I watched Sky and I thought their coverage was really good. I assume you've got BBC on one TV and Sky on another TV stef.
Sky on the TV, BBC on the PC.
Its not that Sky's coverage is bad as its not, Its just that BBC's is overall better.
Sky did a good job with there interviews & what was discussed, However BBC did more actual analysis & I felt the interviews they did were also better.
One example would be how they handled Vettel's Q2 lap. Sky got Ant to show us him missing the apex at the hairpin & pointing towards him running the old spec exhaust. However BBC showed a full OnBoard lap & had DC/EJ do some proper analysis on what the car was doing throughout the entire lap rather than just at one corner. BBC's analysis gave a much better idea on where time was lost & why Vettel is where he is.
An example from the Build-Up was the Senna interview. BBC's interview was longer & the questions & topis discussed were more varied & I felt I got more info out of it.
Not coverage related but what a fantastically interesting front two rows. Perhaps some stats buff can identify the last time there was a starting grid that had no Red Bulls, Mclarens or Ferraris on the front two rows.
The way the season has started is reminding me more and more of 2009 and of perhaps, 1997. Very competitive indeed.
On a coverage note, I watched the first half-hour on BBC pre-quali then I switched to Sky. I'll be watching the rerun on BBC1 later but there's nothing to choose between BBC or Sky frankly. The only possible turning point in the overall coverage is The F1 Show, but there is nothing really between them. Unfortunately for me, I fell asleep after the end of Q2 (so I missed an interesting Q3 session) but I found the result when I woke up 15 mins after Q3. Good coverage from Sky overall, and I'll reinforce the view that Herbert is doing far better than Hill. On a BBC note, saw the Bernie interview and Jake did a fine job interviewing him - a lot more in depth. The Rachel Brooks 'interview' was slightly cringeworthy to say the least. Although, tomorrow, it'll have to be Ben/DC for the race - need to listen to them live for the first time.
Finally, I honestly think Sky should present in a studio like ITV did. They should base it around the SkyPad, and throw links to Ted in the pits before sessions. It's too similar presentation-wise to the BBC and a studio will help tighten up the coverage. I'd also like longer and more in-depth features from Sky, and less arty features which are only designed to fill the time.
Would it? Simon controlling things from the sky pad with GT and Ted roaming the paddock doing what they do best.
Is a very rare thing in sports coverage that you have the main presenter being the main interviewer as well, very very rare.
But either way, its studio (Sky Pad), paddock or pitlane. In some way they are going to be doing something similar to BBC or ITV before them. You can't do something completely different as all bases have been covered in some form.
One example would be how they handled Vettel's Q2 lap. Sky got Ant to show us him missing the apex at the hairpin & pointing towards him running the old spec exhaust. However BBC showed a full OnBoard lap & had DC/EJ do some proper analysis on what the car was doing throughout the entire lap rather than just at one corner. BBC's analysis gave a much better idea on where time was lost & why Vettel is where he is.
Didn't Sky show Vettel in the gap between Q1 and Q2? Pretty sure they shown one of Vettel's laps from Q1 then and how he was struggling.
I haven't watched BBC yet, may do later but I think had you replaced Herbert with Hill then I would have watched BBC. Lazenby. Brundle and Herbert is better than Humphrey, Jordan and Coulthard in my opinion, Lazenby and Humphrey are even-stevems, Brundle beats Coulthard and Herbert beats Jordan as EJ likes to be controversial for the sake of it. I mean EJ's good, but some of the things he says borders on the ridiculous. If it was Hill instead of Herbert then I would have watched BBC as listening to Hill is equivalent to watching paint dry.
I haven't watched BBC yet, may do later but I think had you replaced Herbert with Hill then I would have watched BBC. Lazenby. Brundle and Herbert is better than Humphrey, Jordan and Coulthard in my opinion, Lazenby and Humphrey are even-stevems, Brundle beats Coulthard and Herbert beats Jordan as EJ likes to be controversial for the sake of it. I mean EJ's good, but some of the things he says borders on the ridiculous. If it was Hill instead of Herbert then I would have watched BBC as listening to Hill is equivalent to watching paint dry.
Frankly, I think it's even stevens between both teams. I like the EJ/DC banter - it brings a sense of familiarity to the coverage that we haven't yet got with Sky - we'll need their team to blend in fully, which takes time. I think Humphrey is better than Lazenby at the moment - seems more assured.
EDIT: Listening to Gary Anderson, watching the rerun on 301, I can't hear what he's saying over the engines. It's quite frustrating, but I'm finding it quite hard to hear him. Can hear him a little better now - seems they've lowered volume of world feed or something.
