NW
God i hope so. What a change it makes to actually see the news without being bombarded with text. Shame it isnt always like this.
What was wrong with how it was ten or so years ago when it used to be a little Sky News bug in the bottom left of the screen with the time too.
plucky duck92 posted:
Ogsley posted:
There is currently no tower, time or ticker on Sky News. Maybe they are in the process of "tweaking" the new design.
God i hope so. What a change it makes to actually see the news without being bombarded with text. Shame it isnt always like this.
What was wrong with how it was ten or so years ago when it used to be a little Sky News bug in the bottom left of the screen with the time too.
NG
noggin
Founding member
Basically - Sky want to use their 3 MPEG2 SD slots on Freeview for more MPEG4 (cos it provides more compressoin) slots.
This will require Ofcom approval - which has yet to be granted - as it is a change to the original terms of the Freeview licence.
They will be deliberating this over the next few months - as Sky want to make the changes over the summer.
I haven't seen a definitive statement from Sky that Sky News will be Pay TV on MPEG4 - though initially that is a moot point. However MPEG4 is being introduced by other countries introducing DVB-T broadcasts (with or without subscription) - France is using it for their Pay-TV DVB-T stuff I believe...
I guess we have to wait for Ofcom.
(Sky News journos must be far from happy. They are dropped from 2.9 million Virgin homes, and potentially about to disappear from 8 milion Freeview receivers - leaving only around 6.2 million Sky homes, plus the couple of 100,000 Freesat homes)
This will require Ofcom approval - which has yet to be granted - as it is a change to the original terms of the Freeview licence.
They will be deliberating this over the next few months - as Sky want to make the changes over the summer.
I haven't seen a definitive statement from Sky that Sky News will be Pay TV on MPEG4 - though initially that is a moot point. However MPEG4 is being introduced by other countries introducing DVB-T broadcasts (with or without subscription) - France is using it for their Pay-TV DVB-T stuff I believe...
I guess we have to wait for Ofcom.
(Sky News journos must be far from happy. They are dropped from 2.9 million Virgin homes, and potentially about to disappear from 8 milion Freeview receivers - leaving only around 6.2 million Sky homes, plus the couple of 100,000 Freesat homes)
BP
[quote="whophd"][quote="Bob Paisley"]
Sky News graphics have looked rubbish for years. Cheap, 2D, lacking in texture or warmth. I assume they've done research - maybe people like them because they're simple.
Give them a fair cop -- the 2005 revision made excellent use of animation. 2D is actually more modern than 3D in many ways. Check out some of the whooshy, flying text from American news networks over ten years ago -- they've all gone nowhere since then. Whooshing flying words are so 1990s.
Sky News 2005 had some very swish ways of replacing one set of static text with another. In fact it's a shame they didn't use that technique overall to do away with scrolling text altogether.
CK.
Well it's different strokes for different folks I suppose. I just don't like Sky News graphics - and haven't done for years. And these are the worst of the lot.
Having said that, while I wouldn't say I'm warming to them, I am getting a bit more used to them. I should stress though I still think they are very, very poor.
Anne MacKenzie Fan posted:
Bob Paisley posted:
Sky News graphics have looked rubbish for years. Cheap, 2D, lacking in texture or warmth. I assume they've done research - maybe people like them because they're simple.
Give them a fair cop -- the 2005 revision made excellent use of animation. 2D is actually more modern than 3D in many ways. Check out some of the whooshy, flying text from American news networks over ten years ago -- they've all gone nowhere since then. Whooshing flying words are so 1990s.
Sky News 2005 had some very swish ways of replacing one set of static text with another. In fact it's a shame they didn't use that technique overall to do away with scrolling text altogether.
CK.
Well it's different strokes for different folks I suppose. I just don't like Sky News graphics - and haven't done for years. And these are the worst of the lot.
Having said that, while I wouldn't say I'm warming to them, I am getting a bit more used to them. I should stress though I still think they are very, very poor.
ST
[quote="Bob Paisley"][quote="whophd"]
Sky News graphics have looked rubbish for years. Cheap, 2D, lacking in texture or warmth. I assume they've done research - maybe people like them because they're simple.
Give them a fair cop -- the 2005 revision made excellent use of animation. 2D is actually more modern than 3D in many ways. Check out some of the whooshy, flying text from American news networks over ten years ago -- they've all gone nowhere since then. Whooshing flying words are so 1990s.
