NG
Yep - the peds are also too low with a stage that high they are very "up the nostrils" in shot terms.
With such a splendid stage and impressive lighting rig it just feels that the coverage is at odds with the staging.
Not that simple peds don’t work, they just need to be a little shorter in length and have a slight track in them to continue the flow.
The problem with peds is that they don't really track quickly enough, and as they are positioned they are too close to the stage to get enough effective movement on them laterally. You'd be able to do some subtle depresses or elevates to keep them interesting, especially from those left and right, or use them for very quick drop-ins, but you really need something that can move as quickly and as interestingly as a steadicam (shooting wide) to be dynamic - and they just aren't.
The SVT railcams really do lose their appeal in a short space of time; they just make the event into a bland MTV-like blurfest of movement and action, arguably a lazy way out of having to construct shooting scripts tailored to each performance, instead just generating generic movement for the sake of it that will paste over every song nicely, regardless of what it is, with only the most obvious references to what's going on with the performances.
Don't agree. The railcams (and the steadicam when working at the front of the stage and not on it) are just a less-intrusive replacement for the standard manned tracking cameras that have been used for music coverage since the 70s. I love them.
The SVT system of having two rail cams slaved together, so you could cut wide/tight from the same moving position, was a stunning trick, which they used effectively IMHO. The Germans are also using a rail cam in a similar way, but they only have one, and it isn't used as well.
The way you have to cover these events has changed. Ideally you have to give a seamless stream of moving shots for the coverage to feel slick and high quality these days. I think Birmingham in 1998 kind of set this standard - though the staging and scale of the set and staging allowed this with a different mix of cameras.
I agree that with poor compression systems constant movement and lighting changes can cause blurring issues!
Not sure I agree that the SVT stuff was lazily scripted though - just watching Melodifestivalen this year - especially the Lena interval act in the final, and the Carola and BWO performances - shows that they are incredibly tightly scripted, with moving shot to moving shot mixes, pan offs, steadicam whips etc. all deployed impressively and at an incredibly high energy level.
The most disappointing thing about Eurovision over the past seven years from a presentation perspective though is the pre-packaged homogenous event it has become. Each year no longer has an identity, even stemming down to the graphics which are now horribly standardised. But mainly the sets.
Rather than each year devising a wholly distinctive look, now its just the case of the host country hiring in the usual truckloads of electronic screens, arranging them in a different formation to the previous year, and building the usual crass, plasticy, high-gloss stage with equally predictable in-built fan grills forming the perimeter. It’s all become so standardised and bland. Estonia in 2002, even considering their hugely limited resources, was a real low point:
I think that LED screens / projectors previously - are just so flexible, allowing major changes for each performance - that you have to embrace them. If you look at music shows around Europe, and concerts, they are incredibly popular. Sure the glass/perspex floor high-gloss look has been in for a while now - and I suspect we'll get another shift in the next few years - but at the moment its the fashion - and you have to be very confident to take your own route.
I think the integration of moving LED clad podiums, allowing different height configurations for different acts, has been an interesting innovation over the last few years.
In set terms I have very fond memories of Copenhagen and Stockholm in the early 90s - with Jerusalem in 1999 being my least favourite set (far too small and not well executed IMHO) of recent years. Ireland in 1997 was a very interesting look - with the use of TVs kind of pre-cursing LED screens etc.
Just all of this blatantly electronic synthetic muck has really made Eurovision so predicable every year now. In a way technology has reached its peak for the time being; it was building throughout the 1990s with lighting, display, graphic and set material developments but it’s all kinda reached the summit for the time being. The technology isn’t really wowing anymore like it used to, down in part to the developments in electronic screens in particular. They’ve just taken over everything, acting as the set itself, as a form of lighting, and even performers in their own right on stage.
These days, as LED lighting and LED screens converge, electronic background images and lighting are effectively two bits of the same system - and indeed there are lighting systems that integrate LED video and LED lighting, along with non-LED lighting. This is the future - as it allows more tightly controlled colour and texture effects to be deployed.