Watched the BBC coverage, despite my Dad wanting the better picture on Sky. I don't want to listen to Croft a minute longer than I have to this season. Really enjoyed the coverage and nice to see in the comm box during the gap in qualifying. Now watching the build up.
My only complaint is they need some of way of telling Gary Anderson when team radio is playing as he interupts it.
All in all I think the BBC are doing a great job and from what I've seen are comprehensively outperforming Sky head-to-head. The only person I'm missing is Ted.
My only complaint is they need some of way of telling Gary Anderson when team radio is playing as he interupts it.
All in all I think the BBC are doing a great job and from what I've seen are comprehensively outperforming Sky head-to-head. The only person I'm missing is Ted.
I feel Ben is really moving up a gear this weekend - from FP1 to qualifying he's back at the standard I remember from 2002.
But you can't say the BBC are comprehensively outperforming Sky. In my view if you look at the 5 key components as of today you end up with a close battle:
Commentary - BBC
Pit Lane Reports - Sky
Pre/post-session - BBC
Picture/Audio Quality - Sky
Additional Feeds - Sky
I feel Ben is really moving up a gear this weekend - from FP1 to qualifying he's back at the standard I remember from 2002.
But you can't say the BBC are comprehensively outperforming Sky. In my view if you look at the 5 key components as of today you end up with a close battle:
Commentary - BBC
Pit Lane Reports - Sky
Pre/post-session - BBC
Picture/Audio Quality - Sky
Additional Feeds - Sky
Ah, for me marginal differences in picture quality don't matter (the DOG would annoy me more, actually) and I don't really care about extra feeds - I only watch the world feed.
Watching the pre-show for BBC now, what I will say is that all of BBC's features and interviews that they've done can be compact into that 55 minute pre-show on Saturday and 30 minute pre-show on Sunday whereas with Sky, you've got:
- 55 minute pre-show on Saturday
- 85 minute pre-show on Sunday
- The F1 Show on Saturday
- pre-bits for practice
BBC only need to interview say a Christian Horner once before Qualifying, whereas Sky for instance would interview him before every session and for Sky Sports News... wait, the second that's unfeasible for Sky and would quickly annoy Christian. Hence why they've got to balance things out across all three days, something BBC do not have to do because they do not broadcast a proper program on Friday (Inside F1 you could argue, but I'm not sure who actually watches that, nor if it counts).
Of course, I guess another argument is apples vs oranges, comparing Sky with a lot more airtime to BBC with less airtime is unfair. It depends what you can watch, what you choose to watch, what features you like to see and your personal preferences. It depends also how you want to compare - whole weekend coverage vs whole weekend, race day vs race day, pre-race vs pre-race. If anything, we all win with the amount of options and sound bites we can choose from.
"Shamelessly ripped off the format"? They haven't ripped off the format at all, I'm sure RTL and plenty of other broadcasters' use a similar format! There's no other real format to use, to be honest. It's gone as far as it has done, to be honest.
Maybe that was a little harsh - just so you know, I wasn't saying that to be all BBC fanboyish, by the way! I have SSF1HD, am mighty impressed, although there is a TON of room for them to improve (lack of full classic race replays, overly structured and rushed post-qualy and race analysis, etc.).
Did anyone do this style of presentation prior to ITV starting in - when *did* ITV start this type of format?
Did anyone do this style of presentation prior to ITV starting in - when *did* ITV start this type of format?
ITV started the whole paddock walking around 'format' around 2004/05 time, I think. I think there was only Silverstone 2004 done from a studio. This should give more info about the change in format at the time: http://www.ten-tenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66710
BBC used a studio on occasion, during 1996, but from London - i.e. Japanese Grand Prix. For the European races and most other races, they did not have studio, but were just on-site with Murray and Jonathan Palmer in the comms box, and Tony Jardine on the grid, no presenter (as it was introduced via Grandstand). In the case of Imola '94 for example, Rider was on site with Jardine on the grid and Murray and Palmer in the box.
Maybe that was a little harsh - just so you know, I wasn't saying that to be all BBC fanboyish, by the way! I have SSF1HD, am mighty impressed, although there is a TON of room for them to improve (lack of full classic race replays, overly structured and rushed post-qualy and race analysis, etc.).
Did anyone do this style of presentation prior to ITV starting in - when *did* ITV start this type of format?
Both ITV and RTL adopted the format for the 2004 season, but they didn't invent it. Premiere (now Sky Germany) were using it in 2003 and possibly in 2002.
If I remember correctly, such a format was restricted in the F1 Digital+ era to only broadcasters of the service (i.e. Premiere). For 2003 the rules were relaxed but ITV/RTL had already planned the season using studios.
