Run&Gun
Veteran
At least the subject is in-focus in video games. They can't achieve focus except maybe 20-25% of the time and then can't maintain it for more than a moment or two IF they get it.
Gronk's first TD, he was never in focus.
NFL - Large Sensor End Zone Cam... Your Thoughts?
- Thread starter Bassman2003
- Start date
At least the subject is in-focus in video games. They can't achieve focus except maybe 20-25% of the time and then can't maintain it for more than a moment or two IF they get it.
Gronk's first TD, he was never in focus.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Strange choices at times from the high end. Kind of reminds me of the earlier days of LED lighting on battery and post game interviews where they clearly had a 5600k light in a lower Kelvin environment. The players had blue skin and I am thinking - I always try to match the light color and I am a two bit loser... 
Run&Gun
Veteran
It’s just amazing that it made it all the way to the Super Bowl. They seemed to just keep doubling down WITHOUT improving.
As much as I think the super shallow DoF look doesn’t fit in in the live broadcast, it would be one think if the shots were actually in focus, but how do you prioritize the SSDoF over having the shot in focus? Who give a flying f u c k about shooting WAO with a “FF” sensor for SSDoF to give you the look of a video game or to make it “cinematic” if nothing is ever in focus? Hell, you can take a 2/3” broadcast camera and engage the macro to throw the back focus out and make it look just like that: Nothing In Focus.
I mean at some point someone has got to step in and say if they want to continue with that look, that they have to figure out how to achieve proper and continuous focus. Because it’s not like the people doing this aren’t some of the best in the field, they’re just being given an almost impossible task with current practices and technology.
As much as I think the super shallow DoF look doesn’t fit in in the live broadcast, it would be one think if the shots were actually in focus, but how do you prioritize the SSDoF over having the shot in focus? Who give a flying f u c k about shooting WAO with a “FF” sensor for SSDoF to give you the look of a video game or to make it “cinematic” if nothing is ever in focus? Hell, you can take a 2/3” broadcast camera and engage the macro to throw the back focus out and make it look just like that: Nothing In Focus.
I mean at some point someone has got to step in and say if they want to continue with that look, that they have to figure out how to achieve proper and continuous focus. Because it’s not like the people doing this aren’t some of the best in the field, they’re just being given an almost impossible task with current practices and technology.
And they even switched to it during a play, though they quickly came out of it.
As to who-runs-what these days - the sideline judge blew a tipped ball interception call late in the game and, despite it occurring in the last five minutes, the NFL did not stop the game for a replay. Obviously, aside of making Mahomie's stats look even worse than his 52 QB rating, it no longer mattered. But Nance and Romo just skipped over it, even though their own cameras showed it quite clearly.
PS. And KC's offensive side of the ball was completely outcoached ... by themselves. Backup tackles vs. Tampa's pass rush = business as usual. Un, no.
As to who-runs-what these days - the sideline judge blew a tipped ball interception call late in the game and, despite it occurring in the last five minutes, the NFL did not stop the game for a replay. Obviously, aside of making Mahomie's stats look even worse than his 52 QB rating, it no longer mattered. But Nance and Romo just skipped over it, even though their own cameras showed it quite clearly.
PS. And KC's offensive side of the ball was completely outcoached ... by themselves. Backup tackles vs. Tampa's pass rush = business as usual. Un, no.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I do wonder, though, are they the best in their field? I could just imagine the broadcast sports pulling from their range of typical broadcast camera crew to be the 1st ACs pulling focus as opposed to hiring top of the line 1st ACs focus pullers out of Hollywood.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
The broadcast world is a funny one. I dipped my toe into the higher end stuff when I was a Steadicam operator for hire and was often thrown by how dialed in it was on many levels but completely missing the mark on others, to my sensibilities. As was mentioned by Bassman earlier, the bad choice of color balance (like a 3200K sungun used in daylight) was everywhere. When I was working on the Atlanta Olympics, the diving competitors walked under a terribly green sodium lamp underneath the diving platform and after seeing it happen enough where it really bothered me I went to talk to the team in the truck about it. No-one had noticed and nobody cared. I offered to gel it myself and went through a stack of scraps in one of the trucks but couldn't find any minus green (as if that was surprising).
I haven't seen the shallow thing you guys are referring to but it does not surprise me that they aren't bringing in legit focus pullers with tools like the Light Ranger to tackle this. Not their style, not their world.
I haven't seen the shallow thing you guys are referring to but it does not surprise me that they aren't bringing in legit focus pullers with tools like the Light Ranger to tackle this. Not their style, not their world.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Only thing that bothers me about it is that if they are still using the old Sony a7RIV (and cutting to it on TV), they should at least use and replace it with one of the newer Sony cameras with newer AF.
