The Newsroom

Five News

Five to spend the day following the PM on Monday (November 2004)

This site closed in March 2021 and is now a read-only archive
FA
fanoftv
p_c_u_k posted:
ohwhatanight posted:
Well SKY¦News is a 24 hour news channel (!) whereas five news is a few hours worth of bulletins a day aired on five! There is NO reason why five would want, or allow, SKY branding on their channel. They never allowed ITN branding (or now, ITV branding) and what would branding five news as SKY¦News actually achieve?

five do NOT want the news service to act as an advert for SKY¦News!!! ps is it correct to start the above sentence with a lower case 'f' even though it's the first letter of the sentence?


Ah sorry I didn't mean they should call the whole shooting match Sky News at 7, or even use their name during the programme. I just meant they use should the graphics from their bulletins on Sky News (ie the bold brash presentation, the breaking news whoosh, the captions etc etc, just without the words 'Sky News' - a bit like Scottish TV or UTV take ITV1 presentation without the ITV1 logo, or like regional news programmes look similar to their national counterparts)

While I'm not up for everything looking the same, and I take the point on board about this being a separate service, it seems a bit daft to spend so much time creating far inferior presentation.

Of course, Five may have already said no to this, so perhaps that's out of Sky's control...


But they are two totally seperate entities.

Sky News are now a News Production company, rather than simply a 24 Hour News Channel.

To do what you say, at the time would have been like ITN putting the ITN News Channel's graphics onto ITV, Channel 4 and Channel 5's News Programmes.

I hope you see what I mean by this.
NG
noggin Founding member
Jonathan H posted:
noggin posted:
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?


Nope - the XX#YY is pretty standard nomenclature where I have worked - it is the only real way of explaining both the active picture area and the aspect ratio of the system in use. It's not a good idea to say to someone can you convert this 4:3 stuff to 16:9 please and leave it at that - much better to say can you ARC this to 14P16 please, or 16F16 please? (It is the standard used on most broadcast ARCs I have come across)

First number describes the ratio of the picture containing information, the second the aspect ratio of the signal containing the picture. The letter in the middle is more a check letter than anything else - but P=Pillarbox (bars left and right), L=Letterbox (bars top and bottom), F=Full screen - i.e full height and full width.

If you just say to someone 16:9, 4:3 or 14:9 it can mean many different things.

16:9 can mean 16:9 letterbox in a 4:3 frame (i.e. 16L12) to some people, but 16:9 full-height anamorphic (i.e. 16F16) to others.

14:9 can mean 14:9 letterbox in a 4:3 frame (i.e. 14L12) to some people - it is how the majority of widescreen material is presented on the analogue PAL outlets. However this could also be described as "4:3" as that is the format of the signal carrying the 14:9 picture in this case.

However to others 14:9 means 14:9 pillarbox in a 16:9 frame (i.e. 14P16) - the way the bulk of 4:3 material is cropped and zoomed for inclusion in BBC News (who are a 16:9 operation) Similarly this could be described as "16:9" because that is the format of the signal.

These descriptions are certainly used heavily in transmission areas, and in programme delivery, and if you are producing, directing or engineering in a widescreen area I would have thought they were pretty widely known. They don't describe how a signal got to be in the format it is, nor whether stuff has been cropped/zoomed or by how much. They do tell you the active picture area though.

If you are directing in a 16:9 studio it is pretty vital to know if you are being delivered in 16L12, 14L12 or 12F12 as well as 16F16 for example. (If you don't know your delivery format(s) how do you know how safely to frame things - especially wide shots?)

Similarly there are occasions when you may be directing 4:3 - but being broadcast on a 16:9 outlet. If this is the case you need to know if you are being delivered in 12P16 (i.e. full height 4:3), 14P16 (14:9 crop) or 16F16 (full 16:9 crop) - especially when framing close-ups.

The worst of all worlds is shooting in 4:3, for distribution via 16:9, but in a 4:3 safe manner... You kind of give up then...

(And before you ask I'm not an engineer - though I did once move in engineering circles!)
NG
noggin Founding member
Jonathan H posted:
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.


