Euro 2004 Coverage

I thought he was more involved with his football club(West Ham?) duties recently.

Didn't they have a change of manager over the last year or so?

(Don't follow football as such, apart from keeping an eye on the West Midlands teams, working with a couple of Wolves supporters, as you do !)

They should change it to this IMHO
2 Gabby Logan
Selected by ITV Sport to get the men waanking all over the country, a vital weapon for ITV Sport to take aways male viewers from the BBC. Gabby will front a range of Euro 2004 programming on ITV, including live and highlights shows. A natural in front of the camera, and truly passionate about the game, Gabby has become one of the main attractions for
ITV’s football audience, from ‘On Your Balls’ to the UEFA Champions League.

Euro2004 tv graphics can be seen by clicking this link
http://euro2004tv.deltatre.com/TVGraphics/index.html

They are very nice. Clear and vibrant. Much better than the World Cup 2002 graphics.

The Helveitica font is not too good though, Marydale font is nice though!

You can't beat Sly Sports gfxs though!

Those graphics look good, but given what it says in the BBC press release, I'm slightly confused as to why the graphics appear to have safe areas for 4:3 viewing on.....I thought all the output would be 4:3 anyway:

http://euro2004tv.deltatre.com/TVGraphics/images/Pres_Match_sm.jpg

I do like the graphics for euro 2004. Much better than the FIFA standard graphics they used in the World Cup and the FIFA Money Making Cup.

I must be an idiot because i prefer ITVs coverage to BBC. I find Lineker very annoying, he's just so smug, theres no way i'm going to watch the first match of the day because he's just going to be full of it. Also find Motson very annoying (He used to be good) and Barry Davis is just Barry Davis Lawrenson is a ****. I can stomach Ian Wright because he does what he's supposed to - be a total England Mark and talk toss. Schmeichel is worth his spot just because he talks over everyone else

I can't understand why people have a pop at ITV for adverts but don't do the same with Sky Sports. Sky show even more adverts at half time. ITV - for me - have the best commentry teams, I like Clive, he seems to get most things right, although recently he's started shouting.. bad idea Clive. Losing Big Ron is a "big out" (to quote Big Ron himself) I really liked Ron and thought him and Clive worked well together. Can't say i'm happy that they look to be partnering Clive with Andy Townsend.. actually they should just sack Townsend because he's poor.

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.

Almost every pub i go in show ITV. Why, i'm not sure but i'm guessing it's probably because they show adverts during half time, perhaps encouraging people to make a trip to the bar

[quote="The Shockmaster"]

Can't say i'm happy that they look to be partnering Clive with Andy Townsend.. actually they should just sack Townsend because he's poor.[quote]

I thought Andy Townsend was very good during the last World Cup when he was showing his support to Ireland but I'm not sure about having him as co commentator.

Completely agree ITV's coverage was so much better especially the pundits. ITV had pundits like Bobby Robson, Paul Gascoigne and Gary Neville I'm sure there's more but I've forgotten the rest but when both channels are head to head the BBC are always going to come out on top. ITV's best hope is to be not that far behind in the ratings.

Even if widescreen isn't involved, there still need to be safe areas to avoid bits being cut off on various TV sets. There is usually a bit of cut off on a television set, and graphics need to be in a safe area.

EDIT: And now I know what you mean! I suppose graphic designers get their brief regardless of any technical decisions. Graphic design would need to be compatible should the decision be made to broadcast in widescreen. And broadcasters that do broadcast in widescreen - such as the good BBC - could choose to adopt these graphics, and as such they must be compatible with all the safe areas.

All Euro2004 football matches are, I believe, being shot in 16:9 1080/50i HDTV and downconverted to 576/50i 4:3 and 16:9 for broadcast. The HDTV will be kept for archiving, and I guess possibly broadcast over the Event channel on Euro1080.

AIUI the 576/50i 16:9 SDTV feed is only available at the grounds, not at the broadcast centre, so if the BBC or ITV wanted to show the matches in 16:9 they have to pay for their own uplink from the ground the match is taking place at, rather than just from the central broadcast complex. (Probably not a major problem for either?)

Of course others are correct - graphics have always had domestic safe cut-off markers (5-10% in from the edge of frame) - safe areas didn't start with 16:9 - they've been around for years.

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.

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.

Some interesting quotes on this thread including...


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.


What a pearler. And also what a load of nonsense too - were you at a BBC buffet lunch in White City per chance?


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...