BBC/ITV chose to use the 4:3 version as the 16:9 version only had 8 cameras instead of 40 or something like that.
The 16:9 version of the Japan/Korea coverage was in HDTV and, as you say, only had a small number of cameras. When it was downconverted to SDTV it would have lost the HD impact, and not looked as good as the 20+ camera 4:3 core coverage.
The 16:9 stuff was really only aimed for HD viewers - not 16:9 SD viewers.
I remember the 2002 WC was shown entirely in 4:3 format here but wasn't there widescreen feeds available, it's just ITV or BBC didn't take them? Perhaps they're widescreen feeds here too. Last Olympics was in Widescreen, but who produces that, the local tv companies or do the IOC have a company they sell the rights too? I assume it was an Australian company because they do tend to show sports in WS.
Back on WC 2002, Wasn't there some supa-widescreen feed too - sorry i'm not to familiar with the technical terms but it was very very wide and high def. Was only 1 camera though.
Hmmm...
Slight confusion. The core coverage of both the last World Cup and the Sydney Olympics was definitely 4:3.
HOWEVER - there was also 16:9 HDTV coverage of the World Cup (as Japan and Korea are both HDTV nations) - however this was done by putting additional HDTV cameras (nowhere near as many) into the stadium. The pictures will have been higher quality - but the actual quality of the coverage (things like radio cameras, super slow motion) will have been better in the 4:3 SDTV version - especially if you aren't able to see the HDTV stuff.
The difference with Euro2004 is that the CORE coverage is, apparently, HDTV - with the SDTV stuff being a downconversion, rather than the HD operation and SD operation being independent of each other as was th case in the past.
AFAIK the only 16:9 stuff out of Sydney would have been special HD (or 16:9 SDTV) coverage of a reduced number of events - the main core host broadcaster coverage was in 4:3 AFAIK.
As for who covers these large events like the Olympics, European and World Cups etc. Normally a broadcast organisation is set up to cover the event - and often it involves many of the broadcasting organisations (and in some cases independent facilities companies) in that country, and others close by, working together.
The BBC were responsible for the host broadcast coverage of the Olympic Tennis at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics (because their coverage of Wimbledon is so well respected), and they were also the host broadcasters for the Bob/Luge at theLillehammer QWinter Olympics in 1994 (because of their expertise in small cameras etc.)
Some interesting quotes on this thread including...
Quote:
The BBC's coverage will of course be on BBC television, bbc.co.uk and bbci, and will of course pulverise ITV in the ratings (except sadly England's first two games, including the crucial France game are on ITV, and we *always* lose on ITV in European championships )
What a pile of rubbish. You think the England football team know what channel they are playing on. Some people have mentioned this theory before but you've forgotten "England 4-1 Holland" - probably the best ever home performance by an England team in my 22 year life - and yes, live on ITV1 with Bob Wilson and co. Will you be supporting England during the World Cup... or the BBC? Your comments tell me the answer already. I think customer loyalty is great - as yes, you do pay over £100 to the BBC every year - but to be incorrect about the 'opposition' - that's just funny.
Quote:
I remember nearly being involved in a riot during Euro 96 when my local accidently stuck on the ITV coverage of the England v Germany match.
What a pearler. And also what a load of nonsense too - were you at a BBC buffet lunch in White City per chance?
Quote:
I thought ITVs coverage of the last world cup put BBCs to shame, ITV tried a new was of studio format and broadcasting during the games and Matt Smith had a blinder with his Panel Show. BBC just went with a dull studio and some token interactive options, the best of which was being able to change the commentry to Five Live!!! Of course BBC always win the ratings, they pick up all the casual watchers and the old people, i believe the younger demographics have the ratings a lot closer though.
I'm no iconic ITV or BBC fan, but I agree, it did. ITV did really well last World Cup and the format was excellent. So laid back and casual, a much better set, and the banter was excellent. I just fail to find anything interesting about Gary and co - he is football's equivalent of Steve Davis - nothing appealing about him.
