Attention: Please take a moment to consider our terms and conditions before posting.
Big Screen /scoreboard
Comments
-
I'm sorry Sam, but now you just sound stupid as well as arrogant. A swish website means they chucked all the cash at it?sam3110 said:
Look up adi.tv and tell me if they look like they do things on the cheap, just because you can't be arsed to do some research doesn't mean others haven't. So mine isn't opinion and yours is.paulsturgess said:
You stated assertively it was not done on the cheap. I don’t know for sure, neither do you. To me, it looks like it was. If your opinion isn’t moot, neither is mine (and mine is based on facts - the fact it can’t show the full shot of video footage properly which is indisputable and plain for all to see!!) not calling anyone out to for the sake of it but why pretendsam3110 said:
And where have I said they employed top dogs?paulsturgess said:
Do you know who carried out the works and what the cost was? Why is my opinion moot yet your opinion that they employed the top dogs, threw max £ at it and painstakingly ensured they were getting the best possible screen is not?sam3110 said:@paulsturgess you can have "an opinion", that's fine. But when you're trying to claim it's been done on the cheap and by cowboys and other stuff like that, you're opinion quickly becomes moot
I wasn’t actually suggesting they necessarily did it on the cheap, intention obviously good, but IMO it looks incompetently done possibly because whoever was managing it was incompetent rather than tight. It literally can’t play the whole shot of video footage… it’s such a minor thing but why pretend it’s perfect if it isn’t and why give stick to somebody merely commenting on that point!
ours is brand new… but just randomly saw this pic of the screen at Stoke yesterday, which again *appears* to be much better proportioned for the purpose it serves.🤷♂️
I'm sick of naysayers and doom-mongers on here, usually the very vocal minority, that throw around their own opinion like it's facts and shit on everything the club does, then have the audacity to complain when someone comes along and stops them and says "hey, actually what you're shouting from the rooftops is horseshit" and then they usually go super defensive, or backtrack like crazy, but the damage has already been done.
👍
One company can offer a huge range of different levels of product or service. The fact they haven't got Del and Rodney to fit it doesn't mean it wasn't done cheaply / on a budget. Again, unless you work for the club, have had sight of the budget and process involved in choosing a screen which cannot show proper video footage, then your assertion about cheap/expensive or any other description is in fact opinion contrary to your bizarrely confident claim.
To repeat, I'm glad the club are trying to improve things and not criticising the owners for the sake of it, or outright. However, I have every right to point out the very clear failing in what they've installed.
FWIW, to qualify my "opinions" as you seem so intent on shouting them down, I am actually professionally involved in the hospitality industry including with an about to open brand new sports bar concept in Central London so I have a limited concept of what is possible in this sector. Despite this, I'm not claiming to know for sure what the budget or workings were, unlike yourself. So pipe down ya cocky sod!8 -
I think the layout looks crisp and clear, as long as you can read the names and numbers I think that is what 95% of fans want.
2 -
kentred2 said:Clear graphics but for videos not tall enough eg the into the valley film cut.
Hopefully it will have a reverse camera to the plod control room, so when it goes off next season with the spanners they can get over to the gates more quicker.
0 -
Hahahahahhahahahahahaha jog onpaulsturgess said:
I'm sorry Sam, but now you just sound stupid as well as arrogant. A swish website means they chucked all the cash at it?sam3110 said:
Look up adi.tv and tell me if they look like they do things on the cheap, just because you can't be arsed to do some research doesn't mean others haven't. So mine isn't opinion and yours is.paulsturgess said:
You stated assertively it was not done on the cheap. I don’t know for sure, neither do you. To me, it looks like it was. If your opinion isn’t moot, neither is mine (and mine is based on facts - the fact it can’t show the full shot of video footage properly which is indisputable and plain for all to see!!) not calling anyone out to for the sake of it but why pretendsam3110 said:
And where have I said they employed top dogs?paulsturgess said:
Do you know who carried out the works and what the cost was? Why is my opinion moot yet your opinion that they employed the top dogs, threw max £ at it and painstakingly ensured they were getting the best possible screen is not?sam3110 said:@paulsturgess you can have "an opinion", that's fine. But when you're trying to claim it's been done on the cheap and by cowboys and other stuff like that, you're opinion quickly becomes moot
I wasn’t actually suggesting they necessarily did it on the cheap, intention obviously good, but IMO it looks incompetently done possibly because whoever was managing it was incompetent rather than tight. It literally can’t play the whole shot of video footage… it’s such a minor thing but why pretend it’s perfect if it isn’t and why give stick to somebody merely commenting on that point!