This year Melodifestivalen was running on a tighter budget - and they had no LED screens. It did feel slightly the worse for it - though the squiggly set was cleverly designed, and the run-outs allowing performers to move into the middle of the audience whilst performance, were used to great effect by a number of acts.
I think, however fondly we look back on the 90s and early 00s shows, they don't all stand up well to repeat viewing now. Times have changed, and TV production has become ever slicker.
One thing that the Swedes did was massively raise the game technically - with some of the best quality pictures and some very good 5.1 sound. This year the picture quality was noticably poorer on the steadicam and spider cam - which was a shame.
You used to be able to wow the audience in the past by keeping things relatively muted (not dead now), but ten blow them away with certain camera angles, lighting cues, or vast views of spectucalar sets. Now that we have a constant flashy spectacle for two hours solid, the drama ironically, is just lost.
I think that there was historically a case that some songs were favoured in direction and staging terms - and that these days this isn't the case. That said, the Swedes did a good job of varying the mix of coverage with slower numbers - I particularly remember Serbia and Montenegro being sympathetically covered in 2004.
noggin
Founding member
Telefís posted:
I agree about the vast lighting grid – think it looks simply stunning. Elegant in fact. Agreed to a certain degree about the stodgy visuals: static peds, and often lingering ones at that, simply do not work with the frenetic pace of the other cameras. Indeed cutting up the still shots tends to jar completely with the broader shooting script and draws attention to itself. It’s a convention from 1996, not 2006.
Yep - the peds are also too low with a stage that high they are very "up the nostrils" in shot terms.
With such a splendid stage and impressive lighting rig it just feels that the coverage is at odds with the staging.
Quote:
Not that simple peds don’t work, they just need to be a little shorter in length and have a slight track in them to continue the flow.
The problem with peds is that they don't really track quickly enough, and as they are positioned they are too close to the stage to get enough effective movement on them laterally. You'd be able to do some subtle depresses or elevates to keep them interesting, especially from those left and right, or use them for very quick drop-ins, but you really need something that can move as quickly and as interestingly as a steadicam (shooting wide) to be dynamic - and they just aren't.
Quote:
The SVT railcams really do lose their appeal in a short space of time; they just make the event into a bland MTV-like blurfest of movement and action, arguably a lazy way out of having to construct shooting scripts tailored to each performance, instead just generating generic movement for the sake of it that will paste over every song nicely, regardless of what it is, with only the most obvious references to what's going on with the performances.
Don't agree. The railcams (and the steadicam when working at the front of the stage and not on it) are just a less-intrusive replacement for the standard manned tracking cameras that have been used for music coverage since the 70s. I love them.
The SVT system of having two rail cams slaved together, so you could cut wide/tight from the same moving position, was a stunning trick, which they used effectively IMHO. The Germans are also using a rail cam in a similar way, but they only have one, and it isn't used as well.
The way you have to cover these events has changed. Ideally you have to give a seamless stream of moving shots for the coverage to feel slick and high quality these days. I think Birmingham in 1998 kind of set this standard - though the staging and scale of the set and staging allowed this with a different mix of cameras.
I agree that with poor compression systems constant movement and lighting changes can cause blurring issues!
Not sure I agree that the SVT stuff was lazily scripted though - just watching Melodifestivalen this year - especially the Lena interval act in the final, and the Carola and BWO performances - shows that they are incredibly tightly scripted, with moving shot to moving shot mixes, pan offs, steadicam whips etc. all deployed impressively and at an incredibly high energy level.
Quote:
The most disappointing thing about Eurovision over the past seven years from a presentation perspective though is the pre-packaged homogenous event it has become. Each year no longer has an identity, even stemming down to the graphics which are now horribly standardised. But mainly the sets.
Rather than each year devising a wholly distinctive look, now its just the case of the host country hiring in the usual truckloads of electronic screens, arranging them in a different formation to the previous year, and building the usual crass, plasticy, high-gloss stage with equally predictable in-built fan grills forming the perimeter. It’s all become so standardised and bland. Estonia in 2002, even considering their hugely limited resources, was a real low point:
I think that LED screens / projectors previously - are just so flexible, allowing major changes for each performance - that you have to embrace them. If you look at music shows around Europe, and concerts, they are incredibly popular. Sure the glass/perspex floor high-gloss look has been in for a while now - and I suspect we'll get another shift in the next few years - but at the moment its the fashion - and you have to be very confident to take your own route.