Gary has his little smirks, and says every comment to the camera as if he's thinking about some great hypothetical theory, and delivers it in a similar style. Alan Hansen is bloody annoying, all he likes doing is talking bull and then laughing and shifting in his chair every so often, as well as hand movements that have nothing to do with what he's saying - I suppose it's to play charades with the word bullcr@p anyway.
Can the pundits on the BBC at least go five seconds without talking about their own sides?! Gary, cut the crap about Leicester, Alan - Liverpool who?, Wrighty - don't go there, Schmichel - shut up!
So annoying...
Oh dear- perhaps you didn't get the tongue-in-cheek nature of my "England *always* lose on ITV" comment. I apologise for not dumbing down to the level of an ITV viewer such as yourself (get the joke, please god let him get the joke )
The point about head-to-head ratings is however true, and anyone in possession of the previous form would not bet on ITV getting more viewers than the BBC for England in the quarter-finals (i.e. both channels showing coverage). ITV's coverage of the last World Cup was admittedly better than their previous attempts, largely due to them buying in a bit of gravitas in the form of Des Lynam- he is still a pro, but is surrounded by nothing. The thing about the BBC "England team" is that you know them, partly because they've covered England's road to the European Championships in the form of home qualifiers.
ITV in the last world cup believed they had put together the "technically" superior team of ex-England managers....with Robson, Venebles, Hoddle etc. But the problem is that they've never worked together before. They were horribly wooden and formulaic. There was no chemistry, no banter or quirky patriotism like on the BBC. And don't forget that for the England v Brazil quarter final, the BBC were in Japan, in the stadium soaking up the atmosphere. Meanwhile ITV were in a sterile studio in London, with presenters/summerisers of an average age of about 60. ITV were a long, long way behind the BBC in terms of coverage that day.
And as for the Euro 96 pub pictures- believe me there was nearly a riot as ITV went for their customary 5 minute break just before kick-off....and remember that was when the Beeb had Des and Linekar, against the very average (and now considered too dull for ITV) Bob Wilson.
I remember the 2002 WC was shown entirely in 4:3 format here but wasn't there widescreen feeds available, it's just ITV or BBC didn't take them? Perhaps they're widescreen feeds here too. Last Olympics was in Widescreen, but who produces that, the local tv companies or do the IOC have a company they sell the rights too? I assume it was an Australian company because they do tend to show sports in WS.
Back on WC 2002, Wasn't there some supa-widescreen feed too - sorry i'm not to familiar with the technical terms but it was very very wide and high def. Was only 1 camera though.
Hmmm...
Slight confusion. The core coverage of both the last World Cup and the Sydney Olympics was definitely 4:3.
HOWEVER - there was also 16:9 HDTV coverage of the World Cup (as Japan and Korea are both HDTV nations) - however this was done by putting additional HDTV cameras (nowhere near as many) into the stadium. The pictures will have been higher quality - but the actual quality of the coverage (things like radio cameras, super slow motion) will have been better in the 4:3 SDTV version - especially if you aren't able to see the HDTV stuff.
The difference with Euro2004 is that the CORE coverage is, apparently, HDTV - with the SDTV stuff being a downconversion, rather than the HD operation and SD operation being independent of each other as was th case in the past.
AFAIK the only 16:9 stuff out of Sydney would have been special HD (or 16:9 SDTV) coverage of a reduced number of events - the main core host broadcaster coverage was in 4:3 AFAIK.
As for who covers these large events like the Olympics, European and World Cups etc. Normally a broadcast organisation is set up to cover the event - and often it involves many of the broadcasting organisations (and in some cases independent facilities companies) in that country, and others close by, working together.
The BBC were responsible for the host broadcast coverage of the Olympic Tennis at the 1992 Barcelona Olympics (because their coverage of Wimbledon is so well respected), and they were also the host broadcasters for the Bob/Luge at theLillehammer QWinter Olympics in 1994 (because of their expertise in small cameras etc.)