ours is brand new… but just randomly saw this pic of the screen at Stoke yesterday, which again *appears* to be much better proportioned for the purpose it serves.🤷♂️
I'm sick of naysayers and doom-mongers on here, usually the very vocal minority, that throw around their own opinion like it's facts and shit on everything the club does, then have the audacity to complain when someone comes along and stops them and says "hey, actually what you're shouting from the rooftops is horseshit" and then they usually go super defensive, or backtrack like crazy, but the damage has already been done.
👍
One company can offer a huge range of different levels of product or service. The fact they haven't got Del and Rodney to fit it doesn't mean it wasn't done cheaply / on a budget. Again, unless you work for the club, have had sight of the budget and process involved in choosing a screen which cannot show proper video footage, then your assertion about cheap/expensive or any other description is in fact opinion contrary to your bizarrely confident claim.
To repeat, I'm glad the club are trying to improve things and not criticising the owners for the sake of it, or outright. However, I have every right to point out the very clear failing in what they've installed.
FWIW, to qualify my "opinions" as you seem so intent on shouting them down, I am actually professionally involved in the hospitality industry including with an about to open brand new sports bar concept in Central London so I have a limited concept of what is possible in this sector. Despite this, I'm not claiming to know for sure what the budget or workings were, unlike yourself. So pipe down ya cocky sod!0 -
Losing an online "arguement" over something pretty trivial so you throw out some insults. Classic dick move. Enjoy your night0
-
paulsturgess said:
I'm sorry Sam, but now you just sound stupid as well as arrogant. A swish website means they chucked all the cash at it?sam3110 said:
Look up adi.tv and tell me if they look like they do things on the cheap, just because you can't be arsed to do some research doesn't mean others haven't. So mine isn't opinion and yours is.paulsturgess said:
You stated assertively it was not done on the cheap. I don’t know for sure, neither do you. To me, it looks like it was. If your opinion isn’t moot, neither is mine (and mine is based on facts - the fact it can’t show the full shot of video footage properly which is indisputable and plain for all to see!!) not calling anyone out to for the sake of it but why pretendsam3110 said:
And where have I said they employed top dogs?paulsturgess said:
Do you know who carried out the works and what the cost was? Why is my opinion moot yet your opinion that they employed the top dogs, threw max £ at it and painstakingly ensured they were getting the best possible screen is not?sam3110 said:@paulsturgess you can have "an opinion", that's fine. But when you're trying to claim it's been done on the cheap and by cowboys and other stuff like that, you're opinion quickly becomes moot
I wasn’t actually suggesting they necessarily did it on the cheap, intention obviously good, but IMO it looks incompetently done possibly because whoever was managing it was incompetent rather than tight. It literally can’t play the whole shot of video footage… it’s such a minor thing but why pretend it’s perfect if it isn’t and why give stick to somebody merely commenting on that point!
ours is brand new… but just randomly saw this pic of the screen at Stoke yesterday, which again *appears* to be much better proportioned for the purpose it serves.🤷♂️
I'm sick of naysayers and doom-mongers on here, usually the very vocal minority, that throw around their own opinion like it's facts and shit on everything the club does, then have the audacity to complain when someone comes along and stops them and says "hey, actually what you're shouting from the rooftops is horseshit" and then they usually go super defensive, or backtrack like crazy, but the damage has already been done.
👍
One company can offer a huge range of different levels of product or service. The fact they haven't got Del and Rodney to fit it doesn't mean it wasn't done cheaply / on a budget. Again, unless you work for the club, have had sight of the budget and process involved in choosing a screen which cannot show proper video footage, then your assertion about cheap/expensive or any other description is in fact opinion contrary to your bizarrely confident claim.
To repeat, I'm glad the club are trying to improve things and not criticising the owners for the sake of it, or outright. However, I have every right to point out the very clear failing in what they've installed.
FWIW, to qualify my "opinions" as you seem so intent on shouting them down, I am actually professionally involved in the hospitality industry including with an about to open brand new sports bar concept in Central London so I have a limited concept of what is possible in this sector. Despite this, I'm not claiming to know for sure what the budget or workings were, unlike yourself. So pipe down ya cocky sod!
