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

I think shallow DOF live sports (I've only seen it for NFL) is the worst aesthetic/technical decision made in decades. Trying to come up with a precedent, and failing.
Handheld camera on the field behind the QB (USFL, I think?). Helmet cam? This is worse, because it's a bad choice and a bad implementation.

One of my best friends, his friend shoots end zone NFL on the field. He says (in games before the SB) it's FX9, gimbal, auto focus.
 
NorBro said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why can't the operator do the touch focus tracking, especially with a remote screen

Come to think of it - it could be an AC on the sidelines with a remote screen. You're only limited by the wifi range

I wonder if they tried to register a face with a helmet first of all if it would work and second if it would grab any helmet it saq
 
You have a window of about 6-12 seconds to find the scoring player (or other great play) and get a good shot.

So once the operator runs over, I guess he/she could try and touch the screen without hitting it too hard with the adrenaline pumping and hope it won't jitter the screen for the broadcast.

The AC on the sideline, in the truck, same difference. A team effort would be best if the AI is having trouble...for now.

I've seen the "horns" on some of these cameras on the field in the past, so I wonder if they've used any ultrasonic methods with the Venice and company.
 
NorBro said:
... I've seen the "horns" on some of these cameras on the field in the past, so I wonder if they've used any ultrasonic methods with the Venice and company.
Click to expand...
That's for live streaming of the footage. Supposedly, it goes straight to the truck. I surmise it first goes to a receiver somewhere inside the stadium, then wired into the truck along with other images and data.

As to what the operators do - I'd think they just want to point and shoot. Eye tracking probably doesn't work too well with the helmets on .... unless it's Tom Brady because he is so gorgeous.
 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
So once the operator runs over, I guess he/she could try and touch the screen without hitting it too hard with the adrenaline pumping and hope it won't jitter the screen for the broadcast.
Click to expand...

Well, hence the need for the remote screen. I use my phone with wifi connection mounted to the side handle of the ronin-s and then there's no tappy tappy on the camera
 
NorBro said:
lol, no...cinetape and the like for auto-focus.
Click to expand...

But that pits an on-sensor auto focus of a modern consumer camera vs. a ultrasound based system to an AC. It appears to be too much trouble for anything that's not choreographed to a minute detail. The celebration shots constantly go out of focus as they are and it's deemed perfectly acceptable without the need to put the transmitter and a follow focus on the same rig.

Now, if it's not for the closeups nor for the live broadcast, then it makes sense to get Venice and the whole kit. But A7RIV basically does the trick for the first year version and A1 will take over in 2021. The commish just has to figure out how to fit A1 under the salary cap.
 
ahalpert said:
Well, hence the need for the remote screen. I use my phone with wifi connection mounted to the side handle of the ronin-s and then there's no tappy tappy on the camera
Click to expand...

Oh, yea...remote...remotely controlling the focus.

Could work, but would really rather see machines doing everything.

DLD said:
But that pits an on-sensor auto focus of a modern consumer camera vs. a ultrasound based system to an AC. It appears to be too much trouble for anything that's not choreographed to a minute detail. The celebration shots constantly go out of focus as they are and it's deemed perfectly acceptable without the need to put the transmitter and a follow focus on the same rig.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I agree...and I really don't care about the focusing issues either (coming from someone who has obsessed about it for 10 years).

In this case, the love I have for football is stronger than the technical observation.
 
groveChuck said:
I think shallow DOF live sports (I've only seen it for NFL) is the worst aesthetic/technical decision made in decades. Trying to come up with a precedent, and failing.
Handheld camera on the field behind the QB (USFL, I think?). Helmet cam? This is worse, because it's a bad choice and a bad implementation.

One of my best friends, his friend shoots end zone NFL on the field. He says (in games before the SB) it's FX9, gimbal, auto focus.
Click to expand...