Ah, for me marginal differences in picture quality don't matter (the DOG would annoy me more, actually) and I don't really care about extra feeds - I only watch the world feed.
Flicking between the two - the difference in picture quality is rather more than marginal to me. Dont know why but the BBC HD pictures recently have seemed to have got even worse.
Having now wacthed both I prefer the Croft/Brundle commentary - a bit more relaxed, Ben seems almost at times to be commentating on the Lord Mayors Show or something.
However, as I said earlier, very little to compare with either broadcast. BBC have been doing it longer and it shows but other than that there really are only minor differences that come down to personal preference in the end (assuming you havent got an agenda for one or the other that is).
Ah, for me marginal differences in picture quality don't matter (the DOG would annoy me more, actually) and I don't really care about extra feeds - I only watch the world feed.
From the comparison I did on race 1, and flicking over today it's far more than marginal, The detail in fast moving shots on Sky just isn't there on the BBC.
From the comparison I did on race 1, and flicking over today it's far more than marginal, The detail in fast moving shots on Sky just isn't there on the BBC.
I watch in SD... all I know is, the picture quality is satisfactory to me. I have seen Sky stuff in HD but the quality of the broadcasting team is more important than the picture.
I watch in SD... all I know is, the picture quality is satisfactory to me. I have seen Sky stuff in HD but the quality of the broadcasting team is more important than the picture.
Understood. BBC are pretty dang good, But then I just hope it's Sky being new at it that is why they are lacking in some areas.
One minor change I noticed for the intro end-board and advert 'boards' on Sky Sports F1 - in that the Sky Sports logo has been removed (it used to be below the F1 logo).
Comments
I don't have sky but from what I have seen it look's very similar. Sky were always going to go down the BBC route because it is the best way.
A studio would have been very interesting. It could work very well.
Ken
http://www.skysports.com/video/inline/0,,12870_7671799,00.html
Its not that Sky's coverage is bad as its not, Its just that BBC's is overall better.
Sky did a good job with there interviews & what was discussed, However BBC did more actual analysis & I felt the interviews they did were also better.
One example would be how they handled Vettel's Q2 lap. Sky got Ant to show us him missing the apex at the hairpin & pointing towards him running the old spec exhaust. However BBC showed a full OnBoard lap & had DC/EJ do some proper analysis on what the car was doing throughout the entire lap rather than just at one corner. BBC's analysis gave a much better idea on where time was lost & why Vettel is where he is.
An example from the Build-Up was the Senna interview. BBC's interview was longer & the questions & topis discussed were more varied & I felt I got more info out of it.
The way the season has started is reminding me more and more of 2009 and of perhaps, 1997. Very competitive indeed.
On a coverage note, I watched the first half-hour on BBC pre-quali then I switched to Sky. I'll be watching the rerun on BBC1 later but there's nothing to choose between BBC or Sky frankly. The only possible turning point in the overall coverage is The F1 Show, but there is nothing really between them. Unfortunately for me, I fell asleep after the end of Q2 (so I missed an interesting Q3 session) but I found the result when I woke up 15 mins after Q3. Good coverage from Sky overall, and I'll reinforce the view that Herbert is doing far better than Hill. On a BBC note, saw the Bernie interview and Jake did a fine job interviewing him - a lot more in depth. The Rachel Brooks 'interview' was slightly cringeworthy to say the least. Although, tomorrow, it'll have to be Ben/DC for the race - need to listen to them live for the first time.
Finally, I honestly think Sky should present in a studio like ITV did. They should base it around the SkyPad, and throw links to Ted in the pits before sessions. It's too similar presentation-wise to the BBC and a studio will help tighten up the coverage. I'd also like longer and more in-depth features from Sky, and less arty features which are only designed to fill the time.
I think it'd be good to the return to a studio format. I rather liked the ITV F1 studios in the early days on-site.
But either way, its studio (Sky Pad), paddock or pitlane. In some way they are going to be doing something similar to BBC or ITV before them. You can't do something completely different as all bases have been covered in some form.
Didn't Sky show Vettel in the gap between Q1 and Q2? Pretty sure they shown one of Vettel's laps from Q1 then and how he was struggling.
I haven't watched BBC yet, may do later but I think had you replaced Herbert with Hill then I would have watched BBC. Lazenby. Brundle and Herbert is better than Humphrey, Jordan and Coulthard in my opinion, Lazenby and Humphrey are even-stevems, Brundle beats Coulthard and Herbert beats Jordan as EJ likes to be controversial for the sake of it. I mean EJ's good, but some of the things he says borders on the ridiculous. If it was Hill instead of Herbert then I would have watched BBC as listening to Hill is equivalent to watching paint dry.
