NFL - Large Sensor End Zone Cam... Your Thoughts?
- Thread starter Bassman2003
- Start date
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
A full four seconds completely out of focus isn't that long...?! If you have a big-screen TV, try playing that clip there, you may have a different response. It's pretty bad.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
bad from what standpoint? technically unacceptable? of course. if I were the cameraman, I would worry about getting fired. If I were the camera, I would worry about being replaced by a newer model.
but from the standpoint of the audience, I don't think there's any way I would change the channel because of this or think much of it after the fact. also, the focus is pulsing from foreground to background, so you're not stuck in one bad place the whole time. there's visual change which adds interest. at some point, you can see the stands in focus. you can tell what he's doing when he raises his arms. and then when it comes back into focus, the shallow DOF rewards you by blurring the foreground flag that passes in front of them.
if this happens all the time, then they've got a problem. if it happens occasionally and this is the worst of it, I think it's fine.
I think the US NFL cameramen (and women) are going to at least F5.6 and possibly F8 on a lot of their closeups because, on a lot of the TD celebration shots, even the background players are not terribly out of focus. And they are probably going to the 85mm in order to give the in-the-frame players more room. But then there's also a lot less bokeh/blur these days too.
CharlesPapert
Director of Photography
Well, that's pretty silly if they are using a large format sensor camera and stopping down significantly--at that point just use a 2/3" broadcast camera which has far more zoom range and integrates with the truck better.
As far as what "bad" means, I only dabble in the broadcast world but it has always seemed like a moving target to me in terms of what is acceptable or not from a technical standpoint. Have seen engineers fret about one tiny detail and then something like this is considered acceptable. What I think is utterly frustrating is that they refuse to hire a focus puller who would able to make this shots beautifully, or at least far better than autofocus. I've heard the concern about having more individuals on the field, but a quality wireless lens control could be positioned into the stands. They surely don't want to spend the extra money, and thus feel that moments like this are acceptable. I think that's a pitiful choice.
As far as what "bad" means, I only dabble in the broadcast world but it has always seemed like a moving target to me in terms of what is acceptable or not from a technical standpoint. Have seen engineers fret about one tiny detail and then something like this is considered acceptable. What I think is utterly frustrating is that they refuse to hire a focus puller who would able to make this shots beautifully, or at least far better than autofocus. I've heard the concern about having more individuals on the field, but a quality wireless lens control could be positioned into the stands. They surely don't want to spend the extra money, and thus feel that moments like this are acceptable. I think that's a pitiful choice.
NorBro
Major Contributor
I feel like broadcast television always had high standards, but people in charge in different places on different teams have a variety of opinions and expectations as times continue to change.
If someone recommended a mirrorless on a handheld gimbal 5 years ago they might have been escorted out of the building, but now as the next generation takes over roles and departments, people are more open in the content creation process and less uptight with strict protocols.
[I feel like many camera operators often take their jobs more seriously than neurosurgeons...and can be very hard on themselves.]
I also think some crews are more knowledgeable than others. This might sound impossible to be true for forum nerds, but I seriously think many people still don't know the major differences between various camera models and auto-focus and how to set these systems up correctly, or at least optimally.
And I still don't understand why trucks aren't shooting LOG and applying a LUT before the images hits the air, and not sure anyone has the answer besides those in the truck.
If someone recommended a mirrorless on a handheld gimbal 5 years ago they might have been escorted out of the building, but now as the next generation takes over roles and departments, people are more open in the content creation process and less uptight with strict protocols.
[I feel like many camera operators often take their jobs more seriously than neurosurgeons...and can be very hard on themselves.]
I also think some crews are more knowledgeable than others. This might sound impossible to be true for forum nerds, but I seriously think many people still don't know the major differences between various camera models and auto-focus and how to set these systems up correctly, or at least optimally.
And I still don't understand why trucks aren't shooting LOG and applying a LUT before the images hits the air, and not sure anyone has the answer besides those in the truck.
ahalpert
Major Contributor
Yeah, I agree that a focus puller with a wireless lens control would have aced this shot.
I don't watch sports or have much broadcast experience, and I have no idea about the producing/budgeting considerations.
For me, as I assume it is for many, terms like "bad" and "unacceptable" revolve around the viewer experience. Sometimes we fret over minutia that the viewer doesn't care about while ignoring factors they care a great deal about. (Although more often, we fret over minutia that the viewer DOES care about and just doesn't realize it because they lack technical knowledge.)
I think that the shallow DOF coverage is more "cinematic" or perceived as such and that a lot of viewers have expressed appreciation for that stylistic flourish.
Would a deep DOF small-sensor camera have pleased viewers more than the large format camera, even with that terrible focus miss? I'm guessing probably not, unless all the footage looks like that. (Also, didn't they have alternate angles from proper broadcast cameras on that action? Yet for the highlight reel the editors chose this shot?)
It would have been better if they had nailed focus the entire time. Maybe they can't afford to hire focus pullers or are padding their profits by cutting that rate. Maybe they're putting that money into throwing additional gimbal operators on the field. I suspect you're right that they're cutting corners. (Although at this point perhaps we agree that large-sensor coverage is a nice addition and the question turns on the use of autofocus.) If they're using small gimbals, they may also be running up against weight constraints if they want to mount a real lens and wireless lens control.
A human definitely could have pulled this shot better, but there are probably fast-moving shots where the computer could beat all but the best focus pullers. And certainly, as NorBro mentioned, experienced humans with broadcast cameras don't nail their shots all the time either.
I think the idea was to look artistic and different, wherever the chips may fall. So, they missed a bunch of shots last year and they're stopping down a lot more often this year. It's trial&error ... and the graphics overlay.
BTW, Nikon Z9 samples auto focus 120 times per second, so on the in-and-out sequences it's pretty hard to beat modern AF.
BTW, Nikon Z9 samples auto focus 120 times per second, so on the in-and-out sequences it's pretty hard to beat modern AF.
I thought it looked like a Red (with the end zone operator getting run over by a player, who then helped him up).
Lots of things from 2020 have disappeared.
Bassman2003
Veteran
I noticed the DOF was a little deeper. I think they have learned and adjusted. It looks good imho.
Doug Jensen
Carbonite Member
Yes, the MFN camera is definitely an FX9. I know people on the crew.