Yep - someone has been fiddling a lot with the "detail", "aperture correction" or "contours" (chose your word!) Not sure if they are using Skin Detail or just winding it all out - whatever they are doing it looks very American (though not as well executed) and not at all nice.

The cameras also seem very oddly colour balanced - I don't know if they are trying to make Kirsty's eyes a certain colour - but the whole main Kirsty CU could do with a slightly warmer balance IMHO. It is very much a personal thing - but at the moment it feels a bit cold, not good in Winter.

The US networks seem to like similarly flat soft pictures, but theirs are normally a bit warmer, and manage a bit more "sparkle" in the eyes. Could it be that the set has been lit to allow people to move around and sit anywhere, so it is much more flatly lit, rather than having specifically lit areas with very concentrated lighting?

ISTR that the previous ITV1 News set had very tight presenter positioning, to allow very tight lighting (to the extent that each shoulder had its own backlight?)

There is always a trade-off between flexibility in studio use and quality of lighting. They HAVE got a nice high ceiling though - and I certainly haven't seen jib shadows (though they haven't used it much in ways that would mean this would be a problem anyway).

(And talking about lighting - I caught the later Meridian South News this evening - how badly lit is that? Looks like someone just stuck office lighting in - cold, and nasty, but no doubt very cheap...)
NG
noggin Founding member
p_c_u_k posted:
ohwhatanight posted:
Well SKY¦News is a 24 hour news channel (!) whereas five news is a few hours worth of bulletins a day aired on five! There is NO reason why five would want, or allow, SKY branding on their channel. They never allowed ITN branding (or now, ITV branding) and what would branding five news as SKY¦News actually achieve?

five do NOT want the news service to act as an advert for SKY¦News!!! ps is it correct to start the above sentence with a lower case 'f' even though it's the first letter of the sentence?


Ah sorry I didn't mean they should call the whole shooting match Sky News at 7, or even use their name during the programme. I just meant they use should the graphics from their bulletins on Sky News (ie the bold brash presentation, the breaking news whoosh, the captions etc etc, just without the words 'Sky News' - a bit like Scottish TV or UTV take ITV1 presentation without the ITV1 logo, or like regional news programmes look similar to their national counterparts)

While I'm not up for everything looking the same, and I take the point on board about this being a separate service, it seems a bit daft to spend so much time creating far inferior presentation.

Of course, Five may have already said no to this, so perhaps that's out of Sky's control...


Hmm - doesn't seem at all a good idea to me. Five would want their news to be part of the "channel" - and be tightly linked to their branding. (Think how BBC One News is based on Red, as is BBC One Presentation, BBC Three News is based on Blue, as is BBC Three Presentation - they link the news and channel however subliminally)

If the five news bulletins were to look similar to Sky they would surely inherit Sky brand awareness rather than five brand awareness, and people wouldn't associate the programmes with the channel five. Even if they didn't have the Sky on-screen logo, the colours, style, grammar and pace would nod far more to Sky than to five.

This isn't what Sky have been contracted to do - remember Sky are providing programmes for five, that five have commissioned and are paying for. I imagine five have been quite closely tied in with the launch and design -after all Chris Shaw, the launch Editor of Channel Five News at ITN in 1997, is now responsible for commissioning the Sky News version of five news... I can't imagine he was "hands off" entirely!
JH
Jonathan H
noggin posted:
Jonathan H posted:
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.


Yep - someone has been fiddling a lot with the "detail", "aperture correction" or "contours" (chose your word!) Not sure if they are using Skin Detail or just winding it all out - whatever they are doing it looks very American (though not as well executed) and not at all nice.

The cameras also seem very oddly colour balanced - I don't know if they are trying to make Kirsty's eyes a certain colour - but the whole main Kirsty CU could do with a slightly warmer balance IMHO. It is very much a personal thing - but at the moment it feels a bit cold, not good in Winter.

The US networks seem to like similarly flat soft pictures, but theirs are normally a bit warmer, and manage a bit more "sparkle" in the eyes. Could it be that the set has been lit to allow people to move around and sit anywhere, so it is much more flatly lit, rather than having specifically lit areas with very concentrated lighting?


