• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • TV
  • Broadcasting
UEFA Europa League
<<
<
69 of 120
>>
>
pakokelso93
05-04-2013
Originally Posted by ariusuk:
“Perhaps because Sky agree it is a better angle? Sky actually paid to have the lower gantry built.”

Why do Sky/ITV only use it then pretty much just for European games, and certainly in the former's case not in domestic coverage? I gather the lower gantry sometimes will be used for 3D, but seems underused on mainstream/2D coverage if specifically built...
Vialli
05-04-2013
All I can observe is, there has been a trend to lower camera angles in recent years. Look at this weeks Champions League big games: Real, PSG and Bayern home games all shown at very low and flat camera angles. The camera angle used at Wembley now is used from the lower gantry and this will be used as the default angle for the CL final. We are going backward as far as a viewing experience goes.
Mark.
05-04-2013
With a lower angle, the pitchside adverts are on-screen longer, because even when play is closer to the near-side, the cameras are looking "across" the field as opposed to down onto it.

It'll take some effort to convince me that's not the reason for European games using these angles.
stevvy1986
05-04-2013
Originally Posted by Mark.:
“With a lower angle, the pitchside adverts are on-screen longer, because even when play is closer to the near-side, the cameras are looking "across" the field as opposed to down onto it.

It'll take some effort to convince me that's not the reason for European games using these angles.”

Yup, same mate, for me it's clearly for that reason (the daft thing is nobody even looks at the adverts so I don't see the benefit anyway).
dj999
05-04-2013
apparently is a uefa ruling for camera position as not to upset the sponsors. and screw the fans
whedon247
05-04-2013
chelsea had a lower angle too? i have only ever noticed it at spurs so assumed it was a white hart lane issue
Judio
05-04-2013
Has ariusuk got an answer on my question

Do ESPN have either Semi or do get Itv get both matches ??
ariusuk
05-04-2013
Originally Posted by Vialli:
“All I can observe is, there has been a trend to lower camera angles in recent years. Look at this weeks Champions League big games: Real, PSG and Bayern home games all shown at very low and flat camera angles. The camera angle used at Wembley now is used from the lower gantry and this will be used as the default angle for the CL final. We are going backward as far as a viewing experience goes.”

Higher angles flatten the view - you get no sense of perspective. So while you don't want to be at eye-level with the players, you certainly don't want to way above them either.
BenFranklin
05-04-2013
Quote:
“UEFA, or a third party acting on its behalf, will provide the advertising boards (at least 90cm high) and be responsible for their installation and dismantling within two days of the match. The club is responsible for ensuring that the advertising boards are within the unimpaired range of view of the main
camera.”

UEFA regulations go into extreme detail about everything related to matchday media. No where do they specify that really low cameras have to be used. I'm happy to be proven wrong if someone has some hard evidence, but I think we're in danger of allowing a myth to develop here.
ftakeith
05-04-2013
espn has no semi

ITV has the top 2 games, both semis and final all on itv and itv4
Gazza1982
05-04-2013
Originally Posted by ariusuk:
“Higher angles flatten the view - you get no sense of perspective. So while you don't want to be at eye-level with the players, you certainly don't want to way above them either.”

Who has said we don't? Yet another pathetic comment from someone who apparently works for ITV, and it's these type of comment and decisions that are frankly making ITV's coverage of football a joke.
ariusuk
05-04-2013
Originally Posted by Gazza1982:
“Who has said we don't? Yet another pathetic comment from someone who apparently works for ITV, and it's these type of comment and decisions that are frankly making ITV's coverage of football a joke.”

You seem to be arguing against the laws of physics.
jlp95bwfc
05-04-2013
I don't see how the higher angle flattens the view. I agree that it shouldn't be too high (Wembleys higher angle is too high imo, you can't even tell who has the ball). However, there is no doubt whatsoever that the higher angle at WHL gives a better perspective than the lower angle. The lower angle gives no perspective of depth, and it is difficult to tell exactly how close the ball is to the far touchline. I don't mind low camera angles at all, but the one at WHL is just too low. ITV should listen to viewers and stop ruining people's enjoyment of the game (although I'm still convinced that UEFA have had some sort of say).
dj999
06-04-2013
Originally Posted by dj999:
“apparently is a uefa ruling for camera position as not to upset the sponsors. and screw the fans”

four letters, UEFA
DragonQ
06-04-2013
I really hope one of Spurs and Newcastle make it through, despite their tough situations. Chelsea being the only English team getting to the semi-finals will be so depressing, especially since they could well win their 5th FA Cup in 7 years too.
stevvy1986
06-04-2013
Chelsea shouldn't even be in this competition anyway. Stupid that you can be rewarded for failure.
Ian Aberdon
06-04-2013
Originally Posted by ariusuk:
“Higher angles flatten the view - you get no sense of perspective. So while you don't want to be at eye-level with the players, you certainly don't want to way above them either.”




Well it could be worse...we could be watching from the top deck of the Camp Nou!!!
wolvesdavid
08-04-2013
Originally Posted by DragonQ:
“With Bale out Tottenham's chances are rather slim. Newcastle might have a better chance to be honest - a 2-0 win at home is doable.”

Can't really agree with that. Tottenham winning 1-0 away is doable.

Certainly Newcastle have some sort of chance. But not more than Tottenham.
wolvesdavid
11-04-2013
The Semi Final teams are: Chelsea, FC Basel, Benfica and Fenerbahce. No debate about the choices this time: Chelsea will be on ITV1 for both of their semi final legs, the other match is on ITV4.

I believe the final is on ITV1 if Chelsea get through, and on ITV4 if they don't go through.

This also marks the end of ESPNs coverage of the Europa League.
SamuelW
11-04-2013
Originally Posted by wolvesdavid:
“I believe the final is on ITV1 if Chelsea get through, and on ITV4 if they don't go through.

This also marks the end of ESPNs coverage of the Europa League.”

ITV has to make a decision of whether to show the final on ITV1 or ITV4 before Chelsea's 2nd leg, as the schedules for the week of the final need to be submitted by ITV on Wednesday 1st May - one day before Chelsea's 2nd leg. This means the final will almost certainly be scheduled for ITV1 no matter which teams are involved.
Andy23
11-04-2013
Originally Posted by SamuelW:
“ITV has to make a decision of whether to show the final on ITV1 or ITV4 before Chelsea's 2nd leg, as the schedules for the week of the final need to be submitted by ITV on Wednesday 1st May - one day before Chelsea's 2nd leg. This means the final will almost certainly be scheduled for ITV1 no matter which teams are involved.”

They can publish an either/or schedule like they do for FA Cup replays (& throughout international tournament knock out stages)
Zac Quinn
11-04-2013
Originally Posted by stevvy1986:
“Chelsea shouldn't even be in this competition anyway.”

Yes they should. If it wasn't for Liverpool in 2005, Chelsea would have been playing in the Europa League all season, and rightly so IMO.
wolvesdavid
11-04-2013
I do think the defending champions of the champions league should automatically qualify for the next seasons champions league.
coventrywooo
12-04-2013
Originally Posted by wolvesdavid:
“I do think the defending champions of the champions league should automatically qualify for the next seasons champions league.”

why lol, i dont think if they finnsh 3rd in the group they should get in the europa league...
stevvy1986
12-04-2013
Originally Posted by Zac Quinn:
“Yes they should. If it wasn't for Liverpool in 2005, Chelsea would have been playing in the Europa League all season, and rightly so IMO.”

what I mean is that they shouldn't be in it having already failed in one competition.
<<
<
69 of 120
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map