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

B

Bassman2003

Veteran
Just wondering if anybody has seen the new large sensor end zone cams the NFL is starting to use? They have been using a steadicam operator with some kind of small broadcast camera. I have seen a few games where this setup has been replaced with what looks to be something like an FX6 on a gimbal type setup. The game I was watching was the Cowboy game and I do not know what to make of the look. It reminds me of a video game trailer! (Which I am sure they love for the younger eyeballs). I can't say that I like it as the super shallow DOF is kind of jarring for a live event imho. For some reason, the lens they had on was not super wide either?

Anyway, would be interested to hear your thoughts.
 
It's A7 RIV.

So I posted a quick message there and NorBro posted the related video.

PS. My opinion is that it looks weird because auto focus isn't really made for half a dozen people coming in from all directions.
 
Call me nuts, but, owning both, I kinda like the video image from the RIV slightly more than the SIII.

Large sensor certainly helps blur out the empty stadium seating. Pro sports might need more of this, even after the pandemic ends.

Never knew I owned my own "Megalodon," amongst other antediluvian oddities within my kit...
 
Last edited:
The rig at the Cowboy game was a little different. It was a little larger body with the LCD coming out of the top/side. The body was a medium gray color. The image was nice but I found the transition to the SDOF unnatural when all of the other cameras have more of the world in focus. but to each there own.

The thing did have an epic autofocus fail after a touchdown though. The director chose to stay on the shot and the camera was all the way on the stands in the distance. The players were almost to the point of blobs in front of the lens. They are probably better off increasing the aperture and zone focusing fairly close up than having the meltdown.

The steadicam has better motion imho but this rig is probably the way forward they will choose.
 
A7SIII doesn't have 1080p and the networks don't want to fool around with the 4K footage streaming/editing yet. A7SIII has more AF points though.

Then the 24-70 G Master weighs close to a kilo (886g), which is a lot of glass to move quickly. They'd probably be better off with a cheap 50mm prime because it's so much lighter and all the aberrations and vignetting don't really matter much in those shots anyway.

Of course, if they want the swirling bokeh from all sides, they should just get a Petzval ... was watching Titans-Packers and could barely see the yard lines anyway ... (while the officials didn't see the sidelines).
 
As someone from the sports world and as someone sitting at home watching(on a big ass screen), I don’t really like it, like it’s being used. It’s one thing using “art” shots for bumpers when you’re going to break or re-caps and melts at the end of the game, but cutting in super shallow depth of field shots live with the regular live game footage or even for instant replay just doesn’t feel right and is jarring. Like someone said, it’s kind of like a cut-scene in a video game. It’s just so different, it doesn’t fit in this context.
 
Bassman2003 said:
The rig at the Cowboy game was a little different. It was a little larger body with the LCD coming out of the top/side. The body was a medium gray color. The image was nice but I found the transition to the SDOF unnatural when all of the other cameras have more of the world in focus. but to each there own.

The thing did have an epic autofocus fail after a touchdown though. The director chose to stay on the shot and the camera was all the way on the stands in the distance. The players were almost to the point of blobs in front of the lens. They are probably better off increasing the aperture and zone focusing fairly close up than having the meltdown.

The steadicam has better motion imho but this rig is probably the way forward they will choose.
Click to expand...

That's probably when CeeDee Lamb scored a touchdown...I saw it specifically there too, but this actually happens all of the time every single time they cut to it (every game), just depends on how long they hold the shot.

This was also a funny one as the only thing in focus for a few seconds in this shot was the graphic...and the hand which infamously always gets in focus with center-box focusing if it's out in front of the face (like glasses sometimes).

MS_Eagles.jpg
 
DLD said:
... was watching Titans-Packers and could barely see the yard lines anyway ... (while the officials didn't see the sidelines).
Click to expand...

They put in fake yard numbers for the broadcast in that game...pretty cool.
 
Exactly on the cowboys shots. If the thing is out of focus every time they cut to it then so much for all of this great AF that is supposed to be out there! Strange that the NFL is still using them unless it is a cost thing and ease of finding an operator.
 
Supposedly the feedback has been tremendous, and people all over the country are telling them [social media] how much they love it.

Which wasn't a surprise to me...I and dozens of others have said for many years that human brains respond to shallow depth-of-field like nothing else (besides maybe contrast and saturation...and lighting but not in this subject).

[I'm a big fan of resolution but it's down the list before the aforementioned.]

___

As far as the focus...they will get it dialed in eventually with some settings, or improve the cutting - but the bottom line is 99% of the audience does not care about any focusing issues or even notice it as they are enjoying the blurry background and the "special" new look, especially when their teams, favorite players score.
 
I was thinking the same thing that people are probably loving it since it looks like a video game. I just thought the NFL would have tested them some more before using them in a game.
 
Although I don't disagree, I'm not sure where this notion of it looking like a video game comes from as many people don't play video games...

If anything, more would be familiar with this "blurry look" from YouTube videos they watch every day of whatever they are interested in (and not that everyone shoots shallow but many do) or just regular Hollywood movies.
 
Run&Gun said:
As someone from the sports world and as someone sitting at home watching(on a big ass screen), I don’t really like it, like it’s being used. It’s one thing using “art” shots for bumpers when you’re going to break or re-caps and melts at the end of the game, but cutting in super shallow depth of field shots live with the regular live game footage or even for instant replay just doesn’t feel right and is jarring. Like someone said, it’s kind of like a cut-scene in a video game. It’s just so different, it doesn’t fit in this context.
Click to expand...

I agree it's probably not the right time and place for shallow focus, although I bet the reasoning is that the stands are empty, so seeing the background just reminds us that the world sucks right now.

But crucially - depth of field is also dependent on viewing size. You're watching on a big ass screen, which means you're seeing far shallower depth of field than everyone watching on a phone. The difference is that much greater for you.

I remember watching Six Feet Under on a large projection at home and thinking how the out of focus blobs looked nasty. Whereas they were probably pretty on a TV screen 1/12 the size
 
People who watch and love sports don't care about the visual aspect of seeing empty stands.

The crowd's energy and noise was the most important part, and not shots of the fans (although of course seeing them and the reactions from time to time is great too).

Yeah, having no fans sucks - but ultimately it's about the sport, the players, the plays. (Some stadiums can have a limited capacity.)

Besides people losing their lives and jobs, I was concerned with how this pandemic might affect sports but it took me a very short time - a week or two - to adapt with the wonderful crowd noise mixed in post.

The regular NFL season ends next weekend (some would say it already ended for most this weekend based on playoff math) and they just started this 2 weeks ago or so, so it's not like they needed to. Probably just experimenting and wanted to see the reaction towards the end of the season as we move forward with the last few weeks.

It was such a long time coming...5-6-7 years in the making as shallow DOF and gimbals have been a thing for a while now.
 
You're saying you respond positively to crowd noise but you have no response to images of full stands undulating with colorful exuberant fans?

I dont watch sports but every time I see a clip from these games, i have an instinctual, "wait, is this just a practice?" Because the stands are empty. Obviously, I'd get used to it, but nevertheless
 
Yes...sound is 1000% more important (hearing the crowd versus seeing the crowd).

The energy drives the game.

Fan shots are cool and a nice part of the overall experience (the celebrations, the dress ups, the anxiety, the booing), but you only see them about 20-30% during a 2-3 hour broadcast. Most of the cuts are on players, the bench, coaches, and of course the wider shots of the game action.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top