View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
Neil Appleby
Joined: 11 Feb 1998 Location: Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
think positive wrote: | I watched it on my iPad, and it was great vision, easy to see who was who. |
Possibly when the ball was on the commentary side, but too often the camera work was hopeless. It's not as if I don't know the players. I've watched them all summer; it was the wide angle camera shots. The director's switching is also hopeless but so is channel 7's. If this team had been on duty in 1971 the famous Jezza mark would have been missed or at least viewed in wide angle.
I like to know who is getting every kick. I want to see the shepherds, the bumps and the one percenters. Last night we didn't get it and we didn't get it last year or the year before.
Channel 7 is marginally better and at the MCG the coverage is generally good. Elsewhere though the coverage is poor. Bottom line is that we shouldn't have to guess who gets the fast ball out of a pack. Last night we were guessing.
_________________ After the epic draw comes the decisive knockout!
Collingwood rules the world again and Mick Malthouse fulfils his destiny with the twenty ten premiership and can you hear the people sing! |
|
|
|
|
neil
Joined: 08 Sep 2005 Location: Queensland
|
Post subject: | |
|
My hatred is reserved for when they show the crowd while the game is being played.
As for the commentators they are still better than Tim Lame and Bruce.
_________________ Carlscum 120 years being cheating scum |
|
|
|
|
Neil Appleby
Joined: 11 Feb 1998 Location: Melbourne
|
|
|
|
|
Neil Appleby
Joined: 11 Feb 1998 Location: Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
Sorry about the pic size; tried for 30 minutes to get a bigger pic but the system won't allow it. But anyway, you'll get the idea.
_________________ After the epic draw comes the decisive knockout!
Collingwood rules the world again and Mick Malthouse fulfils his destiny with the twenty ten premiership and can you hear the people sing! |
|
|
|
|
Piethagoras' Theorem
the hypotenuse, is always a cakewalk
Joined: 29 May 2006
|
Post subject: | |
|
Maybe trying to get the sponsors' logo on screen as often as possible?
_________________ Formally frankiboy and FrankieGoesToCollingwood. |
|
|
|
|
Neil Appleby
Joined: 11 Feb 1998 Location: Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
Another try
https://www.flickr.com/photos/98725876@N02/16479097718/
_________________ After the epic draw comes the decisive knockout!
Collingwood rules the world again and Mick Malthouse fulfils his destiny with the twenty ten premiership and can you hear the people sing! |
|
|
|
|
mark (13 11 89 )
Joined: 18 Feb 2015
|
Post subject: | |
|
Spot on Frankie. The wide shots are to get sponsors signs in shot! Fox, and 7 for that matter WILL and DO put the sponsor before the viewer every time. I wouldn't be surprised if they are payed for accumulated time on screen.
The viewer and the paying public mean nothing. Fox is Murdoch ya know.
_________________ No cuts to health, no cuts to pensions, no cuts to education, and no cuts to the ABC or SBS. This will be a Government of no surprises. |
|
|
|
|
DT56
Joined: 04 Feb 2011
|
Post subject: | |
|
Cmon people the commentary wasn't that bad .. there was a moment when Brown joked about a certain defector and how Eddie would have reacted it but hey, water of a ducks back, we're made of more solid stuff than that.
As far as the wide angle shots may I suggest a pair of binoculars as standard equipment when watching Fox lol
|
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005 Location: somewhere
|
Post subject: | |
|
Ok that's shocking! Good thing he has white shorts on!
_________________ You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Damien
Me Noah & Flynn @ the G
Joined: 21 Jan 1999 Location: Croydon Vic
|
Post subject: | |
|
think positive wrote: |
Ok that's shocking! Good thing he has white shorts on! |
However, what that shot does tell me is that there are several Hawks players who have probably lost their opponents in transition. I assume our boys have run hard and are providing options elsewhere for the next kick unmanned. Not a flattering look for the Dawks.
