Sony Alpha on FOX NFL

JPNola

JPNola

Veteran
So what's going on here with these shots? By that I mean, there's nothing new here but for some reason these shots are eye-catching. I don't recall any of my own Sony A7 work having this crazily shallow dof. Or, is it less the super-shallow dof that is catching my eye and more the frame rate?

The camera is an A7r II, the lens is the Sony 24-70 GM, shot using AF.

https://www.engadget.com/fox-sports-gives-football-a-cinematic-look-with-sony-mirrorless-cameras-200048816.html




The camera work here is rough. The Op who shot it would be the first to acknowledge that. He needs a person pulling focus for him and the AF is hit or miss. But I'm more interested in the "look" being produced here and how it is different than what we've seen before, if it is different.
 
I'm in the minority, but I do not like the stuff that FOX and CBS have been doing. Too many focus misses/oof shots, weird framing at times, mechanical gimbal pans/tilts and does not fit, in the context of the live broadcast. The real Steadicam shots are way better and fit the broadcast. BUT everyone has a rock hard stiffy over the shallow DoF sh!t.
 
Someone already brought this up. I'm with R&G, I hate it. There's no real reason to use it, except to emulate what you see in a video game like Madden. They also might be using the shallow dof to hide the empty stands, but I find it distracting. Reminds me of the quality difference between consumer mirrorless and expensive broadcast cameras. If they just closed the aperture down I wouldn't have a problem with it.
 
Last edited:
JPNola, your A7 must have had equivalent DOF at f/2.8 unless you were in a crop mode. There's no way this camera could have less.

I dont see why they cant put the camera on a regular steadicam.

Regardless of what the pros think, the audiences seem to like it. Maybe just for variety. Personally, I think they could have a bit more DOF. Everything has a sweet spot for DOF.

Like that shot of Biden giving his inaugural speech and flattening right into the stairs behind him. It would have been really nice if those stairs had been a bit soft. C'mon, man.
 
ahalpert said:
JPNola, your A7 must have had equivalent DOF at f/2.8 unless you were in a crop mode. There's no way this camera could have less.

I dont see why they cant put the camera on a regular steadicam.

Regardless of what the pros think, the audiences seem to like it. Maybe just for variety. Personally, I think they could have a bit more DOF. Everything has a sweet spot for DOF.

Like that shot of Biden giving his inaugural speech and flattening right into the stairs behind him. It would have been really nice if those stairs had been a bit soft. C'mon, man.
Click to expand...

$$$
 
I don't know if being mindful of extra costs has anything to do it...I mean they probably have a truck filled with steadicams at this point after 40-50 years of this type of production.

IMO, it's just easier to move around with the one-handed gimbal.

In one of last week's game, I saw a gimbal operator still on the field just as the offense was breaking out of the huddle. They cut to the wide shot and he was hauling to get out of there.

Plus - per usual - 99% wouldn't see the difference.
 
There's a difference between not seeing the difference and not feeling the difference. Everyone will feel the difference. People can't tell why Hollywood movies (generally) look so good, but they can tell they look good even if the only problems they ever notice are Superman's bad CGI moustache-removal.
 
No, most won't...just not in this particular case. It's only a few seconds of celebrations.
 
NorBro said:
I don't know if being mindful of extra costs has anything to do it...I mean they probably have a truck filled with steadicams at this point after 40-50 years of this type of production.

IMO, it's just easier to move around with the one-handed gimbal.

In one of last week's game, I saw a gimbal operator still on the field just as the offense was breaking out of the huddle. They cut to the wide shot and he was hauling to get out of there.

Plus - per usual - 99% wouldn't see the difference.
Click to expand...

This is the world I have lived in for the last two+ decades. Don’t think that pennies are not watched, counted and saved, even on the NFL. Trust me. Most people would shake their heads(as do I, even after all these years) if they saw the things that the networks will spend money on and not bat an eyelash(even when it’s essentially thrown in the trash) and other things that they nickel-and-dime to an almost ludicrous degree.
 
I'm guessing these cameras are a nightmare to the video guys, do they offer any of the conventional shading controls back in the truck? And one of the pictures I saw had the camera in a big fig rig so size isn't even of benefit. Just get a large sensor ENG/cinema camera with a fiber connection on the back and a real CCU in the truck like an F55 or F65. Yes I know, not full frame, but does it really matter?
 
I mean...just need to critically think about the situation.

The NFL's main purpose is to entertain. The goal is to produce a positive reaction from its viewers, the audience.

People overwhelming love this as has been mentioned in the three threads this topic has surfaced, so whether the NFL wants to save money, whether they have a truck filled with steadicams that are about to be donated to the local college, or whether they could have used something else is only for forum guys and gals to debate.

This setup is easy, lightweight, quick, and it simply has worked.

I'm a big fan...and not specifically because it's shallow DOF, but because they are trying something new, different and it's awesome to see.

A touchdown is special, and this is in a way creating a different feeling for it.

It's even a type of branding for this part of the game to separate it from the rest of the deep focus atmosphere.
 
Well, we didn’t get much discussion of the look, but whatever. I wonder what his frame-rate was?

The Op said they first tried using the Venice for their “LF” work but it was difficult to match with the other live cameras, they found the Alpha easier to match. I assume by “match” he meant the color-science, since the shot is meant to stand out in some characteristics. Match, but also not match, as it were. Stand out, but only in ways you desire, namely shallow dof.

I think they should try it using the Canon dream lens, wide open at f.95. Just add an acid-rock soundtrack. Or just straight-up guitar feedback. :D:D
 
Probably 30p, but possibly 60p (since it's HD).

I don't know the intricacies of how the end-product hits the air waves from these few different networks, but they have this smooth look to pregame stuff sometimes too (not slow-motion) that looks like more than 30 frames per second.
 
