Eurovision 2016

[Bobbsy]

I'm just watching the Eurovision song contest (on replay...no way I was going to the up in the middle of the night to see it live!) and have to say that I'm finding the lighting and effects way over the top. In almost every case, they're to the level of being distracting from the songs rather than helping them. (I'll leave the conversation about whether the songs NEED distraction to another thread.)

 

Okay, I'm speaking as a noise boy, not a lighting and effects specialist but did anyone else find the same thing?

 

A second complaint is that I was always taught that television is best as a close up medium. Big wide shots need to be used sparingly--but, I suspect so we can see the lighting effects--a huge amount of each song was done in wide and very wide shots.

 

Of course, I freely admit to being a grumpy old git not keeping up with the times but...I'm not impressed so far.

[jmdh]

I found them a bit distracting, but probably only because I was thinking about how they were being done :) I'm a complete Eurovision newbie, but I have to say that the visual effects seemed to be a necessary and fun part of the show.

 

The Russian entry was probably the most technically interesting with some impressive projection effects:

 

 

I find myself watching it again this morning and trying to figure out how they made the part at 2'00" so seamless..

 

Edit to add: ah, it's the camera cut at 1'45" which shrinks the visible size of the white backdrop to allow room for the spin later.

[paulears]

The cameraman organisation I belong to said pretty much the same - with one difference. Apparently if you wanted your own visual effects, then that was 20,000 Euros extra!

[GaryNattrass]

I switched off after the opening as it just didn't work for TV presentation as you only saw each artist for about 5 secs and it was all about the lighting which was supposed to represent the flags of each nation. Song that won was pretty crap too and I thought our entry was very good and stood up but as usual the politics of the EU and others took over.

[johnhuson]

For those that are interested in the finer details of the technical production Ola Melzig is Technical Director as he has been on a number of previous Eurovisions. When he is doing them he keeps a blog about it which can be found at Eurovision Diary 2016.

 

As for the comments about it all being about the lighting and wide shots, wrongly or rightly to me that's part of the point of the show. It's as much about the host (and the major contributing countries of which we are one) saying look at the obscene amounts of money that have been spent on lights, LED screen, projection and effects as it is about the actual songs.

 

It's a bit like the ongoing battle to produce the most impressive Olympics opening ceremony.

[timsabre]

There is some great stuff in the Eurovision diary, it's all on such a stupidly large scale.

 

Here is the power run heading into the arena (from http://m-m-pr.com/in...-2016/270-may-7). Keep that cabling neat!

 

http://m-m-pr.com/images/Diary_2016/May7/cablerun.jpg

 

 

Also interesting that the vision mix was automatically controlled by computer running from timecode - some of the songs had some really fast cuts in that I was wondering how they did, but that explains it.

[Stuart91]

Here is the power run heading into the arena

 

Just think, around about now, someone has the job of coiling all that back up again...

 

Ola Melzig hosted a pretty entertaining session at Plasa last year, with some interesting insights into some of the "negotiations" that go on beforehand. Typically there are multiple demands for the more popular / fashionable effects, and the production management essentially have to arbitrate between them. The general principle is to try and match looks to the song, rather than just going for over the top bombast. To paraphrase Ola: "Your song is about ice cream, so no you can't have the fire effects"

[cedd]

Lots of product placement for DPA microphones I noticed.

[Shez]

For years it was exclusively Sennheiser on the radio front but all looked rather Shure this year.

[timsabre]

The Russian entry was probably the most technically interesting with some impressive projection effects:

 

 

I find myself watching it again this morning and trying to figure out how they made the part at 2'00" so seamless..

Edit to add: ah, it's the camera cut at 1'45" which shrinks the visible size of the white backdrop to allow room for the spin later.

 

I was watching this again as the "spin" of the wall was the only bit I couldn't work out, I thought it was clever projection mapping - but it's just a video effect added to the camera picture!!

Cheating in my opinion.

[jmdh]

The Russian entry was probably the most technically interesting with some impressive projection effects:

 

 

I find myself watching it again this morning and trying to figure out how they made the part at 2'00" so seamless..

Edit to add: ah, it's the camera cut at 1'45" which shrinks the visible size of the white backdrop to allow room for the spin later.

 

I was watching this again as the "spin" of the wall was the only bit I couldn't work out, I thought it was clever projection mapping - but it's just a video effect added to the camera picture!!

Cheating in my opinion.

 

Bah, right. I actually watched rehearsal footage of it after that comment and determined that wasn't it as the cut wasn't there - but the effect still was.

[henny]

For years it was exclusively Sennheiser on the radio front but all looked rather Shure this year.

 

Because Sennheiser provided the kit and support for free , this year they didn't hence the change

[KevinE]

Yes I noticed the DPA sticker around the top of the mic in that close-up. Bit obvious!

[Big Dave]

All of the audio equipments was provided by Live Media Group - they won a competitive tender......who would believe it, a rental company actually got paid for stuff! The DPA heads were specified by Sound designer for the show and the fact they on camera is just the results of the close ups and not sponsorship.