Frankly, I think it's even stevens between both teams. I like the EJ/DC banter - it brings a sense of familiarity to the coverage that we haven't yet got with Sky - we'll need their team to blend in fully, which takes time. I think Humphrey is better than Lazenby at the moment - seems more assured.
EDIT: Listening to Gary Anderson, watching the rerun on 301, I can't hear what he's saying over the engines. It's quite frustrating, but I'm finding it quite hard to hear him. Can hear him a little better now - seems they've lowered volume of world feed or something.
Ben gave the answer straight away on the BBC.
My only complaint is they need some of way of telling Gary Anderson when team radio is playing as he interupts it.
All in all I think the BBC are doing a great job and from what I've seen are comprehensively outperforming Sky head-to-head. The only person I'm missing is Ted.
I feel Ben is really moving up a gear this weekend - from FP1 to qualifying he's back at the standard I remember from 2002.
But you can't say the BBC are comprehensively outperforming Sky. In my view if you look at the 5 key components as of today you end up with a close battle:
Commentary - BBC
Pit Lane Reports - Sky
Pre/post-session - BBC
Picture/Audio Quality - Sky
Additional Feeds - Sky
Ah, for me marginal differences in picture quality don't matter (the DOG would annoy me more, actually) and I don't really care about extra feeds - I only watch the world feed.
- 55 minute pre-show on Saturday
- 85 minute pre-show on Sunday
- The F1 Show on Saturday
- pre-bits for practice
BBC only need to interview say a Christian Horner once before Qualifying, whereas Sky for instance would interview him before every session and for Sky Sports News... wait, the second that's unfeasible for Sky and would quickly annoy Christian. Hence why they've got to balance things out across all three days, something BBC do not have to do because they do not broadcast a proper program on Friday (Inside F1 you could argue, but I'm not sure who actually watches that, nor if it counts).
Of course, I guess another argument is apples vs oranges, comparing Sky with a lot more airtime to BBC with less airtime is unfair. It depends what you can watch, what you choose to watch, what features you like to see and your personal preferences. It depends also how you want to compare - whole weekend coverage vs whole weekend, race day vs race day, pre-race vs pre-race. If anything, we all win with the amount of options and sound bites we can choose from.
Maybe that was a little harsh - just so you know, I wasn't saying that to be all BBC fanboyish, by the way! I have SSF1HD, am mighty impressed, although there is a TON of room for them to improve (lack of full classic race replays, overly structured and rushed post-qualy and race analysis, etc.).
Did anyone do this style of presentation prior to ITV starting in - when *did* ITV start this type of format?
ITV started the whole paddock walking around 'format' around 2004/05 time, I think. I think there was only Silverstone 2004 done from a studio. This should give more info about the change in format at the time: http://www.ten-tenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=66710
BBC used a studio on occasion, during 1996, but from London - i.e. Japanese Grand Prix. For the European races and most other races, they did not have studio, but were just on-site with Murray and Jonathan Palmer in the comms box, and Tony Jardine on the grid, no presenter (as it was introduced via Grandstand). In the case of Imola '94 for example, Rider was on site with Jardine on the grid and Murray and Palmer in the box.
Both ITV and RTL adopted the format for the 2004 season, but they didn't invent it. Premiere (now Sky Germany) were using it in 2003 and possibly in 2002.
If I remember correctly, such a format was restricted in the F1 Digital+ era to only broadcasters of the service (i.e. Premiere). For 2003 the rules were relaxed but ITV/RTL had already planned the season using studios.
And what totally annoying background music too!
Back to normal now, thank goodness.
Flicking between the two - the difference in picture quality is rather more than marginal to me. Dont know why but the BBC HD pictures recently have seemed to have got even worse.
Having now wacthed both I prefer the Croft/Brundle commentary - a bit more relaxed, Ben seems almost at times to be commentating on the Lord Mayors Show or something.
However, as I said earlier, very little to compare with either broadcast. BBC have been doing it longer and it shows but other than that there really are only minor differences that come down to personal preference in the end (assuming you havent got an agenda for one or the other that is).
From the comparison I did on race 1, and flicking over today it's far more than marginal, The detail in fast moving shots on Sky just isn't there on the BBC.
I watch in SD... all I know is, the picture quality is satisfactory to me. I have seen Sky stuff in HD but the quality of the broadcasting team is more important than the picture.
Understood. BBC are pretty dang good, But then I just hope it's Sky being new at it that is why they are lacking in some areas.
Don't you think he looks tired?