I’m all for trying new things, but in this case for me, it just doesn’t work. IF they were able to maintain focus and they were shooting it as slow-mo or even just 24 and using it for artsy playback or bumps going to commercial, coming back from commercial or the like, it might work, but intercutting it in the normal broadcast cut, it just doesn’t feel or look right. And knowing the sports networks how I know them, they are possibly feeling out dumping Steadicam and the associated expense. I’m not gonna bet my house on it, but if someone told me that tomorrow, I’d just grin and say, “told ya”. I have a friend that does Steadicam for live sports for another network and they started replacing it with gimbals several years ago. Looked like garbage, but it was cheaper... Don’t know if they’ve gone back to real Steadicam’s or not.

They’re shooting 60. 30p isn’t a thing in live broadcast sports in the US(meaning the actual live part). Remember, even when we were shooting 30 fps interlaced, back-in-the-day, it was 60 fields per second(one field was the even scan lines and the other was the odd), so you were watching 60 (“half-rez”) images per second even though it was 30fps.

Slightly off-topic, but ties in with live sports and money. My neighbor around the corner is an EVS operator and does a ton of NFL, and because of almost everything being remote(playback, graphics, etc. coming out of remote studio locations instead of on-site at games in production trucks), now, they have cut their rates. So not only are they saving money not traveling these people(no airfare, hotel, rental car, travel day pay, per diem), they have cut their base rate and hours(no OT). To me, that’s kind of crappy to treat people like that. They’re already probably saving in excess of $2K-$3K per person flown in, but then they take more money out of the persons pocket. At that point, leaving their rates alone is a blip on the radar vs. “travel costs”.
 
Union contracts are different for each network. Next time I see him, I'll ask him about the rate change. But since the jobs became "remi's", instead of on-site jobs, that may have changed the game, so to speak. I can't speak authoritatively on the union rules, as I've never had to join. In situations where I've been on union jobs, my days have been below the threshold to join, or exceptions have been made to allow me to work. I mean, I know stuff from being around and having friends in, but I don't know the intricacies.

Unions, like so many other things, are double-edged swords. I was on a shoot a couple of years ago, in a 'right-to-work' state and the union caught wind of it and came in and threatened to shut the shoot down. They didn't have any "real" power to shut it down, but there were enough people on the shoot that were union members that would have had their "cards pulled" and black-balled if they had stayed on the shoot if the union would have called for a walk, that the production had to play ball. It came down to the union wasn't getting a cut of the action, because the rates were all above board and it was a cleanly run shoot. All the union did in that instance was cost everyone involved money, because the production moved to FL for the next one.
 
Everything is a double-edged sword. The going rates for that work probably wouldn't be so high to begin with without the unions. And the same goes for my work even though I've never belonged to a union.

Re: cutting rates during covid - it doesn't surprise me at all. How many movies have there been about how corporations have shredded the social contract with their employees that led them to invest in their careers and well-being? (Probably starting in the '80s?)

It's part of the reason I'm reluctant to specialize: you never know when the rug will get pulled out from under you and then your expensive equipment and mortgage that have yet to be paid off become insupportable.

Plus, I entered the workforce at the height of the Great Recession, so I've always been keenly aware of how macro-level shifts can alter the playing field even if your clientele doesn't arbitrarily decide to cut you loose.

It may be the wrong state of mind for me in the long-term as one can typically achieve higher rates as a specialist. But certainly, it played to my advantage during covid. Some work (weddings, corporate) dried up for me. Others (small businesses, independent artists) maintained the same level. My editing work actually ramped up, so all in all it was a decent year for me. But I had always expected my wedding work to be the most recession-proof of all. Go figure.
 
ahalpert said:
Everything is a double-edged sword. The going rates for that work probably wouldn't be so high to begin with without the unions. And the same goes for my work even though I've never belonged to a union.
Click to expand...

Yep. I had that pointed out to me in my early days by an "old timer" who had it pointed out to him earlier in his career, too. But it doesn't have anything to do with our gear rates. If you look at some of the "union shops" and what they pay for gear (to freelancers) is an absolute joke. I have the rate card a friend sent me for one of the worst out there, that he shoots for. Here are some eye opening examples: 2/3" broadcast or equal camera package, full audio package, lighting package including an HMI and ability to transfer footage to a drive: $600. A la carte: Full audio package(including minimum 3-4 ch mixer and 2 ch. wireless): $100. Wireless mic: $40. Gimbal: $20. Wide angle (ENG zoom) lens: $75.
 
Oh that's funny/sad. I dont generally make that much on my gear either- certainly more than that, but not the princely sums I see bandied about on the forum. Actually, even what I make is way better
 
Run&Gun said:
I was on a shoot a couple of years ago, in a 'right-to-work' state and the union caught wind of it and came in and threatened to shut the shoot down. They didn't have any "real" power to shut it down, but there were enough people on the shoot that were union members that would have had their "cards pulled" and black-balled if they had stayed on the shoot if the union would have called for a walk, that the production had to play ball. It came down to the union wasn't getting a cut of the action, because the rates were all above board and it was a cleanly run shoot. All the union did in that instance was cost everyone involved money, because the production moved to FL for the next one.
Click to expand...

Years back I shot a time-lapse video in a right to work state, of a concert hall being transformed into a Black Tie dinning event with the concert seating area being covered with platforms so tables could be used for dinning as they watched the presentations on the stage.
I compressed 3 days of work into 3 minutes of video which was played at the event. The video was a huge hit, but I noticed that at certain points half the crew would sit down, while the other half would continue working. After watching the video several times I realized that the IATSE crew were taking their union breaks while the non-union crew had to continue to work.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top