Sky News presentation - New studio onwards

My recollection is that when the old wraparound screen was retired, the comments here were largely along the lines of: "Urgh! It looks like a big laptop!"


My point being it's easy to have kneejerk reactions to that which is relatively new. Your opinion may or may not change, but with rare exception, new pres elements tend to provoke less objection with time.

What kind of screen is it in the new set? I disagree with the comments, I think it looks pretty good.

How long is it classed as new?

And no knee-jerk reaction from me, it's not the first time I've seen the glass box screen. But seeing Ed Conway stood in front of it, you can't help think back to the impressive shots of him stood in front of the previous 2 screens in the old studio.

You're entitled to your opinion, but I think people will grow more-accustomed to it.

Well it does look washed out in some places. Particularly this shot.
CNN's DC studio just install some (first-of-its-kind) seriously impressive LED walls that look brilliant on telly. So there is new technology out there than can certainly fix that weird washed out shadowing problem. Needs to be addressed, especially since they use the wall as for these stands up and point and talk segments.
https://www.digitalsignagetoday.com/articles/cnn-adds-led-video-walls-to-the-situation-room/

Of course they will, that's the nature of people getting use to something and no longer seeing its previous counterpart.

But the new screen has little WOW factor when you see it ion Ed Conway's segment. In fact it doesn't look that far different to when the weather presenters use to present forecasts in front of a large monitor.

That said, I'm sure it will have no impact on the quality of the output so who are we to discuss it on a TV presentation forum.

Please don't go looking for a fight where there isn't one.

Then let people have their opinion without barking down at them every single time.

You are biased and quite often, your posts do appear to be you speaking on behalf of your employer.

Of course I'm institutionally-biased towards Sky. I've poured three-and-a-half years of blood, sweat and tears into working for them and my bosses have been very appreciative in return.


Does that mean I agree with everything the channel does? Of course not, but it is frankly reductive to suggest my bias is blind. As a longtime reader (if only relatively-recent contributor) to TVF, I was merely pointing out that people have tended to be resistant to pres-related changes, and that this was - in my opinion - one of the facets that would provoke less objection over time.

I never said you weren't entitled to your opinion - quite the opposite - but what I did do was try to lend some context to the conversation - something which, if I felt it appropriate, I would do in relation to another channel.

I know, however, that Sky attracts an especially ardent base of pres enthusiasts and/or critics, and I'm in a position to comment on that with some degree of background knowledge, so I have.

You are attempting - and if I may say so, failing - to get me to engage in a rather more combative form of discourse. You may keep going if you wish - but on your head be it.

Err - comparing a daylight glass-walled studio with almost no realistic control of ambient light levels with a screen in a controlled, entirely lit, studio is a bit like apples and oranges?

Sky may well have LED screen tech that would look a LOT better in a well lit studio than it does in a box where you are fighting daylight spill...

Which does beg the question why Sky decided to move shows into a studio with very challenging lighting conditions - just when they are introducing automation and likely to be removing people with craft skills...

Couldn't they have added some of the polarized window and camera filter to deal with the sunlight? I seem to remember CTV using Rosco filters during the Vancouver Olympics that did not affect the screens?

I'm not sure it would work that well - that treatment works very well for direct light, where the windows are in-vision and you are trying to reduce the impact of a burned out background.

However in reality because the polarisation system doesn't actually drop the light levels in the space (other than by the amount the window filter acts as a mild ND) - and once the light starts reflecting off surfaces the polarisation is altered, and the reduction in light levels hitting the camera doesn't change as much.

When you see Rosco polarisation products in use you can see this effect really clearly on anything that changes the polarisation of the light - like hair, fabric etc. Blonde presenters' hair often looks horrificaly back-lit because their hair alters the polarisation, and is then seen at something like full-brightness, the same goes for furnishing fabric which can make sofa edges look thermonuclear. Some reflective surfaces in a studio will also do this.

However the issue in this case isn't the light levels per se, it's the fact that the box is being lit from all sides (it isn't in direct sunlight as far as I can see) but it does suffer heavily from ambient spill coming in from three directions.