For someone who said they weren't that bothered about it, you ain't half making a lot of noise about it.
It's a screen. It's an upgrade on the last one and did it's job perfectly well. It's really not worth getting all worked up about.
And we've won every game played since we bought it. So that'll do for me!
3 -
dear oh dear.sam3110 said:Losing an online "arguement" over something pretty trivial so you throw out some insults. Classic dick move. Enjoy your night1 -
??? You've got no right to be like that to me buddy, you've acted like a complete tit all over this thread the past couple of days, claiming one of the leading LED installation companies in the UK might have done the job on the cheap and as cowboys with absolutely zero evidence, and then used false equivalence to try and prove that I am also as wrong as you and therefore your complete horseshit scenario could actually be true. So again, jog on Pauly lad, and I hope your sports bar concept goes about as well as your reasoned arguments dopaulsturgess said:
dear oh dear.sam3110 said:Losing an online "arguement" over something pretty trivial so you throw out some insults. Classic dick move. Enjoy your night0 -
Does a job with the players names etc but footage wise as in this from ©️ brazilliance you tube offering shows a crappy replay of the goal , maybe just a one off or the picture fitting the screen is crap .
best bit about it is the cover up job of the shit underneath2 -
calm yourself down kid. I just pointed out that the screen is not fit for purpose, and you've lost your nut about it.sam3110 said:
??? You've got no right to be like that to me buddy, you've acted like a complete tit all over this thread the past couple of days, claiming one of the leading LED installation companies in the UK might have done the job on the cheap and as cowboys with absolutely zero evidence, and then used false equivalence to try and prove that I am also as wrong as you and therefore your complete horseshit scenario could actually be true. So again, jog on Pauly lad, and I hope your sports bar concept goes about as well as your reasoned arguments dopaulsturgess said:
dear oh dear.sam3110 said:Losing an online "arguement" over something pretty trivial so you throw out some insults. Classic dick move. Enjoy your night
the post from OAM with a pic of the replay above shows the point I've been shot down for making. Sorry for behaving like a "tit", and even more sorry for making you feel like one...
A good evening to you sir!2 -
Sponsored links:
-
U lot are arguing over a screen.6
-
People have argued over less on here.2121 said:U lot are arguing over a screen.0 -
Thank you for the copyright disclaimer mate, serious stuff 😉oohaahmortimer said:Does a job with the players names etc but footage wise as in this from ©️ brazilliance you tube offering shows a crappy replay of the goal , maybe just a one off or the picture fitting the screen is crap .
best bit about it is the cover up job of the shit underneath
On a side note, this forum has gotten pathetic over the last few years. So much bickering over what should be normal conversations.
The screen looked terrible in the pics online, that was a wide spread view online. However, it does look better in person, and the graphics are easier to read.
Does it still look out of place and odd? A bit, yeah, is it an improvement on the old screen, I would say so.
Pros -
Happy to see people spending money on us
Easier to read line ups
I like how the graphic setups look
Cons -
It could be better (taller screen to look more full)
It doesn't look very glamorous (surrounding)
For the money they presumably spent, they could have made sure it was better and maybe got some fan feedback first?
All-in-all, it's a discussion about a TV. It should never be so petty.1 -
It's important to remember that the screen output is only as good as the input.
Replays of any action will depend on the cameras around the ground. If the game is televised better quality pictures may be available.1 -
Different coloured scarves for a protest?
Why did no one think of that under Duchatelet?4 -
From company adi.tv website
who installed the screen between ES + JS on their site shows what else is planned
looks like a 2nd screen is planned next to the white police command centre & WS
....& grass planned for under the ES + JS screen?
0 -
Or maybe its a Reebok advertising board by police command centre?0
-
You say this forum has got petty and is bickering over a big TV screen, but weren't you the one saying that the reaction on here was much more muted than on Twitter? In which case, that's a good thing isn't it?Braziliance said:
Thank you for the copyright disclaimer mate, serious stuff 😉oohaahmortimer said:Does a job with the players names etc but footage wise as in this from ©️ brazilliance you tube offering shows a crappy replay of the goal , maybe just a one off or the picture fitting the screen is crap .
best bit about it is the cover up job of the shit underneath
On a side note, this forum has gotten pathetic over the last few years. So much bickering over what should be normal conversations.
