errr... back to the topic. Earlier at
GMT with George Alagiah
they have a representative of the 1st Opera Awards, which also performed on the program before the bottom of the hour... this is the first time the second set was used by the
GMT
program.
And this is the second time that they have done musical performance on BBC World News, first one was on
Impact
with an Indian drum player... Any considerations for a weekly lifestyle/culture program that is using Studio B?
I agree with many of the points from people who aren't DanielK; most of the US news programmes I've seen have managed to have wood as part of the design somehow, and I have no idea why - it just looks incredibly dated and seems a bit tacky.
Indeed - don't get me started on CBS News
That being said I do like their morning news programme's set!
I've only just noticed that BBC World News was used in the new Die Hard film with Sophie Raworth reporting on some fictional report, although it looks like they were in the old TVC NC studio...
I've just watched the opening to Newsday tonight, and there's something that's niggling at me about it. I've thought this since the first broadcast from NBH. I hope someone might be able to explain.
After the countdown to the top of the hour ends, they open Newsday with a shot of the studio screens from a high camera, which also shows two other cameras on the rail in the studio.
The camera on the left starts moving down ('ped down'?) but what I can't understand is that they seem to cut to the shot from that camera whilst it still appears to be moving, yet the shot on screen is perfectly still/static when it's mixed in. I'm positive that every time they run this sequence the camera appears to be moving, yet the shot mixed to appears perfectly still. It's driving me slightly nuts. An example is right at the start here (first two seconds):
Clip from TV Live
Also, in the same opening shot the camera on the right scoots along the rail further right towards going out of shot. I assume this is just done for effect. There appears to be no reason for it to be in vision in the first place. Is it just to show off a bit?
I've just watched the opening to Newsday tonight, and there's something that's niggling at me about it. I've thought this since the first broadcast from NBH. I hope someone might be able to explain.
After the countdown to the top of the hour ends, they open Newsday with a shot of the studio screens from a high camera, which also shows two other cameras on the rail in the studio.
The camera on the left starts moving down ('ped down'?) but what I can't understand is that they seem to cut to the shot from that camera whilst it still appears to be moving, yet the shot on screen is perfectly still/static when it's mixed in. I'm positive that every time they run this sequence the camera appears to be moving, yet the shot mixed to appears perfectly still. It's driving me slightly nuts. An example is right at the start here (first two seconds):
Clip from TV Live
Also, in the same opening shot the camera on the right scoots along the rail further right towards going out of shot. I assume this is just done for effect. There appears to be no reason for it to be in vision in the first place. Is it just to show off a bit?
The wideshot with cameras in it is purely for effect... It's presumably deemed to be a bit of 'showbiz' - though, to me, it just looks like a mistake...
They then cut to a graphic split-screen DVE composite of the London studio camera and the Singapore studio, keyed over a studio grab of the two plasmas, electronically created for the two-shot, it's not a real camera shot pointing at two plasmas.
If it's a composite shot, then I don't know why they don't just go for a standard split-screen. I've always thought it looks a bit silly having them on the screens looking ever so slightly warped, and it feels even sillier now I know it isn't even real!
The other thing that bugs me about the opening to Newsday - those titles. I just don't get them. I remember when Newsday first came about, someone referred to them as a sequence of aimlessly flying strepsils. It's so true. It's also a shame that Newsday appears to be the only strand of world programming which doesn't get its own music.
If it's a composite shot, then I don't know why they don't just go for a standard split-screen. I've always thought it looks a bit silly having them on the screens looking ever so slightly warped, and it feels even sillier now I know it isn't even real!
I agree entirely. I liked the former standard split screen as the presenters were actually looking at you - now the slight angles of the screens make it a bit awkward looking.
In actual fact, if the only real utilisation of the studio is that 2 second high shot at the start then why bother having the studio in use at all? I know the London presenter is actually in the same studio at the time of transmission, but surely you could instead stick them in front of a CSO in a cupboard somewhere if the bulk of the programme is made up a of electronically created shot of the screens rather than a live shot from that camera in front of them?
