NFL - Large Sensor End Zone Cam... Your Thoughts?

[David Saraceno]

From today's Kansas City/Buffalo game.

IMG_7141.jpgIMG_7140.jpg

[NorBro]

VENICE and/or its sensor block, CBK-3610XS.

NFL shoots a lot with the V, but never saw the block out in the wild during games (meaning on TV)...but looks like the main camera though (I think the block needs to be tethered).

https://pro.sony/en_NO/products/came...ors/cbk-3610xs

Sensor Block.jpg

[Run&Gun]

NFL Films is still mostly Arri, but FOX’s “art”/feature guys are largely VENICE. One of my friends is one of their main guys(across multiple sports) and he had one of the first ones in the country. I was just on a big FOX shoot last week(not NFL) and between three of the four main sets, there were at least three to four VENICE’s and three to four F5/55’s on the fourth set.

Not sure what the CBS art/feature guys are using.

[DLD]

NFL films went big with Amira when it came out in 2014. Venice, at least, gives them 6K/4K.

[ahalpert]

I feel like cable and satellite TV are coasting on the loyalties of long-standing subscribers...

There's an article in Axios today putting numbers to the bleak outlook of pay TV:

Screenshot_20210126-185133_Chrome.jpg

The big picture: The pandemic will drive cable and satellite TV providers to lose the most subscribers ever, according to the most recent data from eMarketer.

Early estimates suggest roughly 5 million people cancelled their cable subscriptions last year.
Last year's lockdowns slowed cord-cutting by forcing people to stay inside, but it will accelerate again as the country opens back up.
Streaming has also taken off during the pandemic, which will push more consumers to cut the cord in coming years.
One forecast expects that pay-TV subscriptions will shrink by 36% in the next 5 years, compared to 9.5% from 2015-2019.
Be smart: Sports networks are often the most costly channels within a cable bundle. Telecom operators have been under pressure to rebate consumers for the expensive cable packages that lacked live sports during the pandemic.

While some networks, like news and variety programming, are struggling to demonstrate value in the cable bundle, sports networks are by far under the most pressure, given much cable operators are required to pay them for live sports rights.

What's next: With many major sports contracts set to expire in the next few years, analysts predict that the ultimate collapse of the cable TV model will happen when a tech or streaming company finally is granted rights to stream a major sports franchise.

AT&T's top executive John Stankey has said the telecom giant would consider dropping its exclusive rights to the NFL's Sunday Ticket package from its DirecTV satellite service.
The bottom line: In the interim, expect a flood of cable programming to start migrating over to streaming in anticipation for the day when cable is no longer a viable platform for networks to reach audiences.

https://www.axios.com/pay-tv-cord-cu...e65f3af96.html

Of course, all the shows on pay TV keep getting produced, they just end up online instead. What that means for the broader health of "TV" I'm not sure.

[JPNola]

There's an article in Axios today putting numbers to the bleak outlook of pay TV

I suppose a service like "FUBO" would be considered "pay tv", no?

"Paid ( FUBO ) subscribers at year-end are expected to exceed 545,000, an increase of more than 72% year-over-year."

[Bassman2003]

I am confused on what separates Pay TV from something like Netflix or YouTube TV? 300 channel bundles from cable providers is definitely on the way out but folks usually need to pay for everything unless they are pirating it... From my perspective, YouTube TV is gradually turning into what it was supposed to be a better alternative to. The channels are piling up along with price increases. It is just a natural business model to amass things in easy to use bundles. So we will ditch the big expensive cable packages to only wind up with big expensive on-demand packages. Only the delivery tech will change with a lot more personal tracking to boot!

[Run&Gun]

Bottom line: unless you're flat out stealing it or just watching over-the-air, YOU ARE GOING TO PAY SOMEONE to watch "TV". Streaming services are pay tv. YouTube TV is pay tv. Even if you are just watching stuff on YouTube, you're paying for your internet service, so you are still paying someone to be able to watch content. People are just arguing semantics.

[ahalpert]

It depends on what you replace cable/satellite with. I don't know if many people will end up paying $225/month for their TV service. Even when you deduct the cost of the direcTV equipment/infrastructure/service, you're probably still paying more for "content" than many streaming subscribers will.

The thing about cable/satellite is that they make you pay for a whole bunch of stuff you may not want along with what you do want. And they lock you in for long contracts. Both those strategies push up their revenue.

My wife and I currently subscribe to Amazon prime video (plus the prime "fandor" french channel) and cbs all access. I think we also subscribe to hulu...I seem to remember signing up for their new year's discounted price but I haven't used it since.

And I don't have time to watch everything I want to watch on just those services! I want to churn back to Netflix for the new altered Carbon season, disney+ for the mandalorian, hbo max for raised by wolves...when I have time...

It doesn't matter to the cameraman how the work is being delivered. Sports will always be in demand (even golf...) The only question is if the economics changes - if the rates change, if shows get added or subtracted. And I wouldn't hazard a guess at the outcome. Netflix, for example, has been paying a lot of people more than they would have made making the show for someone else. Streaming could be a boon for shooters.

[DLD]

An odd thing is that, from the technology angle, the 4K OTA is great ... but soon, there'll be nothing left to watch OTA. Except the NFL, because if they went completely PPV, people would riot.

PS. Pay TV is euphemism for cable/satellite but it has several reasons for diminishing viewership. Slowly but surely, everything is going to the streamers. You like the "Office"? Well, it's on Peacock now. You like "Seinfeld"? It's on Hulu. Granted, many a program went into their current syndication cycles before the onslaught of the streaming services and they're still available on basic cable. Some major hits are making too much money in syndication to go completely to the streamers but the relocation off cable/satellite is going to happen soon enough.

And then you begin to realize that Comcast was correct to shut down NBC SN. The audience just won't be there anymore.

PPS. The problem with NBC SN was lack of prime time content. The EPL draws great numbers (in relative terms) but it's an early morning Sat/Sun show. The schedulers put the top games on early for the Asian markets but those 7:30 AM matches don't draw well in the US. And they're usually done by 2:30 PM. And a cable network needs something for the 7-11 PM. The NHL might work but that will require a new contract. The NBA is on ESPN and MLB is on Fox Sports/Regionals. And the top college basketball conferences are all spoken for. On the USA network, Comcast can mix and match.

On the other hand, TNT tried its hand at UEFA Champions League - outbidding Fox Sports - and very few people followed it there (Univision/Unimas has the Spanish language rights). That is something Comcast shouldn't be ignoring.

The EPL management is likewise rightly upset that many of its matches ended up on Peacock. That screws up the league's exposure and, with the contract up for bidding, Comcast would really have to sweeten the pot to make this worth it.