Sky News 2005 had some very swish ways of replacing one set of static text with another. In fact it's a shame they didn't use that technique overall to do away with scrolling text altogether.
CK.
Well it's different strokes for different folks I suppose. I just don't like Sky News graphics - and haven't done for years. And these are the worst of the lot.
Having said that, while I wouldn't say I'm warming to them, I am getting a bit more used to them. I should stress though I still think they are very, very poor.
Hey there Bob.
I cannot remember typing the above out. Are you sure this was me?
Chris
Bob Paisley posted:
Anne MacKenzie Fan posted:
Bob Paisley posted:
Sky News graphics have looked rubbish for years. Cheap, 2D, lacking in texture or warmth. I assume they've done research - maybe people like them because they're simple.
Give them a fair cop -- the 2005 revision made excellent use of animation. 2D is actually more modern than 3D in many ways. Check out some of the whooshy, flying text from American news networks over ten years ago -- they've all gone nowhere since then. Whooshing flying words are so 1990s.
Sky News 2005 had some very swish ways of replacing one set of static text with another. In fact it's a shame they didn't use that technique overall to do away with scrolling text altogether.
CK.
Well it's different strokes for different folks I suppose. I just don't like Sky News graphics - and haven't done for years. And these are the worst of the lot.
Having said that, while I wouldn't say I'm warming to them, I am getting a bit more used to them. I should stress though I still think they are very, very poor.
Hey there Bob.
I cannot remember typing the above out. Are you sure this was me?
Chris
BP
[quote="Anne MacKenzie Fan"][quote="Bob Paisley"]
Sky News graphics have looked rubbish for years. Cheap, 2D, lacking in texture or warmth. I assume they've done research - maybe people like them because they're simple.
Give them a fair cop -- the 2005 revision made excellent use of animation. 2D is actually more modern than 3D in many ways. Check out some of the whooshy, flying text from American news networks over ten years ago -- they've all gone nowhere since then. Whooshing flying words are so 1990s.
Sky News 2005 had some very swish ways of replacing one set of static text with another. In fact it's a shame they didn't use that technique overall to do away with scrolling text altogether.
CK.
Well it's different strokes for different folks I suppose. I just don't like Sky News graphics - and haven't done for years. And these are the worst of the lot.
Having said that, while I wouldn't say I'm warming to them, I am getting a bit more used to them. I should stress though I still think they are very, very poor.
Hey there Bob.
I cannot remember typing the above out. Are you sure this was me?
Chris
As far as I'm aware. I just clicked on the quote icon and this is what followed. I was somewhere in the mid 350s.
whophd posted:
Bob Paisley posted:
Anne MacKenzie Fan posted:
Bob Paisley posted:
Sky News graphics have looked rubbish for years. Cheap, 2D, lacking in texture or warmth. I assume they've done research - maybe people like them because they're simple.
Give them a fair cop -- the 2005 revision made excellent use of animation. 2D is actually more modern than 3D in many ways. Check out some of the whooshy, flying text from American news networks over ten years ago -- they've all gone nowhere since then. Whooshing flying words are so 1990s.
Sky News 2005 had some very swish ways of replacing one set of static text with another. In fact it's a shame they didn't use that technique overall to do away with scrolling text altogether.
CK.
Well it's different strokes for different folks I suppose. I just don't like Sky News graphics - and haven't done for years. And these are the worst of the lot.
Having said that, while I wouldn't say I'm warming to them, I am getting a bit more used to them. I should stress though I still think they are very, very poor.
Hey there Bob.
I cannot remember typing the above out. Are you sure this was me?
Chris
As far as I'm aware. I just clicked on the quote icon and this is what followed. I was somewhere in the mid 350s.
BP
All I did was press 'quote'. I can't be held responsible if these new-fangled, magic calculating machines put the wrong thing in the wrong place.
Anne MacKenzie Fan posted:
whophd
Page 359 - not me though Bob.
No harm done
Page 359 - not me though Bob.
No harm done
All I did was press 'quote'. I can't be held responsible if these new-fangled, magic calculating machines put the wrong thing in the wrong place.
ST
All I did was press 'quote'. I can't be held responsible if these new-fangled, magic calculating machines put the wrong thing in the wrong place.
