JH
What VR? It's just a picture of London in the background!
Yes but it's aa VR background as it has been since 2004, isn't it? And, it would seem, a VR floor too.
Moz posted:
Primetime TV posted:
Overall though I'm impressed with the VR.
What VR? It's just a picture of London in the background!
Yes but it's aa VR background as it has been since 2004, isn't it? And, it would seem, a VR floor too.
MO
What VR? It's just a picture of London in the background!
Yes but it's aa VR background as it has been since 2004, isn't it? And, it would seem, a VR floor too.
Virtual reality means a 3D environment that is usually used for games etc. What ITV have is just a CSO backdrop and now CSO floor. It's not VR. (Virtual reality).
Jonathan H posted:
Moz posted:
Primetime TV posted:
Overall though I'm impressed with the VR.
What VR? It's just a picture of London in the background!
Yes but it's aa VR background as it has been since 2004, isn't it? And, it would seem, a VR floor too.
Virtual reality means a 3D environment that is usually used for games etc. What ITV have is just a CSO backdrop and now CSO floor. It's not VR. (Virtual reality).
JH
What VR? It's just a picture of London in the background!
Yes but it's aa VR background as it has been since 2004, isn't it? And, it would seem, a VR floor too.
Virtual reality means a 3D environment that is usually used for games etc. What ITV have is just a CSO backdrop and now CSO floor. It's not VR. (Virtual reality).
I'm afraid you are quite wrong. A CSO or chromakey background does not allow a camera to move in any dynamic plane. A VR background allows realtime rendering of the background to match camera movement. This is shown in the YouTube clip where a camera is moving left to right. A straightforward CSO does not allow for this. ITV news has been VR since 2004.
Moz posted:
Jonathan H posted:
Moz posted:
Primetime TV posted:
Overall though I'm impressed with the VR.
What VR? It's just a picture of London in the background!
Yes but it's aa VR background as it has been since 2004, isn't it? And, it would seem, a VR floor too.
Virtual reality means a 3D environment that is usually used for games etc. What ITV have is just a CSO backdrop and now CSO floor. It's not VR. (Virtual reality).
I'm afraid you are quite wrong. A CSO or chromakey background does not allow a camera to move in any dynamic plane. A VR background allows realtime rendering of the background to match camera movement. This is shown in the YouTube clip where a camera is moving left to right. A straightforward CSO does not allow for this. ITV news has been VR since 2004.
MD
If it was just a picture, they could have used a real screen, its because it is green screen, with a 3D background that they can have the angle changing when rotating and moving.
It could be possible, and is probable that they have used video taken of London, mapped onto 3D polygons, to give the illusion of total 3D, because an environment that detailed, would be a bit much to render on the fly.
This also begs the question, will the normal news still come from the atrium style studio, or from the News at Ten location, all be it with a brighter blue sky, and not as much of the coloured lights.
It could be possible, and is probable that they have used video taken of London, mapped onto 3D polygons, to give the illusion of total 3D, because an environment that detailed, would be a bit much to render on the fly.
This also begs the question, will the normal news still come from the atrium style studio, or from the News at Ten location, all be it with a brighter blue sky, and not as much of the coloured lights.
JH
Not sure what you mean here. How do you recreate a moving background with aparent depth that exactly matches a camera move if it isn't being rendered in real time? And if the current atrium background can be rendered in realtime, then we should suppose any other background could too.
martinDTanderson posted:
It could be possible, and is probable that they have used video taken of London, mapped onto 3D polygons, to give the illusion of total 3D, because an environment that detailed, would be a bit much to render on the fly.
Not sure what you mean here. How do you recreate a moving background with aparent depth that exactly matches a camera move if it isn't being rendered in real time? And if the current atrium background can be rendered in realtime, then we should suppose any other background could too.
JH
Apologies, but I'm just not understanding your theory of "video attached to simple polygons"! Video of what? My understanding and assumption is that the backgrounds are built as a 3D VR environment, around which you can shoot pretty much any way you like. I'm sure this must have been discussed at length back when the 2004 launch occurred!
martinDTanderson posted:
As the background goes far into the distance, that would require quite a bit of movement.
Also with the atrium, I would assume there is video attached to simple polygons to make it look more detailed than it is.
Also with the atrium, I would assume there is video attached to simple polygons to make it look more detailed than it is.
Apologies, but I'm just not understanding your theory of "video attached to simple polygons"! Video of what? My understanding and assumption is that the backgrounds are built as a 3D VR environment, around which you can shoot pretty much any way you like. I'm sure this must have been discussed at length back when the 2004 launch occurred!
MD
I am just suggesting, that all those buildings and people you see in the atrium background or this new london panoramic view, may not all be rendered in 3D, as it would take MANY MANY polygons to do it, but instead, real photos or video are being applied to flat polygons instead of all being rendered by the computer.
ST
The "new studio background" looks as though they spent moments thinking about it. Average Joe Public won't think it looks any different to the other ITV News programmes.
The fact that the floor is now as fake as the background (and done on the cheap - ie CSO) doesn't inspire me to believe that this "re-re-launch" is anything more than a half-hearted marketing gimic.
A couple of hundred quid for some green paint for the floor - wow! The lunch bill for the day they persuaded Trevor McD to come back was obviously a lot more than they've spent on the planning for this momentous non-event.
The fact that the floor is now as fake as the background (and done on the cheap - ie CSO) doesn't inspire me to believe that this "re-re-launch" is anything more than a half-hearted marketing gimic.
A couple of hundred quid for some green paint for the floor - wow! The lunch bill for the day they persuaded Trevor McD to come back was obviously a lot more than they've spent on the planning for this momentous non-event.
AN
What makes you think the studio is cheap CSO? It is incredibly advanced stuff - it's not just a green screen with a picture superimposed behind the presenters, you know.
I personally don't see why people criticise the studio so much. I think it looks great - well, apart from the dodgy teal phase they went through.
StuartPlymouth posted:
The fact that the floor is now as fake as the background (and done on the cheap - ie CSO) doesn't inspire me to believe that this "re-re-launch" is anything more than a half-hearted marketing gimic.
What makes you think the studio is cheap CSO? It is incredibly advanced stuff - it's not just a green screen with a picture superimposed behind the presenters, you know.
I personally don't see why people criticise the studio so much. I think it looks great - well, apart from the dodgy teal phase they went through.