Dial down the speed/sensitivity a little and there would be less of an issue.
It's hard for me to believe that there isn't at least one nerd, forum guy/gal out of the 50-100-200 people in the crew that knows the history of these cameras and can get the word back to the decision-makers that there is a better Sony they could use, but maybe there really isn't because most people don't get tied up with such extreme details besides the small number of camera nerds that really know and follow the equipment.
Dial down the speed/sensitivity a little and there would be less of an issue.
It's hard for me to believe that there isn't at least one nerd, forum guy/gal out of the 50-100-200 people in the crew that knows the history of these cameras and can get the word back to the decision-makers that there is a better Sony they could use, but maybe there really isn't because most people don't get tied up with such extreme details besides the small number of camera nerds that really know and follow the equipment.
They had Sony A7R series cameras on what looked like a fig rig (or Fig rig). The cameras were probably in an "area" AF mode because the "eye" would have been even worse. Cameras were not hunting per se; they were just in a state of constantly changing framing. Someone scores - he's in focus. His teammates jump on top of him - no one is in focus. The camera quickly recalibrates itself. Someone comes in focus again. Then someone else jumps in again and the focus is gone again. They probably could have gone with an APS-C Sony (6600 has a very good AF too) and an 50mm prime at F11 and then let the rest fall where it may. But they were totally into the "Top Secret" telephone scene look.
SAR found a link purporting they did have an A1 there. 7RIV always seemed like a poor choice for action but it does have a lot of AF points (567 phase-detection and 425 contrast), on top of the fastest chips and, unlike A7SIII, can be streamed in 1080.
I find the look odd but some may find it artistic.
Bassman2003
Veteran
Great conversation. The NFL has the entire off season to figure it out. Next year it will be an 8k 50-yard line cam with an f1.4 wide angle lens that they can pan and zoom around to their hearts content to create the 720p broadcast signal!
Another lesson to us all - most people don't care!!! Use what you got to the best of its abilities and upgrade for sound reasons. (A nod to Dan and G.A.S.)
Another lesson to us all - most people don't care!!! Use what you got to the best of its abilities and upgrade for sound reasons. (A nod to Dan and G.A.S.)
Last edited:
Run&Gun
Veteran
I’m talking about the cam ops. Those were the top guys shooting last night. Despite some of the strange decisions that are made and we talk about on an Internet forum, it’s not local cable access that rolled into town and put an ad on Craigslist for cam-ops. Some of those guys have literally been doing it for as long as or almost as long as some of us have been alive. And there’s a reason. Because they are the best.
Run&Gun
Veteran
Yep... I’ve been doing this for approaching 2.5 decades and I am in, out and around different “disciplines” of production all the time, including live network/broadcast. Some of the things that are obsessed over vs. some of the things that are glossed over have always made me shake my head and wonder WTF?
Run&Gun
Veteran
They were Sony Venice’s for the CBS broadcast last night and the AFC championship. One on a Steadicam and one on a Movi Pro. They also used them or at least one the week before the AFC.
In most broadcast work, the Steadicam op is pulling his own focus and zoom. If you look at the top left corner of the Venice’s(as you are look at the front of them-lens side) there is some type of large motor/spindle with a belt going around it and the lens. Whether the op is focusing, someone else is or they are experimenting with some type of non-camera-integrated AF, I don’t know.
Last edited:
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Do you guys think they ran sufficient tests to determine optimal speed and sensitivity settings for the focus mode? Is this the best the camera could do, or did they never figure out what was best?
Personally, I find that different settings work better not just for different lenses but also depending on the scenario - how much interference there will be in front of the lens of course, and if it's preferable to hunt as fast as possible or to linger somewhere even if it's not the ideal focal point.
Personally, I find that different settings work better not just for different lenses but also depending on the scenario - how much interference there will be in front of the lens of course, and if it's preferable to hunt as fast as possible or to linger somewhere even if it's not the ideal focal point.
NorBro
Major Contributor
Transitions sometimes feel quick so I'd say I don't think they tested the speed settings, but if they did then maybe they just don't like the result.
If it was any other sport without helmets there would be a substantial difference with the face-tracking.
___
If in the near future someone back in the truck will be able to control AF by touching a screen then the problem is solved; it will be so easy to tap players and areas to focus and the sticky AF should be able to track well.
Currently, I have a feeling they are just using a wider box setting.
If it was any other sport without helmets there would be a substantial difference with the face-tracking.
___
If in the near future someone back in the truck will be able to control AF by touching a screen then the problem is solved; it will be so easy to tap players and areas to focus and the sticky AF should be able to track well.