It looks like contouring on skin tones has been wound out to me, but I could be wrong. I think the look feels very American because of the way the lighting is set up. I don't think you can easily light a set for people to sit anywhere they like - there are still very clearly defined keys and backlights for each position. It's just that the keys are very frontal, providing next to no facial modelling, which is quite US in style. As for the colour balance, doesn't that depend on what camera matrix they're using?
NG
noggin Founding member
Jonathan H posted:
noggin posted:
Jonathan H posted:
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.


Yep - someone has been fiddling a lot with the "detail", "aperture correction" or "contours" (chose your word!) Not sure if they are using Skin Detail or just winding it all out - whatever they are doing it looks very American (though not as well executed) and not at all nice.

The cameras also seem very oddly colour balanced - I don't know if they are trying to make Kirsty's eyes a certain colour - but the whole main Kirsty CU could do with a slightly warmer balance IMHO. It is very much a personal thing - but at the moment it feels a bit cold, not good in Winter.

The US networks seem to like similarly flat soft pictures, but theirs are normally a bit warmer, and manage a bit more "sparkle" in the eyes. Could it be that the set has been lit to allow people to move around and sit anywhere, so it is much more flatly lit, rather than having specifically lit areas with very concentrated lighting?


It looks like contouring on skin tones has been wound out to me, but I could be wrong. I think the look feels very American because of the way the lighting is set up. I don't think you can easily light a set for people to sit anywhere they like - there are still very clearly defined keys and backlights for each position. It's just that the keys are very frontal, providing next to no facial modelling, which is quite US in style. As for the colour balance, doesn't that depend on what camera matrix they're using?


Yep - to a degree (most modern digital cameras allow you to design your own or recall the old favourites - BBC, RAI, ARD etc.) - but you also have the basic colour lift and gains (aka paint) to allow you to cool or warm the pictures as well. It also depends what colour temperature you are lighting with, and what colour temperature lamp you are white balancing with.

The lighting does look very different to other news shows - and not in a particularly good way. You are dead right about the lack of modelling - it is very American.
LO
Londoner
I see that Five News is making use of the Skycopter (albeit with careful shots so as not to show the logo on the side) for a report on the lack of success of many millennium projects.
http://www.rp-networkservices.com/tvforum/uploads/fiveskycopter.jpg
LO
Londoner
Some studio guests today:
http://www.rp-networkservices.com/tvforum/uploads/fivestudioguests.jpg
http://www.rp-networkservices.com/tvforum/uploads/fivestudioguests2.jpg
LO
Londoner
Whoops...
http://www.rp-networkservices.com/tvforum/uploads/fiveaspectratio.jpg
DV
dvboy
fanoftv posted:
I'm affraid I'm one of those that don't like the new weather graphics, whenever I've watched skynews I've always been puzzled, they never give me any depth. I can always tell where it will be raining, but that's it!

I'd much prefer the older simpler graphics added, or something similar like this...
http://www.rp-networkservices.com/tvforum/uploads/fivenewsweatheroldnew.jpg

Like somebody suggested, they produced great weather graphics for RI:SE, even though in the first version of RI:SE they kept adding random things to their map.


http://members.lycos.co.uk/simplicitywebdesign/rise/0721highs.jpeghttp://members.lycos.co.uk/simplicitywebdesign/rise/0721todayspan.jpeg
RI:SE weather was much simpler. I can't make sense of Sky's weather graphics either.

Talking about the cropping issue a few pages back. I don't know why Sky News can't film stuff in 4:9 making sure everything's within safeareas when they cut the top and bottom off to show on Five.
BA
Bacchic
noggin posted:
(And before you ask I'm not an engineer - though I did once move in engineering circles!)


Well, you certainly sound like one!! Which area, broadly, of the industry do you work in, without giving too much away??
TE
tellyguru
How many of you work in television?
Have you ever put together a brand new show from scratch on a building site?
Lets do a five news vote and find out?
It's highly irregular after three days of broadcasting for you all to sit around and slag it off. How about a website devoted to sad anoraks where we sit and slag you off and the way you dress.
Get a life!

Newer posts