NG
That's the bit I actually find quite distracting. The camera is quite often whooshing around and it does become a little irritating after a while.
Yes - there is a degree of hosepiping in the camerawork. Part of this is "because we can" movement.
However there are also production "issues" with using the back wall VR for insets etc. It is very difficult to do clean cuts to different "inset" sources etc with the VR. I think that it is not that easy with the ITN system to do a background and foreground cut at the same time? So you can't easily cleanly change the VR backing on a camera change, to allow an in-vision turn AND background change at the same time - instead you have to fudge it with an animate? This means doing a camera move between shots is easier than cutting between cameras - as the move allows time for the animate?
I suspect there is also a lot of use of the jib to justify having it...
The tension between overuse of technology and properly motivated shots is an interesting one. Whic particular shots do you guys think could be better served with something different? On the animation point, surely it's simply a subjective artistic decision to see the animations - often there would an apparent continuity error if a background suddenly changed on a shot cut.
It is more a case of the story insets - which appear "stuck" on the background changing. I don't think there is a continuity error on other news programmes when the graphic "inset" or "window key" appears on a cut.
noggin
Founding member
Jonathan H posted:
noggin posted:
chrisb posted:
Hymagumba posted:
The clever bit though is how it stays still with so much camera movement.
That's the bit I actually find quite distracting. The camera is quite often whooshing around and it does become a little irritating after a while.
Yes - there is a degree of hosepiping in the camerawork. Part of this is "because we can" movement.
However there are also production "issues" with using the back wall VR for insets etc. It is very difficult to do clean cuts to different "inset" sources etc with the VR. I think that it is not that easy with the ITN system to do a background and foreground cut at the same time? So you can't easily cleanly change the VR backing on a camera change, to allow an in-vision turn AND background change at the same time - instead you have to fudge it with an animate? This means doing a camera move between shots is easier than cutting between cameras - as the move allows time for the animate?
I suspect there is also a lot of use of the jib to justify having it...
The tension between overuse of technology and properly motivated shots is an interesting one. Whic particular shots do you guys think could be better served with something different? On the animation point, surely it's simply a subjective artistic decision to see the animations - often there would an apparent continuity error if a background suddenly changed on a shot cut.
It is more a case of the story insets - which appear "stuck" on the background changing. I don't think there is a continuity error on other news programmes when the graphic "inset" or "window key" appears on a cut.