_________________ 'Collingwood are the Bradmans of Football'
The Herald - 1930 |
|
|
|
|
Lone Ranger
Joined: 02 Apr 2003 Location: Macedon Ranges
|
Post subject: | |
|
Couldnt disagree more. I want MORE wide angle shots. I want them to stop zooming in all the time. When they go in close, you cant see whats unfolding outside of the tight camera shot. Its why being at the game is FAR better than watching on television
|
|
|
|
|
Neil Appleby
Joined: 11 Feb 1998 Location: Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
Really Lone Ranger? You want those shots of empty space and Hawthorn players running through the middle? I don't. I want to see who has the ball. I want to see the skills up close. Later I don't mind the analysis and the ground view, but when the heat is on and the excitement is there I want to see what's going on like I could in the 60's, 70's, 80s broadcasts.
The current view is akin to sitting in the back levels of Level 4 in the Ponsford; I hate it.
_________________ After the epic draw comes the decisive knockout!
Collingwood rules the world again and Mick Malthouse fulfils his destiny with the twenty ten premiership and can you hear the people sing! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005 Location: In flagrante delicto
|
Post subject: | |
|
Being at the game you get to see things unfold on the field that you just don't see with tight close up camera shots.
My ideal would be that they pan back on the camera a bit when the ball is in motion and zoom in when it's not. That way you get the best of both.
Being constantly zoomed in to the ball is like watching through blinders that limit you to tunnel vision. Don't like it.
_________________ Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Woods
Joined: 21 Aug 2013 Location: Melbourne
|
Post subject: | |
|
Woods wrote: | Didn't see the live broadcast but watched the highlights package on the CFC website.
With fewer and smaller stands at the Launceston oval there's possibly limited elevation available for the camera shots that we're used to seeing in the home & away games broadcast from the big mainland grounds.
FOX may have relied on local Tassie camera people and there might be few who are used to covering live AFL (it is a top flight skill both for cameramen and directors to capture the pictures as fluidly as we have all become used to - they are a rarely acknowledged talent behind the scenes).
FOX may also have cut back on gear and personnel given it was perceived as a small viewing audience. Eg. in the past I've seen rent-a-crane type cherry-pickers situated outside the ground used as a camera locations. |
I'm reposting my previous response to the OP because it is apparent that he and many others do not know how television is made. My first post assumed they did, but I now know they don't.
To explain it more simply - its is not the same camera that takes the wide shot at the opening bounce that also takes the tight close up shot of the same scene. They are two (or three) separate cameras.
Its not like your pocket video camera where you zoom in and out on a scene using the one camera. THat's why your home movies look shit and professional TV looks polished. The vision of a footy match that we viewers see on TV are fluid cuts between different cameras taking different shots of the same scene. All co-ordinated by the director who calls to switch from camera to camera as play unfolds. With AFL footy it is probably the most skilled job in TV production.
Evidently there were insufficient cameras in operation at the Tassie game to provide the fluid cuts between long and tight shots.
By all means criticise Foxtel for not putting more cameras on duty. But as I said earlier there may be good reasons for the limited number in operation on the day - like insufficient suitable camera locations due to lack of highpoints at the ground. I offered the idea that cherry pickers could be used (at extra cost for Foxtel) but after watching the replay I'm now aware that the windy conditions might have made for shaky vision or even unsafe conditions for the crew.
So I think all the slagging off against cameramen and directors is unfounded and these people deserve an apology from the ignorant twats who have criticised them. They were doing the best they could with what they had.
|
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006 Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
Post subject: | |
|
Neil, you are getting old mate. Do yourself a favour and visit an optometrist for some suitable glasses. Or, if you already know your prescription and are lucky enough to have both eyes roughly the same, you can get excellent reading glasses for $20 at the chemist.
I'm not having a go at you here, I seriously reckon you need glasses for the TV if you are having trouble picking up players on shots like the one illustrated. If I can do it with my vastly smaller knowledge of the game and our players, you should be able to do it blindfold.
Roll on the wide shots! If I want close-up shots of someone's hairy nostrils, I'll get some gay porn. I want to see the game! I want to know who is running where; I want to be able to see for myself that Goldsack gave that hospital handpass to Swanny because there was no-one running to make space up the ground for him; I want to know what options Fasolo has to pass it when he has a ping from 55; I want to see who drops off on the rebound and who chases hard anyway. I hate the friggin close-up stuff when they overdo it. There is a proper way to mix close-up footage into a telecast and it's the same way you mix sauce and pie: you always want some, but there should always be a lot more pie than sauce!
_________________ �Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
|