CA
Channel 4 have nicer screens now, compared to Sky News.
Oh right. Well it must look the same as CNBC then.
Can we stop this. I'm not sure whether I am keep up with the deeply insightful level of intellectual critique which is so frequently on offer here.
Breakfast News posted:
cat posted:
Well, ok... Channel 4 looks the same as Sky News because they have a videowall.
Got it.
Got it.
Channel 4 have nicer screens now, compared to Sky News.
Oh right. Well it must look the same as CNBC then.
Can we stop this. I'm not sure whether I am keep up with the deeply insightful level of intellectual critique which is so frequently on offer here.
MA
mark
Founding member
Let's not get distracted guys!
Here's the comparison - I'd say he's got a fair point myself when you consider the type of screen and the curved wall behind it. Five's looks much nicer in my opinion, though.
http://thetvroom.com/images-bbcn24/images-2003/main-p1.jpg
N24 pic from The TV Room - there's more red nowadays, though.
Here's the comparison - I'd say he's got a fair point myself when you consider the type of screen and the curved wall behind it. Five's looks much nicer in my opinion, though.
http://thetvroom.com/images-bbcn24/images-2003/main-p1.jpg
N24 pic from The TV Room - there's more red nowadays, though.
BN
Likewise with your fantastic grammer.
cat posted:
I'm not sure whether I am keep up with the deeply insightful level of intellectual critique which is so frequently on offer here.
Likewise with your fantastic grammer.
BN
The Five News screen looks ever so slightly less washed -out.
EDIT - Hmmm, well maybe not.
mark posted:
Let's not get distracted guys!
Here's the comparison - I'd say he's got a fair point myself when you consider the type of screen and the curved wall behind it. Five's looks much nicer in my opinion, though.
http://thetvroom.com/images-bbcn24/images-2003/main-p1.jpg
N24 pic from The TV Room - there's more red nowadays, though.
Here's the comparison - I'd say he's got a fair point myself when you consider the type of screen and the curved wall behind it. Five's looks much nicer in my opinion, though.
http://thetvroom.com/images-bbcn24/images-2003/main-p1.jpg
N24 pic from The TV Room - there's more red nowadays, though.
The Five News screen looks ever so slightly less washed -out.
EDIT - Hmmm, well maybe not.
BN
Likewise with your fantastic grammer.
Grammar
Something about glass houses and stones, I think.
Fair enough.
cat posted:
Breakfast News posted:
cat posted:
I'm not sure whether I am keep up with the deeply insightful level of intellectual critique which is so frequently on offer here.
Likewise with your fantastic grammer.
Grammar
Something about glass houses and stones, I think.
Fair enough.
NG
That's exactly what I was thinking! Nice to see them making full use of the studio though.
There's been some nasty cropping on the reports coming from Sky News reporters, sadly - most noticeable on Chris Roberts' report just now where the top of his head was chopped off!
Nice to see Jeremy Thompson doing a live report - and his framing is much better. I can't imagine that he's got a separate 16:9 camera out there, so perhaps they've just pulled back a bit so the cropping won't affect the picture.
You are right that live framing is easier to get right - because the gallery can guide you in if it is wrong. (Especially useful when you are working with facilities abroad from 4:3 broadcasters rather than your own crews)
However if the crew with Jeremy is from Sky and is using Beta SX, DVCam or DVCPro then most high-end camcorders in these formats (still low-end broadcast formats) can be bought as 4:3/16:9 switchable models, and the switching can be done quickly. (The Beeb do this a lot for 4:3 lives into regional shows, then 16:9 lives into network) It could be the crew with Jeremy just switched the camera into 16:9 for the five live. (Nothing in between is different for 16:9 - though people monitoring in 4:3 see tall-thin pictures)
noggin
Founding member
mark posted:
Londoner posted:
And when Charlie's standing in front of the screen, it's just like News 24 but with different colours...
That's exactly what I was thinking! Nice to see them making full use of the studio though.