I think the integration of moving LED clad podiums, allowing different height configurations for different acts, has been an interesting innovation over the last few years.
In set terms I have very fond memories of Copenhagen and Stockholm in the early 90s - with Jerusalem in 1999 being my least favourite set (far too small and not well executed IMHO) of recent years. Ireland in 1997 was a very interesting look - with the use of TVs kind of pre-cursing LED screens etc.
Quote:
Just all of this blatantly electronic synthetic muck has really made Eurovision so predicable every year now. In a way technology has reached its peak for the time being; it was building throughout the 1990s with lighting, display, graphic and set material developments but it’s all kinda reached the summit for the time being. The technology isn’t really wowing anymore like it used to, down in part to the developments in electronic screens in particular. They’ve just taken over everything, acting as the set itself, as a form of lighting, and even performers in their own right on stage.
These days, as LED lighting and LED screens converge, electronic background images and lighting are effectively two bits of the same system - and indeed there are lighting systems that integrate LED video and LED lighting, along with non-LED lighting. This is the future - as it allows more tightly controlled colour and texture effects to be deployed.
This year Melodifestivalen was running on a tighter budget - and they had no LED screens. It did feel slightly the worse for it - though the squiggly set was cleverly designed, and the run-outs allowing performers to move into the middle of the audience whilst performance, were used to great effect by a number of acts.
I think, however fondly we look back on the 90s and early 00s shows, they don't all stand up well to repeat viewing now. Times have changed, and TV production has become ever slicker.
One thing that the Swedes did was massively raise the game technically - with some of the best quality pictures and some very good 5.1 sound. This year the picture quality was noticably poorer on the steadicam and spider cam - which was a shame.
Quote:
You used to be able to wow the audience in the past by keeping things relatively muted (not dead now), but ten blow them away with certain camera angles, lighting cues, or vast views of spectucalar sets. Now that we have a constant flashy spectacle for two hours solid, the drama ironically, is just lost.
I think that there was historically a case that some songs were favoured in direction and staging terms - and that these days this isn't the case. That said, the Swedes did a good job of varying the mix of coverage with slower numbers - I particularly remember Serbia and Montenegro being sympathetically covered in 2004.
TI
IMO the best sets have been Millstreet in 1993 and Dublin in 1994. The 2000 and 2001 events were simply far too big, whilst the 1999 in Jerusalem was in a far too small an auitorium.
BF
It's annoying Dr. Who having a Gay following attached when your a fan who's straight. as for eurovison tho well the music is s**t the scoreing is good/funny
TVF posted:
It's a gay man's dream schedule this evening; Doctor Who followed by Eurovision. 
It's annoying Dr. Who having a Gay following attached when your a fan who's straight. as for eurovison tho well the music is s**t the scoreing is good/funny
NG
It's annoying Dr. Who having a Gay stigma attached when your a fan who's straight. as for eurovison tho well the music is s**t the scoreing is good/funny
Think with the viewing figures Dr Who is getting it has a much wider appeal...
And - "gay stigma" - isn't that a bit offensive?
noggin
Founding member
Bewitched_Fan_2k posted:
TVF posted:
It's a gay man's dream schedule this evening; Doctor Who followed by Eurovision.
It's annoying Dr. Who having a Gay stigma attached when your a fan who's straight. as for eurovison tho well the music is s**t the scoreing is good/funny
Think with the viewing figures Dr Who is getting it has a much wider appeal...
And - "gay stigma" - isn't that a bit offensive?
BF
Yes it was I'm sorry edited re-worded it. I'm very slow yes I know but I don't follow popular music anymore but used to, Our entry that was guy who used to be in Bus Stop......
noggin posted:
And - "gay stigma" - isn't that a bit offensive?
Yes it was I'm sorry edited re-worded it. I'm very slow yes I know but I don't follow popular music anymore but used to, Our entry that was guy who used to be in Bus Stop......