Didn't the Beeb have a fairly large role in the Sydney Olympics? IIRC, didn't they film everything in the Olympic Stadium? Also of course, they were host broadcaster of Manchester 2002.
And don't forget that for the England v Brazil quarter final, the BBC were in Japan, in the stadium soaking up the atmosphere. Meanwhile ITV were in a sterile studio in London, with presenters/summerisers of an average age of about 60. ITV were a long, long way behind the BBC in terms of coverage that day.
Yeah it's also known as a summer beano, payment Care of the licence fee payer I noticed that for the final too, everyone at the BBC went off to the final!
ITVs pundits are on telly more than the BBCs - in terms of The Premiership (I never throught i'd say this 2and a half years ago but i'm really gonna miss that programme) and their Champs league coverage. Also if watching the BBCs coverage means you get to know the likes of Garth Crooks, Mark Lawrenson and Peter Reid then i'm defo not watching
I do hope the BBC give more chance to their upcoming commentators - perhaps send Barry Davis off to prepare for the Olympics. Also Mark Pougatch (sorry no idea how you spell his surname) should be used more. For gawd sakes choose one of Wright or Bright... not both!
BBCs coverage of the Commonwealths was excellent. I also believe they still do the pictures for the F1 British Grand Prix. Another thing ITV bury them at when it comes to sports coverage
Oh dear- perhaps you didn't get the tongue-in-cheek nature of my "England *always* lose on ITV" comment. I apologise for not dumbing down to the level of an ITV viewer such as yourself (get the joke, please god let him get the joke )
Hang on, are you talking to me or the forumers here You, him, etc! But yes, it must have been an ironic statement. Please note that I am a viewer of all channels, but since I have to pay the BBC for watching people put MDF in houses and call it a transformation, I try to get my moneys-worth - I really do try. Apart from footie, the one thing I do like about ITV is that I'm not forced to buy Daz in order to view a programme.
tsunami__active posted:
The point about head-to-head ratings is however true, and anyone in possession of the previous form would not bet on ITV getting more viewers than the BBC for England in the quarter-finals (i.e. both channels showing coverage). ITV's coverage of the last World Cup was admittedly better than their previous attempts, largely due to them buying in a bit of gravitas in the form of Des Lynam- he is still a pro, but is surrounded by nothing. The thing about the BBC "England team" is that you know them, partly because they've covered England's road to the European Championships in the form of home qualifiers.
Agreed, BBC always will get ratings, but I guarantee TV ads decide the opinions of many rather than actual content. However I disagree about the gravitas of the England team that the BBC have, two of them not being English for a start - and three if Mick McCarthy is involved.
I enjoy watching the ITV coverage in that the current pundits know the game very well, ie: having played it in the last five years - players like Andy Townsend surprisingly talk a lot of sense. Ally McCoist is very entertaining, cheeky, and I really think he is great on the TV. Hoddle is an ex-England manager, as is Robson - their input is extremely interesting. Robbie Earle - now it is a mystery why he is a pundit, but he is a fantastic one, and I really think he has been great for the team. Anyone who says the team dont have a rappor(t?) with each other cant be watching the Premiership on Monday like I do.
I just really cannot grow to like any of the BBC team, apart from Barry Davies who is sheer class. Hansen really grates on me - he's such a miserable ******* who needs to smile. Wright is just too off the wall, and his technical view of the game is about as good as one of his Saturday night entertainment shows. He is too loud, and over-powering, and his excessive hand actions and whooping take the shine away from when he is making any points. Mark Lawrenson slightly annoys me too - I wish he would enjoy the game instead of complaining in that voice of his. I don't think he can compare every single footballing moment to Liverpool of old any more than he does now - the sport has moved on a bit.