There's been some nasty cropping on the reports coming from Sky News reporters, sadly - most noticeable on Chris Roberts' report just now where the top of his head was chopped off!
Nice to see Jeremy Thompson doing a live report - and his framing is much better. I can't imagine that he's got a separate 16:9 camera out there, so perhaps they've just pulled back a bit so the cropping won't affect the picture.
You are right that live framing is easier to get right - because the gallery can guide you in if it is wrong. (Especially useful when you are working with facilities abroad from 4:3 broadcasters rather than your own crews)
However if the crew with Jeremy is from Sky and is using Beta SX, DVCam or DVCPro then most high-end camcorders in these formats (still low-end broadcast formats) can be bought as 4:3/16:9 switchable models, and the switching can be done quickly. (The Beeb do this a lot for 4:3 lives into regional shows, then 16:9 lives into network) It could be the crew with Jeremy just switched the camera into 16:9 for the five live. (Nothing in between is different for 16:9 - though people monitoring in 4:3 see tall-thin pictures)
NG
I haven't seen the broadcast in 16F16 yet - though I'd be surprised if they were mad enough to run a 4:3 studio and ARC the output.
Well that was my gut reaction on seeing the first few seconds of the show !
All the reports were presented as 16F16, including material that was definately native 12F12. I seem to recall Sky doing the same trick with the first incarnation of RI:SE ?
It is a pity if they are ARCing 12F12 (i.e. 4:3) material to 16F16 rather than 14P16 - especially stuff not shot specifically.
14P16 is a much better compromise for two reasons :
1. It involves less cropping top and bottom - so heads don't get cut off as much.
2. When ARCed back to 4:3 as 14L12 (i.e. 14:9 letterbox in a 4:3 frame) the picture remaining is the same size and resolution as the 4:3 original, so on analogue it looks the same as the original, with black lines cropping the top and bottom.
16F16 zoom/crop of 12F12 material does get rid of the black bars left and right (which makes filling in-vision screens easier - no DVE zooms or scan tweaking required to get rid of black pillarbox bars) but it compromises 4:3 material - headroom on close-ups especially. It also looks very soft and fuzzy in 16:9, and pretty bad when ARCed back to 14L12 for analogue viewing (where the image is still zoomed relative to the 4:3 source)
I'd have thought if there was a choice you'd go 14P16 for agency and other broadcasters material, and possibly stuff shot for Sky News, with 16F16 used for lives (and possibly stuff shot 4:3 for five) where you have control over the 4:3 framing and can optimise it for 16F16 zoom/crop?
noggin
Founding member
Markymark posted:
noggin posted:
I haven't seen the broadcast in 16F16 yet - though I'd be surprised if they were mad enough to run a 4:3 studio and ARC the output.
Well that was my gut reaction on seeing the first few seconds of the show !
All the reports were presented as 16F16, including material that was definately native 12F12. I seem to recall Sky doing the same trick with the first incarnation of RI:SE ?
It is a pity if they are ARCing 12F12 (i.e. 4:3) material to 16F16 rather than 14P16 - especially stuff not shot specifically.
14P16 is a much better compromise for two reasons :
1. It involves less cropping top and bottom - so heads don't get cut off as much.
2. When ARCed back to 4:3 as 14L12 (i.e. 14:9 letterbox in a 4:3 frame) the picture remaining is the same size and resolution as the 4:3 original, so on analogue it looks the same as the original, with black lines cropping the top and bottom.
16F16 zoom/crop of 12F12 material does get rid of the black bars left and right (which makes filling in-vision screens easier - no DVE zooms or scan tweaking required to get rid of black pillarbox bars) but it compromises 4:3 material - headroom on close-ups especially. It also looks very soft and fuzzy in 16:9, and pretty bad when ARCed back to 14L12 for analogue viewing (where the image is still zoomed relative to the 4:3 source)
I'd have thought if there was a choice you'd go 14P16 for agency and other broadcasters material, and possibly stuff shot for Sky News, with 16F16 used for lives (and possibly stuff shot 4:3 for five) where you have control over the 4:3 framing and can optimise it for 16F16 zoom/crop?
