
Having a presenter in-vision doesn't massively increase the cost of the bulletin over having them voice it live (pre-recording the voice would be too dangerous as you wouldn't be able to update) - and it makes it far less impersonal and more watchable. There is very little difference in cost - the presenter isn't just a "gob on a stick" - they help out with the production of the bulletins as well.
It is TV after all, and part of the established 60 Seconds format that is widely regarded as a success...
But surely the point is that even when you look at the current 60 seconds bulletins, you see the presenter at the begining and end of the bulletin only- the rest is a video montage.
So you're paying for a "face" (let's face it- you don't see unattractive people presenting on BBC Three) and camera/camera operator for 10 seconds maximum per hour....that's less than a minute of air time a night.
I really don't think you would even notice the lack of an invision presenter- they could even have the 60 seconds voiceover do live continuity for the channel (which they currently don't have) and it would still be significantly cheaper than the status quo.
But surely the point is that even when you look at the current 60 seconds bulletins, you see the presenter at the begining and end of the bulletin only- the rest is a video montage.
Yep - but if the video montage isn't edited, or there is breaking news with no pictures you're stuffed if you don't have an in-vision presenter - and seeing them in-vision at either end lets you put a face to the voice - which is important. (It is why most network packages have pieces to camera in them at some point - so you can see who is talking at you)
60 Seconds are required to be able to do Newsflashes for serious breaking news - and have done them on a number of occasions. These have often been straight in-vision reads - and seeing the presenter is a lot more polished than voicing over a still - which would just look bizarre.
Quote:
So you're paying for a "face" (let's face it- you don't see unattractive people presenting on BBC Three) and camera/camera operator for 10 seconds maximum per hour....that's less than a minute of air time a night.
Camera operator? The face does their own camera, lighting and chroma-keying, and autocue. (They're not just a face) - and they are also senior journalists, who often write what they read.
Quote:
I really don't think you would even notice the lack of an invision presenter- they could even have the 60 seconds voiceover do live continuity for the channel (which they currently don't have) and it would still be significantly cheaper than the status quo.
I don't know why you think having something in-vision makes it expensive. The camera and studio are there - owned by news (and thus paid for already) - and if the person is there as well, you may as well see them. Even if you didn't see the presenter in-vision it would be pretty difficult to do it any more cheaply if it remained live. (You'd still need a sound-proof studio after all)
The skills required for continuity announcement and journalism aren't entirely the same either - the voices used for BBC Three continuity and the presenters chosen for 60 Seconds are not neccessarily interchangable.
My mate reads the news on one of the local commercial stations (PIRATE FM), and he is also a journalist (well I think so!) I don't know whether I would wanna frighten people with his face reading the news on BBC THREE though in vision
The next point is surely this- does 60 seconds need an in-vision presenter?
All that time in make-up, getting dressed up for barely 15 seconds in vision per hour.
Seems an utter waste of effort and money- they should just have a voice-over using the multi-screen approach that they do currently. I'm sure it would take several views by most regular viewers to notice any difference whatsoever.
What time in make-up? Do you think the presenters go to make-up? Like most regional operations - the presenters usually do their own!
Having a presenter in-vision doesn't massively increase the cost of the bulletin over having them voice it live (pre-recording the voice would be too dangerous as you wouldn't be able to update) - and it makes it far less impersonal and more watchable. There is very little difference in cost - the presenter isn't just a "gob on a stick" - they help out with the production of the bulletins as well.
It is TV after all, and part of the established 60 Seconds format that is widely regarded as a success...
But surely the point is that even when you look at the current 60 seconds bulletins, you see the presenter at the begining and end of the bulletin only- the rest is a video montage.
So you're paying for a "face" (let's face it- you don't see unattractive people presenting on BBC Three) and camera/camera operator for 10 seconds maximum per hour....that's less than a minute of air time a night.
I really don't think you would even notice the lack of an invision presenter- they could even have the 60 seconds voiceover do live continuity for the channel (which they currently don't have) and it would still be significantly cheaper than the status quo.
As noggin as said the cost difference is minimal. All the regular presenters on 60seconds are Senior journalists - they write and produce the bulletin as well. There is no camera operator. All the other techincal stuff in the studio is done by the other journalist on shift. Also if you did everything out of vision that would be like a radio bulletin and we are talking TV here. If you are happy with it for 60seconds would you be happy for the daytime summaries to be all out of vision. And as Noggin says what happens when you have news that has just broken and you don't have any pictures for.
what happens when you have news that has just broken and you don't have any pictures for.
Perhaps a kitten playing with wool, or a potter maybe...!
Or maybe a still with "This programme is in sound only" - as was the case with the original news bulletin on BBC TV (which was actually the radio bulletin with a caption).
The BBC didn't want to trust something as important as News to those "TV People"...
. I've generally picked things up in snippets from various threads.