Who else - Schmiechel - not bad, I respect him as he has a good command of English, and the average Brit can speak feck all other languages, and he conveys himself well and raises good points - but I'm not too sure he fits in with the team well at all, I'd like to see more of him. Brighty - hmm, something is again a bit annoying - the way he talks too fast perhaps. He talks sense, but from a viewing perspective its very difficult to watch. He is in the Garth Crooks voice mode. Stubbsy - class act, IMHO better than Gary.
And don't forget that for the England v Brazil quarter final, the BBC were in Japan, in the stadium soaking up the atmosphere. Meanwhile ITV were in a sterile studio in London, with presenters/summerisers of an average age of about 60. ITV were a long, long way behind the BBC in terms of coverage that day.
BBCs coverage of the Commonwealths was excellent. I also believe they still do the pictures for the F1 British Grand Prix. Another thing ITV bury them at when it comes to sports coverage
The Beeb's Commonwealth Games coverage (both a host broadcaster and as domestic broadcaster) was very well regarded.
You are correct - BBC OBs provide the facilities for ITV's F1 presentation for all the European Grand Prix. (i.e. they cover the presenters not the race) - and at one point provided the host broadcaster resource facilities for ITV for the British Grand Prix. However I'm not sure if the coverage of the actual race is now provided by Bernie Ecclestone's operation instead of a host broadcaster.
(The BBC provide facilities for quite a number of other broadcasters - the ITV British Soap Awards were recorded at BBC TV Centre on Saturday in TC1)
Formula 1 coverage is split between host broadcasters and the FIA TV company. At the new courses the FIA produce the television coverage but other than that its usually provided by host broadcasters. However the FIA supplied the coverage in Australia which is normally done by a host broadcaster, and will be doing the US Grand Prix as usual (probably due to the majority of viewers using PAL where US use NTSC) as well as some other races next year. FIA will produce most if not all of the coverage in the future no doubt
ITV have dramatically axed
Gary Newbon
from their Euro 2004 coverage after over 30 years' service for the network.
To be honest I find this sad and disappointing news, Gary has a wealth of experience to offer, and returned to work surprisingly quickly after suffering a stroke in 2002.
I think this appears to be done on the grounds of gary's age and him being 'old school'.
ITV have dramatically axed
Gary Newbon
from their Euro 2004 coverage after over 30 years' service for the network.
To be honest I find this sad and disappointing news, Gary has a wealth of experience to offer, and returned to work surprisingly quickly after suffering a stroke in 2002.
I think this appears to be done on the grounds of gary's age and him being 'old school'.
Yes apparently they are replacing him with Matt Smith - excellent presenter that he is, i'm not sure about his interviewing techniques. And don't they already have Gabriel Clarke for interviewing?
Gary's been doing some work for Talksport this season. I suppose he may well carry on into Euro 2004.
Didn't Gary Newbon used to be a big cheese at Itv sport? I always thought it was odd that he was yet was still the underling they send down to the touchline (almost as strange as Classic Fm being run by Michael Barry from Food & Drink, who'd come on air with recipes).
Newbon, despite his experience has shown himself on Talksport this season to know little other than 'what a genius' Alex Ferguson is.
And at the risk of continuing to sound negative here, Matt Smith annoys the hell out of me. His sentence structure and tone is all over the place. Every sentence builds up... to a pause... and ends with a whimsical inquirying inflection.
Although I'm somewhat shocked at that article for publishing Ron Atkinsons exact comments without blanking anything out. I'm sure it hasn't appeared anywhere in print, but just been implied.
Also, it's reported for the first time ITV's coverage will be supported by an interactive service of the kind pioneered by Sky Sports and the BBC.
And David Baddiel and Frank Skinner are to bring back their popular Fantasy Football show after a six year break. They will be joined by celebrity guests and regular character Statto for the series, which will run throughout June on the channel.
)
I noticed that for the final too, everyone at the BBC went off to the final!