Currently, I have a feeling they are just using a wider box setting.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
Thought you were talking about focus pulling capabilities, which if the camera is on a Steadicam or gimbal and not using auto-focus the focus pulling capabilities would fall upon the 1st AC focus puller and not the camera operator, and I was suggesting they may not have hired top of the line focus pullers if they were using focus pullers.
Well if the Steadicam op is pulling his own focus that right there is the problem as a) most Steadicam ops aren't high end focus pullers and b) it's very difficult to accurately multi-task while opping in a rig which would as a result be very detrimental for the Steadicam op's focus pulling capabilities. I could imagine how this could be done with a small sensor and deep depth of field as well as when there isn't enough budget for a dedicated focus puller, but the Superbowl clearly had the budget for it yet I wouldn't be surprised if they nixed it just because they're not used to doing things in the best way possible. The broadcast world tends to like to do things how they've done them rather than the best way to do things.
Last edited:
Run&Gun
Veteran
Yes.
The vast, vast majority of Steadicam work on network/broadcast TV, be it live events/shows, sports, studio shows, etc. is with a 2/3" camera with a wide-angle lens(back-end is ~4.5mm) (usually) zoomed all the way out full wide. So you have a ridiculously deep depth of field in comparison to a large sensor camera that is shooting with a lens that is many times the focal length and probably being shot wide open.
But, as we've already covered, dedicated focus pullers are not part of this world.
Something else that's amazing to watch, because of the sheer madness of what is really going on, a good jib-op on live TV. Focusing, zooming and finding your frame while swinging a 30'-40' arm over top of a crowd of people without hitting any of them and sticking the landing at the end of the shot. So much going on at once...
I know that there were the two-piece Venice cameras on the premsies but, in order to focus pull manually on those closeups, the focus pullers would have to have had reflexes of Vladislav Tretyak ... and they still wouldn't come close. A1 can adjust for the AF with the small G-Master primes at 30 frames per second. That's 0.033 of a second per shot. Top athletes don't get above 3/10th, which is ten times slower. And these are guys in the hall of fame. And an average human being is way slower.
Now, as some point, likely soon, we'll see the 4K Venice footage. Those would be from the operators 10-15 feet behind the A7RIV and A1 with the AF.
Now, as some point, likely soon, we'll see the 4K Venice footage. Those would be from the operators 10-15 feet behind the A7RIV and A1 with the AF.
JPNola
Veteran
“ The broadcast world tends to like to do things how they've done them rather than the best way to do things.”
Really now.
I like how in one minute he shows little knowledge of the thing he’s talking about, and a couple of minutes later knows enough about the thing to disparage it with gross generalization in the negative.
In case anyone was missing Trump.
Really now.
I like how in one minute he shows little knowledge of the thing he’s talking about, and a couple of minutes later knows enough about the thing to disparage it with gross generalization in the negative.
In case anyone was missing Trump.
Eric Coughlin
Veteran
I've done a considerable amount of broadcast work. I've shot for BBC, ABC, CBS, NBC, NBC Sports, Comcast, HSN, Nova, 20/20, etc. I've also done Steadicam work with a broadcast camera for broadcast which you've probably never done and which is what we were talking about.
I implied in my first post here that I was aware of how broadcast works in that they often don't chose the best way of doing things by questioning if the Superbowl was using the most effective focus pulling methods. I've shot for broadcast a good amount but I did not shoot for the broadcast team of the Superbowl so I'm not aware of how they handled things which is why I questioned their methods. It's pretty straightforward but again you're just looking for a beef to pick with me.
My best guess as to why you constantly pick on my posts is not because as you said, a) you're trying to help me, or b) you're trying to help the forum by exposing them to my evil ways. My best guess is because you've come to believe that my political views are the opposite of yours (while for the most part I haven't really discussed my political views on this forum, ya know, because it's against the rules), so you've decided to constantly pick on me and say stupid things like, "In case anyone was missing Trump," making some implication I'm like Donald Trump when what I said has absolutely nothing to do with politics nor was what I said unintelligent. You're making this political in your constant crusade against me.
I mean, seriously, you criticized me for buying a house that I really like, making it sound like I was a bad person (you compared me to Scarface for buying a house) for buying a nice house in the suburbs rather than a piece of crap in the city. What absurdity. Do you have nothing better to do with your life than constantly criticize someone on a video forum with the stupidest criticisms? It would be one thing if your posts were funny, then it could at least be humorous trolling, but I've never seen humor in your criticisms and they come across as meant purely in mean spirit.
I've repeatedly asked you to stop harassing me. This is a video forum. Bring your politics elsewhere.
Last edited: