Wembly Stadium FA Cup

On Sat, 19 May 2007 18:02:26 +0100, "tim....."
wrote:


"Andy Burns" wrote in message
...
On 19/05/2007 15:22, Agamemnon wrote:

The Stade De France only cost 200,000

You've got 3 zeros missing, €285M

But that is still only a quarter the price of Wembley
as was the Millenium Stadium.

tim

The Millennium Stadium was £120 Million I seem to remember.
A while back on Radio 5, a "Stadium Architect" they interviewed made a
comment to the effect that "even after Wembley is completed, the
Millennium Stadium will remain the most technologically advanced
stadium in the Northern Hemisphere".

Annoyingly he didn't explain this statement.

In article ,
Bill Wright wrote:
Prince Whatsisface opened the event by saying that the FA Cup had come
back to its rightful place. What's so god-given about London? The FA is
supposed to be a national organisation. It would make more sense if
they had built a stadium in the middle of the UK, somewhere with good
roads and lots of free parking.

Free parking for 90,000 cars? All for a few days a year?

--
*Certain frogs can be frozen solid, then thawed, and survive *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"harrogate3" wrote in message
...

"Lord Turkey Cough" wrote in message
...

"Agamemnon" wrote in message
. uk...
The new Wembly Stadium has cost a billion pounds to build and it
looks a
cheep as chips. Look at all the bare concrete and cheep plastic.
For a
billion pounds you'd have expected marble cladding on all the
walls and
floors, after all the original Olympic Stadium in Athens is all
marble and
can seat 60,000. For a billion pounds you'd have expected gold
plated
brass railings not cheep galvanised ones. For a billion pounds
you'd have
expected leather padded seats and not cheep plastic ones.

So where has all the money gone?

Well it works out at a mere £14,285 a seat.










Actually it was (IMSMC) £830m and it seats 90,000 - a mere £9222.22


Well as I understand it only about 70,000 are for 'the fans' the rest are
for
press etc?
Either way it is hardly cheap!!



per seat!


--
Woody

harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com

in 231084 20070519 191316 "Bill Wright" wrote:
Prince Whatsisface opened the event by saying that the FA Cup had come back
to its rightful place. What's so god-given about London? The FA is supposed
to be a national organisation. It would make more sense if they had built a
stadium in the middle of the UK, somewhere with good roads and lots of free
parking.

A service station on the M1?

"Bob Martin" wrote in message
...
in 231084 20070519 191316 "Bill Wright"
wrote:
Prince Whatsisface opened the event by saying that the FA Cup had come
back
to its rightful place. What's so god-given about London? The FA is
supposed
to be a national organisation. It would make more sense if they had built
a
stadium in the middle of the UK, somewhere with good roads and lots of
free
parking.

A service station on the M1?

I was thinking of somewhere like Thorne Wastes.

Bill

On 20/05/2007 12:23, Bill Wright wrote:

I was thinking of somewhere like Thorne Wastes.

It'd make a change from having tumbleweed on the M18 ...

In article ,
Mike Henry wrote:
Free parking for 90,000 cars? All for a few days a year?

Why not - Silverstone manages it.

Last time I was at Silverstone on a capacity day I realised the benefits
of the tube...

It took about the same time from leaving the grandstand to exiting the
carpark as driving back to London.

--
*To steal ideas from *one* person is plagiarism; from many, research*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

Agamemnon wrote:

The new Wembly Stadium has cost a billion pounds to build and it looks a
cheep as chips. Look at all the bare concrete and cheep plastic.

So where has all the money gone?

Never mind that what, happened to the roof that was retractable so as
not to cast a shadow on the pitch?

As a technical aside, given the possibilities of image processing
these days and the availability of fast computers it must surely be
possible to "photoshop" the image in real time, or as near as makes no
difference in these days of digital delay making every live event a
delayed rebroadcast, and equalize the brightness of the shaded and
sunlit parts of the pitch to rather better effects than the crude
on/off effect of the lens iris or blanket gain control that they still
seem to be using.

--
Phil Cook looking north over the park to the "Westminster Gasworks"

On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:24:00 +0100, Phil Cook
mused:

Agamemnon wrote:

The new Wembly Stadium has cost a billion pounds to build and it looks a
cheep as chips. Look at all the bare concrete and cheep plastic.

So where has all the money gone?

Never mind that what, happened to the roof that was retractable so as
not to cast a shadow on the pitch?

As a technical aside, given the possibilities of image processing
these days and the availability of fast computers it must surely be
possible to "photoshop" the image in real time, or as near as makes no
difference in these days of digital delay making every live event a
delayed rebroadcast, and equalize the brightness of the shaded and
sunlit parts of the pitch to rather better effects than the crude
on/off effect of the lens iris or blanket gain control that they still
seem to be using.

You'd think wouldn't you. I can't watch a live football match on TV,
can't see what the hell is happening. Watch an old match from the
seventies and it's clear and accurate and the ball is much more
followable.
--
Regards,
Stuart.

On Mon, 21 May 2007 00:24:00 +0100, Phil Cook
wrote:

As a technical aside, given the possibilities of image processing
these days and the availability of fast computers it must surely be
possible to "photoshop" the image in real time, or as near as makes no
difference in these days of digital delay making every live event a
delayed rebroadcast, and equalize the brightness of the shaded and
sunlit parts of the pitch to rather better effects than the crude
on/off effect of the lens iris or blanket gain control that they still
seem to be using.

Photoshop, or the equivalent in television post-production, would have
to work on video signals that already been recorded, so it would be
necessary to use a setting for the camera that would capture detail
from both the sunlit and the shaded parts of the scene. This isn't
possible because the brightness range presented by such a situation
vastly exceeds the dynamic range that can be captured by any
photographic system at a single setting. Even the human eye can't do
it, and needs to adjust its iris setting to control the amount of
light entering the eye, and the same has to be done for cameras.

The results of using automatic iris circuits generally look awful
because they can only react after the event, deriving a control signal
from the amplitude of the video signal itself, after it has either
been under or over exposed. A human operator can usually do better
once they are familiar with the scene because they can anticipate
changes to some extent and adjust the iris control in such a manner as
to make transitions less noticeable. A lot depends on the skill of the
operator, and if it is outdoors, the weather. Repeated panning of the
camera between sunlight and shade on a sunny day is the worst possible
situation in which to do this, but controlling the light as it enters
the camera is the only way. There's just too much variation to attempt
to do it later.

Rod.