They did handheld behind the QB in the original XFL. One of my friends was that guy. He’s a legend in the live world. And most people that watch sports have probably seen his son’s work, too. And he does a ton of live gimbal work(the son)... Heck, I didn’t even think to look and see if he was on the CBS crew, because he hasn’t worked for them, historically. I’ll ask him this weekend when I see him.
 
I would make the DOF a little deeper and take a zone focus/assisted manual approach. Then Abe's remote touch run by the intern would work just fine and the focus would not jump around.
 
JPNola said:
“ For a long time, it's been common for camera crew used to drama, commercials and features to take a slightly superior attitude to people who work in live television.”


http://https://www.redsharknews.com/production/item/5594-why-sports-broadcast-camera-operators-are-real-life-jedi-knights
Click to expand...
I regularly work in both fields and as someone who shoots live TV (and corporate, doc work, and events) as well as drama, commercials, and features, I don't look down upon myself, nor have I ever implied those who work in the same field as myself are inferior for working in the same field I work in. Again, you're making no sense.

Saying broadcasters don't always use the best methods to achieve the best results is not saying or implying they're inferior people or jobs; it's simply saying they have different ways of doing things, that those things could be done better from a technical standpoint, but often don't need to be because of the nature of the work, budget limitations, etc.

I think you see me owning an Amira and think, "Expensive camera owner, therefore must be an elitist snob so let me criticize this dude at every opportunity I get." Great way to participate on a camera forum. You should go over to RedUser, Cinematography.com, or RogerDeakins.com and you'd just love seeing the hundreds of owners of higher end gear than I have which you could constantly label as elitist snobs and just have a field day criticizing.

And oh my gosh, I bought a nice house with money I made from working freaking hard at my job; I must be a terrible person because I'm not lazy and work hard to be able to afford things. It's not like I'm some trust fund baby; I work hard for the things I buy and don't need to be criticized about it.

Just be sure to watch the entire video below. It's the best way to understand the message. I know it may take 10 hours, but it's a worthwhile investment of your time. I'm sure you'll get more accomplished by doing so than by spending all the time you do criticizing me.

 
Last edited:
It's not really unheard of for broadcast to have a dedicated focus puller. I'd think this had a dedicated focus puller with the broadcast camera.

They're singing the song "Shallow" but the depth of field with that broadcast camera is not shallow.





Charles, is the fancy bearded guy pulling focus here or is that just to help with the live transmission feed? When did wireless focus pulling first become available?

 
Last edited:
NorBro said:
Yeah, as did I...I put on Star Trek instead, raging night.
Click to expand...

i'm sure i was editing, babysitting, or napping. sadly my trek marathon has slowed to a crawl now that i'm not staying awake every night to watch the baby.

PS that makeup job on gaga and cooper is frigging great. look at how good their skin looks. a little much on her maybe
 
Eric Coughlin said:
Charles, is the fancy bearded guy pulling focus here or is that just to help with the live transmission feed? When did wireless focus pulling first become available?
Click to expand...

I don't know the answer to this but it seems like a simple invention to me, no? Just an RF signal coming to a focus motor? And both of those pre-date steadicam
 
NorBro said:
Oh, yea...remote...remotely ...and I really don't care about the focusing issues either (coming from someone who has obsessed about it for 10 years)..
Click to expand...
I don't think the NFL even considers that an "issue". It's like a cool new psychedelic style image to them. And now for something different.

I do think that A1 with the G-master primes and a bit more experience from the operators will minimize some of the "issues". Technically, they could have tried a Canon product too but succumbed to the commercial considerations.
 
ahalpert said:
Why can't the operator do the touch focus tracking, especially with a remote screen

Come to think of it - it could be an AC on the sidelines with a remote screen. You're only limited by the wifi range

I wonder if they tried to register a face with a helmet first of all if it would work and second if it would grab any helmet it saq
Click to expand...

If they’re using RIVs and shooting 4K, the AF only works as zone... face, eye, and touch spot AF aren’t available in 4K modes. It’s a downside.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top