What has TV3 done to their studio lighting ?

Forums › Freeview (DVB-T/DVB-S) › What has TV3 done to their studio lighting ?

ilovemusic

1160 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 147

Topic # 113628 22-Jan-2013 19:27

For the past week or so, everything live coming out of TV3's Auckland studio has looked atrocious !

Too dark, too much ruddy reds etc.

Like someone HDR'd or Instagram'd all the studio footage.

Tonight's Campbell Live with the live cross to Stephen Joyce in Wellington studio showed just how bad things from Auckland look while Wellington was fine.

Joyce looked good while John Campbell looked HDR'd.

1 | 2

537 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 37

Reply # 749096 22-Jan-2013 19:52

And why do the studio cameras in Campbell live have to be in constant motion. Keep still damn you. If I wanted to be in continuous motion I would hop on a roundabout with the kids!

gzt

9931 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1494

Reply # 749343 23-Jan-2013 09:50

This technique helps news programs retain casual viewers with short attention spans by convincing their brain something is happening or is about to happen.

In other news TV One has announced a partnership with logitech to make presenters appear at random like talking dinosaurs, aliens or talking flowers.

Journeyman

451 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 281

Reply # 749373 23-Jan-2013 10:26

gzt:

In other news TV One has announced a partnership with logitech to make presenters appear at random like talking dinosaurs, aliens or talking flowers.

I would totally watch that.

PimpMyMagic

262 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 2

Reply # 749384 23-Jan-2013 10:39

A triumph of technology over content.

Wouldn't the money be better spent teaching them to READ from a teleprompt, and stop ad libbing all those umms, arghs and nows. I guess that last is a preferred pause interjection as it helps give the story a sense of urgency.

old3eyes

7830 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 782

Subscriber

Reply # 749552 23-Jan-2013 14:02

Wouldn't it be better to just have one news reader and a half hour program.. This Tweedledee and Tweedledum approach is a complete waist of money..

Regards,

Old3eyes

RunningMan

4904 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1538

Reply # 749646 23-Jan-2013 15:38

old3eyes: Wouldn't it be better to just have one news reader and a half hour program.. This Tweedledee and Tweedledum approach is a complete waist of money..

+1

Prime do the 5.30 bulletin which is far less irritating to watch.

Goosey

1551 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 157

Subscriber

Reply # 749649 23-Jan-2013 15:41

Maybe the lighting is to help make the presenters more attractive... cue 70's xrated music here !

tonyhughes

Hawkes Bay
8477 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4

Mod Emeritus

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

Reply # 749650 23-Jan-2013 15:43

bom chikka wow wowwwwww

Visit http://www.thecloud.net.nz for New Zealand based Hosted Exchange, Virtual Servers, Web Hosting, FTP Backup & more.
(1GB free FTP storage, or larger plans from $5.75)

- Setup your own mailserver at home on Ubuntu Server - full step by step howto here.
- Have you seen this: Nathan "KFC4LIFE" Dunn.

Deev8

481 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 5

Reply # 749712 23-Jan-2013 16:56

old3eyes: This Tweedledee and Tweedledum approach is a complete waist of money..

A waist? It must cost an arm and a leg.

JimmyH

2509 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1164

Reply # 749893 23-Jan-2013 22:22

old3eyes: Wouldn't it be better to just have one news reader and a half hour program.. This Tweedledee and Tweedledum approach is a complete waist of money..

The news is already less than a half-hour program! the trouble is, without a PVR, it takes an hour to watch it.

The slot is 60 minutes.

Subtract:

17 minutes (for commercial breaks)
4 minutes for the cute carefully scripted adlibs between presenters
1 minute for the cute carefully scripted adlibs between presenters and the weather presenter
2 minutes for the weather forecast in the Pacific islands and Australia (which is pointless), and the banal shot of somewhere in NZ
3-4 minutes for the "community busy-body" item at the end: "Jim has been picking up leaves outside local schools for 27 years......."
4-5 minutes for soft "news" coverage on Obama's cat, Kate Middleton's new dress, Algy the claustrophobic budgie, or whatever "human interest" pap they can come up with to pad the program
1 minute for the intro music and closing credits

And you are left with a news of around 26-28 minutes. Subtract another 12 minutes if you don't regard the sports roundup as regular news, and that leaves 14-16 minutes of actual hard news. All carefully crammed into 60 minutes, and needing three presenters to share the hard work.

And that's - drum roll- why I tend to read things online, read the paper, or listen to morning report.

ilovemusic

1160 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 147

Reply # 749919 23-Jan-2013 22:59

Gooseybhai: Maybe the lighting is to help make the presenters more attractive... cue 70's xrated music here !

Dunno about that...

Mike McRoberts is looking a bit like Michael Jackson

richms

21235 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4271

Trusted

Subscriber

Reply # 749942 23-Jan-2013 23:48

And I would swear that the ads for campbell live returning were in HD - the text was at least nice and sharp, yet the news still looks like the same shoddy oversharpened on a crappy image processer SD crap that it always has been since they went 1080.

Richard rich.ms

hdinsider

546 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 13

Reply # 749958 24-Jan-2013 01:14

JimmyH:
old3eyes: Wouldn't it be better to just have one news reader and a half hour program.. This Tweedledee and Tweedledum approach is a complete waist of money..

The news is already less than a half-hour program! the trouble is, without a PVR, it takes an hour to watch it.

The slot is 60 minutes.

Subtract:

17 minutes (for commercial breaks)
4 minutes for the cute carefully scripted adlibs between presenters
1 minute for the cute carefully scripted adlibs between presenters and the weather presenter
2 minutes for the weather forecast in the Pacific islands and Australia (which is pointless), and the banal shot of somewhere in NZ
3-4 minutes for the "community busy-body" item at the end: "Jim has been picking up leaves outside local schools for 27 years......."
4-5 minutes for soft "news" coverage on Obama's cat, Kate Middleton's new dress, Algy the claustrophobic budgie, or whatever "human interest" pap they can come up with to pad the program
1 minute for the intro music and closing credits

And you are left with a news of around 26-28 minutes. Subtract another 12 minutes if you don't regard the sports roundup as regular news, and that leaves 14-16 minutes of actual hard news. All carefully crammed into 60 minutes, and needing three presenters to share the hard work.

And that's - drum roll- why I tend to read things online, read the paper, or listen to morning report.

Think you're talking about tv1... Wasn't this a thread about 3?

don't mess with me.... i'm the hd insider....

hdinsider

546 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 13

Reply # 749959 24-Jan-2013 01:17

richms: And I would swear that the ads for campbell live returning were in HD - the text was at least nice and sharp, yet the news still looks like the same shoddy oversharpened on a crappy image processer SD crap that it always has been since they went 1080.

If it was gonna be in hd this year wouldn't they have advertised it as being in hd?

don't mess with me.... i'm the hd insider....

old3eyes

7830 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 782

Subscriber

Reply # 749990 24-Jan-2013 08:34

hdinsider:
JimmyH:
old3eyes: Wouldn't it be better to just have one news reader and a half hour program.. This Tweedledee and Tweedledum approach is a complete waist of money..

The news is already less than a half-hour program! the trouble is, without a PVR, it takes an hour to watch it.

The slot is 60 minutes.

Subtract:

17 minutes (for commercial breaks)
4 minutes for the cute carefully scripted adlibs between presenters
1 minute for the cute carefully scripted adlibs between presenters and the weather presenter
2 minutes for the weather forecast in the Pacific islands and Australia (which is pointless), and the banal shot of somewhere in NZ
3-4 minutes for the "community busy-body" item at the end: "Jim has been picking up leaves outside local schools for 27 years......."
4-5 minutes for soft "news" coverage on Obama's cat, Kate Middleton's new dress, Algy the claustrophobic budgie, or whatever "human interest" pap they can come up with to pad the program
1 minute for the intro music and closing credits

And you are left with a news of around 26-28 minutes. Subtract another 12 minutes if you don't regard the sports roundup as regular news, and that leaves 14-16 minutes of actual hard news. All carefully crammed into 60 minutes, and needing three presenters to share the hard work.

And that's - drum roll- why I tend to read things online, read the paper, or listen to morning report.

Think you're talking about tv1... Wasn't this a thread about 3?

They're both have the same level of tabloid news.. JimmyH sumed up pretty well the state of TV news in this country..

Regards,

Old3eyes

1 | 2