The screen looked terrible in the pics online, that was a wide spread view online. However, it does look better in person, and the graphics are easier to read.
Does it still look out of place and odd? A bit, yeah, is it an improvement on the old screen, I would say so.
Pros -
Happy to see people spending money on us
Easier to read line ups
I like how the graphic setups look
Cons -
It could be better (taller screen to look more full)
It doesn't look very glamorous (surrounding)
For the money they presumably spent, they could have made sure it was better and maybe got some fan feedback first?
All-in-all, it's a discussion about a TV. It should never be so petty.
Most people on here wanted to have the chance to see it for themselves before going mental one way or the other. Now we've seen it the general consensus seems to be that it's alright, pretty good in fact, although there were some formatting issues (which I presume will be looked at and resolved).4 -
Such as, what time is Sunday lunch?golfaddick said:
People have argued over less on here.2121 said:U lot are arguing over a screen.7 -
It is neither good nor bad imo.Off_it said:
You say this forum has got petty and is bickering over a big TV screen, but weren't you the one saying that the reaction on here was much more muted than on Twitter? In which case, that's a good thing isn't it?Braziliance said:
Thank you for the copyright disclaimer mate, serious stuff 😉oohaahmortimer said:Does a job with the players names etc but footage wise as in this from ©️ brazilliance you tube offering shows a crappy replay of the goal , maybe just a one off or the picture fitting the screen is crap .
best bit about it is the cover up job of the shit underneath
On a side note, this forum has gotten pathetic over the last few years. So much bickering over what should be normal conversations.
The screen looked terrible in the pics online, that was a wide spread view online. However, it does look better in person, and the graphics are easier to read.
Does it still look out of place and odd? A bit, yeah, is it an improvement on the old screen, I would say so.
Pros -
Happy to see people spending money on us
Easier to read line ups
I like how the graphic setups look
Cons -
It could be better (taller screen to look more full)
It doesn't look very glamorous (surrounding)
For the money they presumably spent, they could have made sure it was better and maybe got some fan feedback first?
All-in-all, it's a discussion about a TV. It should never be so petty.
Most people on here wanted to have the chance to see it for themselves before going mental one way or the other. Now we've seen it the general consensus seems to be that it's alright, pretty good in fact, although there were some formatting issues (which I presume will be looked at and resolved).
I was just highlighting at the time the differences in personalities on the platforms.0 -
Sponsored links:
-
I think it looked good. The only gripes I had was that video got cropped to fit the screen rather than pillarboxed. Anything that's shot in 4:3 (ie older than about 2005-6) loses 75% of the picture, for instance. The players' names were easier to read and the scoreboard seemed brighter.0
-
ladywell_addick said:I think it looked good. The only gripes I had was that video got cropped to fit the screen rather than pillarboxed. Anything that's shot in 4:3 (ie older than about 2005-6) loses 75% of the picture, for instance. The players' names were easier to read and the scoreboard seemed brighter.🚩 🚩You are not allowed gripes, LA… 😬1
-
But on this particular occasion it seems the reaction here was probably more reasonable and accurate given what the screen actually looks like in the flesh. Agreed?Braziliance said:
It is neither good nor bad imo.Off_it said:
You say this forum has got petty and is bickering over a big TV screen, but weren't you the one saying that the reaction on here was much more muted than on Twitter? In which case, that's a good thing isn't it?Braziliance said:
Thank you for the copyright disclaimer mate, serious stuff 😉oohaahmortimer said:Does a job with the players names etc but footage wise as in this from ©️ brazilliance you tube offering shows a crappy replay of the goal , maybe just a one off or the picture fitting the screen is crap .
best bit about it is the cover up job of the shit underneath
On a side note, this forum has gotten pathetic over the last few years. So much bickering over what should be normal conversations.
The screen looked terrible in the pics online, that was a wide spread view online. However, it does look better in person, and the graphics are easier to read.
Does it still look out of place and odd? A bit, yeah, is it an improvement on the old screen, I would say so.
Pros -
Happy to see people spending money on us
Easier to read line ups
I like how the graphic setups look
Cons -
It could be better (taller screen to look more full)
It doesn't look very glamorous (surrounding)
For the money they presumably spent, they could have made sure it was better and maybe got some fan feedback first?
