It seems a bit strange that the choice of colours for the new set has caused so much controversy when
this
set has always been quite popular in these parts...
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?
So would you like to give a few lines of explanation for what 14L12, 16F16, 12F12 etc refers to? I would have thought screen sizes expressed as ratios is easier for everyone to understand. Unless your blurb refers to the ARCing of one ratio into another...
EDIT: Apologies - I just read the link you provided earlier. Makes sense in the end, although I wouldn't say the number-letter-number system was in wide use in the UK. Perhaps it is in engineering circles?
Tonight's show is a bit better than yesterday's. I'm wamring to the set itself but the music still sounds like it's only been played half way through and that shot of Kirtsy is horrible. It's really really nasty.
Also I'm not keen on her little PC. I presume it's a tablet PC but it's a very chunky one, not as sleek as it could be and it just looks messy on her lap.
Can't the purple backgrounded part of the balconey be used as a balconey as the handrail on that said seems to be higher than the orange side. It seems very strange that they can't use it, and why they couldn't put rails in on the orange side to that height too.
I wonder why they just have five signs aswell, why don't they have the word 'news' added too, especially on the dark orange where there's room and they can't use.
Also why doesn't that orange colour go all the way around the top floor or down that side behind the special glass.
It all seems promising but doesn't match well, it could do with tweaking here and there.
Modern studio camera OCPs have the ability to increase or decrease detail in selected chroma areas, most notably on skin tones. There looks to be a fair amount of detail wound out of the skin tones on Kirsty's close-up camera to me - which is, as others have said, alarmingly close. At that distance, it really ought to slightly chop the top of her hair out of frame in order to bring the eye level up in shot.
Tonight's show is a bit better than yesterday's. I'm wamring to the set itself but the music still sounds like it's only been played half way through and that shot of Kirtsy is horrible. It's really really nasty.
Also I'm not keen on her little PC. I presume it's a tablet PC but it's a very chunky one, not as sleek as it could be and it just looks messy on her lap.
IMO its better than having a laptop cluttering up the table
Two reasons. Firstly the "urgh sky = mrudoch, do excuse me, I need to **** over the N24 countdown" crew will come out with any old 5hite.
Secondly, and more importantly I think there is a "new boy" fear of Sky News making something for "real TV" which had always had a BBC/ITN duopoly (is that a word, it is now) and there is a lot of feeling towards the old ITN that produced the proper news for ITV.
However it must be remembered (and this is aimed at the defenders of ITN) that this is the company that is now dominated by ITV PLC, pours most of it's resources into it and making (90% of the time) not very good news for it. As the Guardian article that was linked to earlier said, five was denied access to resources before ITV had used them and were always given the hand-me-down equipment.
ITN is, most of the time, ITV's News Division. Yes it's been excellent these last few days but think about the bilge that normally goes out on the ITVNC like the appaulingly tacky "we were first with blunckett's resignation" trailer. They're not who they were when they launched five news 7 years ago.
What is wrong with ITN being a news division of ITV, that's what the organisation was designed to be- it was owned by ITV companies up until 1993! Being a news division of ITV secures its future and means that we have three tv news organisations in this country.
Obviously most of its efforts go into ITV, ITV puts the most money into it!
As for it providing crap news for 90% of the time that is your opinion, in my opinion ITV have provided the best coverage over the past year of boscastle, beslan, scottish factory blast, scottish landslides, i could go on.
Back to Five i think people need to start seperating it from Sky News in much the same way that ITV, C4 and the old Five were considered seperate. And i dont think anyone thinks that Sky=Fox, anyone that watches Sky can see they are very balanced and honest and provide excellent news!
Ben Scotchbrook - formerly of Five News at ITN - has resurfaced as London Life correspondent at London Tonight - presumably replacing Keir Simmons who seems to have been promoted to the national news.