Daybreak

If the windows "darken automatically" as has been tweeted, perhaps they have a liquid crystal film over them which can be darkened by adjusting the voltage that serves them.

In which case you might get away with calling it "state of the art", even though that particular technology is around 10 years old. Its not commonly used because it costs several thousand pounds per square metre.

I've specified something similar in the past 5 years but, as exciting a material as it is, its seldom taken up because of the cost.

Compared to the red sofa and the fake window we have had for years - this new studio can be classed as "state of the art". Don't forget we have only seen one presentation area so far, and there are five presentation areas in the studio. Also, we have only seen pictures, lets wait until the show is live and we can see the full studio being used to its full potential. I am very much looking forward to Monday and cant wait to see what the show is going to be like.

Ummm, errr... I'm struggling with that a little bit.

If the windows are liquid crystal coated, then perhaps.

The technolgy employed in the studio is state of the art, the gallery has been given a thorough refit. When it was announced that Daybreak would be coming from studio 7 it was obvious the skyline would have been the focalpoint of the new set. The layers on the windows have always been there, they were used on London Today as well, especially as it can get quite sunny there in the mornings.

Could you be more specific about the technology employed in the studio? I'm a big boy, I'll understand it.

There may well have been layers on the glass - are you talking about neutral density filter, polarising filter or liquid crystal adjustable film?

The equipment that will allow them to broadcast in HD, the gallery has had to be extensively refurbished, the lighting and the cameras. Just because the viewer can't necessarily see the technology does not mean it is not there.

Patronising much? You're talking to TV Forumers, some of whom know a great deal about television production.

If the best you can say is "lighting" and "HD cameras" then you obviously don't know the extent of it either.

Five years ago, a studio equipped with HD infrastructure would have been state of the art, nowadays, it's the minimum spec. Apart from LED lighting, which all kicked off properly about 6-8 years ago now, there have been no real developments in the lighting world in that time either.

Unless you can provide details about what they've done differently, I'm afraid this is just normal for studios today, not state of the art, and certainly nothing BBC Breakfast will worry about!

Didn't Grandstand about 15 years ago use the LCD glass in their studio?

Five were certainly using it in their news studio at the last big refresh - but that was only an on/off circuit to switch from opaque white (for projections to land on) or transparent.

Variable tinting on a fader (or automatically based on a sensor) is relatively new. Previously it was very difficult to achieve without looking patchy, and this technical limitation has now been overcome.

'State of the art studio' would refer to the technical equipment, there's more to a studio than just the space where the presenters and cameras are.

All it means is that it has the latest technology - the most up to date cameras, vision mixer, graphics kit etc.... but then that's what you'd expect from a newly kitted out studio... they aren't going to buy second hand kit!

Every new broadcast setup says it's 'state of the art' because at that moment it is, give it a few months though and the kit won't be the latest

No they aren't. It has to be visually stimulating and interesting but that's very different to being distracting.

I watched the news coming from that studio for years, it always did (and still does) make for a fantastic and interesting background. However it never distracted your attention from what was being said, which is the important thing

This Morning, which I'm sure Stu watches, has had the windows since 1996, I believe...