All-in-all, it's a discussion about a TV. It should never be so petty.
Most people on here wanted to have the chance to see it for themselves before going mental one way or the other. Now we've seen it the general consensus seems to be that it's alright, pretty good in fact, although there were some formatting issues (which I presume will be looked at and resolved).
I was just highlighting at the time the differences in personalities on the platforms.1 -
Fair point on the ratio for old videos but as others, not you, have failed or just don't want to grasp that is a fault in how it is being used, not in the screen itself.ladywell_addick said:I think it looked good. The only gripes I had was that video got cropped to fit the screen rather than pillarboxed. Anything that's shot in 4:3 (ie older than about 2005-6) loses 75% of the picture, for instance. The players' names were easier to read and the scoreboard seemed brighter.
The tweak in layout after the women's game shows they are still learning.
Because it is a new screen being added to an old build its size, in particular its height, is restricted by the stands and the steps. It couldn't be the size seen it new purpose built stadiums.
The old screen was a third of the size plus it was very old and being patched together, figuratively, with duct tape.
What we have is better even if it is not perfect.
6 -
End of the day, it's an opinion.Off_it said:
But on this particular occasion it seems the reaction here was probably more reasonable and accurate given what the screen actually looks like in the flesh. Agreed?Braziliance said:
It is neither good nor bad imo.Off_it said:
You say this forum has got petty and is bickering over a big TV screen, but weren't you the one saying that the reaction on here was much more muted than on Twitter? In which case, that's a good thing isn't it?Braziliance said:
Thank you for the copyright disclaimer mate, serious stuff 😉oohaahmortimer said:Does a job with the players names etc but footage wise as in this from ©️ brazilliance you tube offering shows a crappy replay of the goal , maybe just a one off or the picture fitting the screen is crap .
best bit about it is the cover up job of the shit underneath
On a side note, this forum has gotten pathetic over the last few years. So much bickering over what should be normal conversations.
The screen looked terrible in the pics online, that was a wide spread view online. However, it does look better in person, and the graphics are easier to read.
Does it still look out of place and odd? A bit, yeah, is it an improvement on the old screen, I would say so.
Pros -
Happy to see people spending money on us
Easier to read line ups
I like how the graphic setups look
Cons -
It could be better (taller screen to look more full)
It doesn't look very glamorous (surrounding)
For the money they presumably spent, they could have made sure it was better and maybe got some fan feedback first?
All-in-all, it's a discussion about a TV. It should never be so petty.
Most people on here wanted to have the chance to see it for themselves before going mental one way or the other. Now we've seen it the general consensus seems to be that it's alright, pretty good in fact, although there were some formatting issues (which I presume will be looked at and resolved).
I was just highlighting at the time the differences in personalities on the platforms.
The reaction was negative, cause it did genuinely look bad from what we saw. It does look better in person, but as people have explained quite well in this thread, there is room for improvement.
Glad to hear other improvements have been made, I need to explore more of the Valley as I have a set routine and don't really sway away from it.0 -
Just ordered a 32:9 TV off Amazon - investing in this new ratio.2
-
A few companies use that ratio now for workspaces, especially ones where normally you'd have to use 2 screens side by side, so it's not as ludicrous as people are making it out to beCallumcafc said:Just ordered a 32:9 TV off Amazon - investing in this new ratio.0 -
Absolutely correct Sam, but then there’s reasons why your Teams pro license will restrict you to the content share from your laptop to one side (16:9) and the mugshots of everyone on your call to the other side (16:9) and prohibit you from running video at “full screen”sam3110 said:
A few companies use that ratio now for workspaces, especially ones where normally you'd have to use 2 screens side by side, so it's not as ludicrous as people are making it out to beCallumcafc said:Just ordered a 32:9 TV off Amazon - investing in this new ratio.0 -
I've probably missed it but what actually is the aspect ration of the new screen?
Does it match some sort of new standard for future proofing.
0 -
32:9 so essentially 2 modern aspect screens (16:9) next to eachother. The best thing they can do is have it aligned so there's a middle part of the screen that shows video clips and uses the edges to display something else, like:stevexreeve said:I've probably missed it but what actually is the aspect ration of the new screen?
Does it match some sort of new standard for future proofing.
_____________________________
| | INSERT | |
| GOAL! | VIDEO | GOAL! |
| | HERE | |
_____________________________|4