MO
I haven't seen the broadcast in 16F16 yet - though I'd be surprised if they were mad enough to run a 4:3 studio and ARC the output.
Well that was my gut reaction on seeing the first few seconds of the show !
All the reports were presented as 16F16, including material that was definately native 12F12. I seem to recall Sky doing the same trick with the first incarnation of RI:SE ?
It is a pity if they are ARCing 12F12 (i.e. 4:3) material to 16F16 rather than 14P16 - especially stuff not shot specifically.
14P16 is a much better compromise for two reasons :
1. It involves less cropping top and bottom - so heads don't get cut off as much.
2. When ARCed back to 4:3 as 14L12 (i.e. 14:9 letterbox in a 4:3 frame) the picture remaining is the same size and resolution as the 4:3 original, so on analogue it looks the same as the original, with black lines cropping the top and bottom.
16F16 zoom/crop of 12F12 material does get rid of the black bars left and right (which makes filling in-vision screens easier - no DVE zooms or scan tweaking required to get rid of black pillarbox bars) but it compromises 4:3 material - headroom on close-ups especially. It also looks very soft and fuzzy in 16:9, and pretty bad when ARCed back to 14L12 for analogue viewing (where the image is still zoomed relative to the 4:3 source)
I'd have thought if there was a choice you'd go 14P16 for agency and other broadcasters material, and possibly stuff shot for Sky News, with 16F16 used for lives (and possibly stuff shot 4:3 for five) where you have control over the 4:3 framing and can optimise it for 16F16 zoom/crop?
Hmmmm! No idea what you're on about sorry. I got lost somewhere by the ARC bit.
To be honest all this stuff about cropping and whatever they do to aspect ratios never bothers me, in fact I don't even notice it at all. Call me a philistine but I don't. If someone would like to post an image of something done wrong and right so I can see what you're on about.
Anyway, I can't wait to see what Sky's new studio's like if it's anything like the rubbish that they've got for five news.
noggin posted:
Markymark posted:
noggin posted:
I haven't seen the broadcast in 16F16 yet - though I'd be surprised if they were mad enough to run a 4:3 studio and ARC the output.
Well that was my gut reaction on seeing the first few seconds of the show !
All the reports were presented as 16F16, including material that was definately native 12F12. I seem to recall Sky doing the same trick with the first incarnation of RI:SE ?
It is a pity if they are ARCing 12F12 (i.e. 4:3) material to 16F16 rather than 14P16 - especially stuff not shot specifically.
14P16 is a much better compromise for two reasons :
1. It involves less cropping top and bottom - so heads don't get cut off as much.
2. When ARCed back to 4:3 as 14L12 (i.e. 14:9 letterbox in a 4:3 frame) the picture remaining is the same size and resolution as the 4:3 original, so on analogue it looks the same as the original, with black lines cropping the top and bottom.
16F16 zoom/crop of 12F12 material does get rid of the black bars left and right (which makes filling in-vision screens easier - no DVE zooms or scan tweaking required to get rid of black pillarbox bars) but it compromises 4:3 material - headroom on close-ups especially. It also looks very soft and fuzzy in 16:9, and pretty bad when ARCed back to 14L12 for analogue viewing (where the image is still zoomed relative to the 4:3 source)
I'd have thought if there was a choice you'd go 14P16 for agency and other broadcasters material, and possibly stuff shot for Sky News, with 16F16 used for lives (and possibly stuff shot 4:3 for five) where you have control over the 4:3 framing and can optimise it for 16F16 zoom/crop?
Hmmmm! No idea what you're on about sorry. I got lost somewhere by the ARC bit.
To be honest all this stuff about cropping and whatever they do to aspect ratios never bothers me, in fact I don't even notice it at all. Call me a philistine but I don't. If someone would like to post an image of something done wrong and right so I can see what you're on about.
Anyway, I can't wait to see what Sky's new studio's like if it's anything like the rubbish that they've got for five news.