Please don't get arsey with me Bob.
I would be more careful when quoting in the future. Humans operate computers!
Bob Paisley posted:
Anne MacKenzie Fan posted:
whophd
Page 359 - not me though Bob.
No harm done
Page 359 - not me though Bob.
No harm done
All I did was press 'quote'. I can't be held responsible if these new-fangled, magic calculating machines put the wrong thing in the wrong place.
Please don't get arsey with me Bob.
I would be more careful when quoting in the future. Humans operate computers!
WH
Ahem, 'twas me he was quoting. (I always end my spiels in "CK." ... on lots of forums around the web).
[quote="Bob Paisley"][quote="whophd"]
Sky News graphics have looked rubbish for years. Cheap, 2D, lacking in texture or warmth. I assume they've done research - maybe people like them because they're simple.
Give them a fair cop -- the 2005 revision made excellent use of animation. 2D is actually more modern than 3D in many ways. Check out some of the whooshy, flying text from American news networks over ten years ago -- they've all gone nowhere since then. Whooshing flying words are so 1990s.
Sky News 2005 had some very swish ways of replacing one set of static text with another. In fact it's a shame they didn't use that technique overall to do away with scrolling text altogether.
CK.
Well it's different strokes for different folks I suppose. I just don't like Sky News graphics - and haven't done for years. And these are the worst of the lot.
Look I'll come closer to your point of view -- I used to hate the 2002-2004 graphics on Sky. They were very flat, not to mention 4:3. The 2005 ones were just such an improvement -- and they innovated a bit with animations, but it's true to say they could have added glossy stuff by now.
It's not as if the graphics design trend towards translucency and gloss has been unexpected. Apple previewed its glossy icons and "OK" buttons in January 2000, and famously called them "lickable". Next thing you knew, lots of websites started adopting the look, a few around the web showed you how to copy the "lickable" style in Photoshop, and Microsoft started adding it to various GUI elements.
Having said that, while I wouldn't say I'm warming to them, I am getting a bit more used to them. I should stress though I still think they are very, very poor.
Hehe, I think we agree more than disagree.
But where do you stand on CNN USA vs CNN International?
I keep watching ABC News and CBS News (they rebroadcast it here on Sky News Aus) and it's always obvious how much the US news broadcasts love using flying whooshing text at Every Single Oppportunity. There's not one bit of title graphics or captions that can bloody sit still.
CK.
[quote="Bob Paisley"][quote="whophd"]
Bob Paisley posted:
Anne MacKenzie Fan posted:
Bob Paisley posted:
Sky News graphics have looked rubbish for years. Cheap, 2D, lacking in texture or warmth. I assume they've done research - maybe people like them because they're simple.
Give them a fair cop -- the 2005 revision made excellent use of animation. 2D is actually more modern than 3D in many ways. Check out some of the whooshy, flying text from American news networks over ten years ago -- they've all gone nowhere since then. Whooshing flying words are so 1990s.
Sky News 2005 had some very swish ways of replacing one set of static text with another. In fact it's a shame they didn't use that technique overall to do away with scrolling text altogether.
CK.
Well it's different strokes for different folks I suppose. I just don't like Sky News graphics - and haven't done for years. And these are the worst of the lot.
Look I'll come closer to your point of view -- I used to hate the 2002-2004 graphics on Sky. They were very flat, not to mention 4:3. The 2005 ones were just such an improvement -- and they innovated a bit with animations, but it's true to say they could have added glossy stuff by now.
It's not as if the graphics design trend towards translucency and gloss has been unexpected. Apple previewed its glossy icons and "OK" buttons in January 2000, and famously called them "lickable". Next thing you knew, lots of websites started adopting the look, a few around the web showed you how to copy the "lickable" style in Photoshop, and Microsoft started adding it to various GUI elements.
Quote:
Having said that, while I wouldn't say I'm warming to them, I am getting a bit more used to them. I should stress though I still think they are very, very poor.
Hehe, I think we agree more than disagree.
But where do you stand on CNN USA vs CNN International?
I keep watching ABC News and CBS News (they rebroadcast it here on Sky News Aus) and it's always obvious how much the US news broadcasts love using flying whooshing text at Every Single Oppportunity. There's not one bit of title graphics or captions that can bloody sit still.
CK.