That youtube video is absolutely shocking, a 5 second black bumper into pointless, awkward fades between two angles? What on earth is that meant to tell us - the vision mixer is an overexcited 5 year old who's found a nice lever to play with? I get the feeling they wanted to project something interesting on the background but it didn't work so they just reverted to the studio backdrop. Mr McDonald is only slightly more convincing!
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.
Indeed, CSO technology has come along way as Hollywood has proved with some exceptional special effects. The ability to have cameras swinging around a studio and to have the background changed accordingly can look amazing. I don't doubt that ITV/ITN invested heavily when they introduced the "theatre of news" some years ago; but they aren't in the business of producing films with fictional storylines.
With the rapid development of large multiple back-projection or LED screen matrices in the last few years their decision to go down the CSO route looks wrong in my opinion.
News is about reality. Why have somebody holding a conversation with a green wall when the technology exists to have a real 8 foot tall screen in front of you (as Sky, BBC, Al-Jazerra etc demonstrate)?
Perhaps I'm biased, but these days I just have difficulty taking somebody seriously in a news programme when they can have a discussion with a blank wall for 2 minutes pretending that they can see something.
On the ITV website there is a clip of the last News At Ten.Trevor Macdonald saying goodbye for the final time from News At Ten (not him) .
I think that was back in 1998 or 99.However since then we have had another version of it wasn't it called The ITV News At Ten : .
Why did they bring Julie onboard instead of Mary,Katie,or Nina and what about Andrea Catherwood these days is she just Presenting The Sunday Edition.
I hate the way ITN treat their women news presenters they make them more like objects than just someone hired to do the job. Just look at the way Julia Sommerville and Carol Barnes were treated now we have to suffer boring old Trev for another stint wonder how long this time i just can't see what all the fuss is about him . If that's all ITV News can come up with good luck to them they'll need it.
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.
And yet...
StuartPlymouth posted:
Indeed, CSO technology has come along way as Hollywood has proved with some exceptional special effects. The ability to have cameras swinging around a studio and to have the background changed accordingly can look amazing. I don't doubt that ITV/ITN invested heavily when they introduced the "theatre of news" some years ago; but they aren't in the business of producing films with fictional storylines.
With the rapid development of large multiple back-projection or LED screen matrices in the last few years their decision to go down the CSO route looks wrong in my opinion.
News is about reality. Why have somebody holding a conversation with a green wall when the technology exists to have a real 8 foot tall screen in front of you (as Sky, BBC, Al-Jazerra etc demonstrate)?
So you seem to be saying that "Average Joe Public" will not notice the difference between the current ITV News programmes and the relaunched News at Ten, but that they
would
notice the difference (and more importantly
care
) whether the presenter is looking at a 'real wall or a 'fake' wall?
I think you might be wrong on both counts. It's difficult to foresee a relaunch of this importance and magnitude for ITV being a half-hearted attempt. And I'd suggest that the vast majority of the viewing pubic really don't care which production tools are used for programmes - they just want the story told in an engaging manner.
Perhaps I'm biased, but these days I just have difficulty taking somebody seriously in a news programme when they can have a discussion with a blank wall for 2 minutes pretending that they can see something.
Just another thought to throw into the discussion! You say that you have difficulty with the credibility of a presenter talking to a 'fake' green wall, and fair enough. But if
that
causes you to question the credibility of the programme, then what about the sham of correspondents on location answering questions from the studio that we all know they know in advance? Does that not amount to the same thing? And virtually every news programme in the world does that!
I always thought the studio was incredibly cheap looking (it was only a million pounds). But this new virtual floor and wall looks fantastic, now they can change virtually the whole set in one go. Evolution is a great thing. Will this new MK2 Theatre of News be used for all the ITV bulletins?
Perhaps I'm biased, but these days I just have difficulty taking somebody seriously in a news programme when they can have a discussion with a blank wall for 2 minutes pretending that they can see something.
Just another thought to throw into the discussion! You say that you have difficulty with the credibility of a presenter talking to a 'fake' green wall, and fair enough. But if
that
causes you to question the credibility of the programme, then what about the sham of correspondents on location answering questions from the studio that we all know they know in advance? Does that not amount to the same thing? And virtually every news programme in the world does that!
In some cases the presenter actually knows more than the reporter does and yet the reporter is being asked for the information that the presenter already knows BY the presenter whilst the answer is being fed to the reporter as they're being asked it
To me the weakest link in News at Ten's chain is Sir Trevor. He's just hopeless. The News Knight fiasco should have prevented him ever doing the news again.
Perhaps I'm biased, but these days I just have difficulty taking somebody seriously in a news programme when they can have a discussion with a blank wall for 2 minutes pretending that they can see something.
Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that the news-wall images are feintly projected onto the green background so the presenters can actually see what they're supposed to be doing.
Perhaps I'm biased, but these days I just have difficulty taking somebody seriously in a news programme when they can have a discussion with a blank wall for 2 minutes pretending that they can see something.
Perhaps you are. Do you have difficulty taking radio presenters seriously when they talk to someone in a radio-car or on the phone? And what about the reporters? Can you not take them seriously because all they can see i s a camera lens?
Quite apart from the fact that there are monitors in the studio, why on earth would an ability to see a face detract from, or add to, seriousness?
: .
