Posts
94
Joined
9/17/2009
Location
Jacksonville, FL, USA
Edited Date/Time
1/24/2012 7:50pm
Does anyone else think that the TV filming angles don't do the racing any justice?
When watching all the videos on Transworld and Vital you definitely get a better sense of how fast these guys are going. Also, you feel more like you're on the track than any of the tv footage, and can see elevation changes and the size of the jumps much better.
When watching all the videos on Transworld and Vital you definitely get a better sense of how fast these guys are going. Also, you feel more like you're on the track than any of the tv footage, and can see elevation changes and the size of the jumps much better.
Of course the cost of having enough guys on the ground to capture the whole track would probably be ridiculous.
The Shop
Luxon 4-Post Bar Mounts
$189.95 - $239.95
DeCal Works Huge Plastic Inventory of UFO and Polisport kits.
that was my point. they are 100x faster in person then what it looks like on TV.
I think to someone unfamiliar with the sport and watching it on TV, they would have more respect for how fast the riders are, the size of the jumps, and how rough the track is if there were better camera angles.
I do agree with what you are saying, however as I understand from what DC has said that MX Sports is paying for the coverage so they are probably trying to minimise the number of cameras. Perhaps as the profile grows and with more money there will be better and more interesting angles i.e. more cameras.
It's not just the camera angles, although a lot more ground-based shooters would make it much better. The problem lies in lenses and their focal issues. I am not even an amateur photographer, but some of the pros on here could explain it all.
The cameras used by TWMX and Cudby, etc, are a far different beast from the broadcast cameras the other guys still rely on. I actually think the level of camera used by "our guys" have more forgiving lensing and can actually give a little better representation of speed, height, and distance.
But one thing you can never do with a dirtbike is convey the speed and feeling of running at a world class pace. Even as an amateur racer, I know that the top riders are riding the bike at a pace and in a manner that I will never fully know or comprehend.
NASCAR's "cup" cars do not look fast even at 200 MPH when they're shot on one of the big fixed cameras, but the little, durable fixed cameras on the wall or buried next to the track come a lot closer to the real deal. Still not perfect, but better.
The elevated or scissor lift high angles do a poor job of showing the excitement of racing. Get some guys with handhelds or zoom right in to the track.
Also, most shots are straight on of the rider coming right at the camera (especially in sx). You don't see the jump faces, the ruts on the faces, the options that they are jumping over, the front sides of whoops etc. So camera angles that "profile" the track and jumps better from a side perspective would help.
Even more rear view stuff. Give the viewer as close to the rider's perspective as possible.
Speaking of which. Helmet cams are awesome. They have to be the best way to show the "casual" moto audience all the intricacies of the track. And even better during the race to get a "race perspective" with a block pass or two or the squeeze into the first turn. However helmet cams have gone to wider and wider field of views. The wider FoV's really squish the perspective which does the speed and amplitude an injustice.
I'd like to see more use of helmet cam footage, but with not-so-wide field of view.
I love the fixed cameras on the track that are on the drop offs and sometimes on the backside of a jump. They give a good, but brief, sense of speed as the riders zing over them. Alot like the fixed wall cams in nascar. The doppler sound effect adds to that also.
Since I've touched on it...sound is just as important as sight. From one broadcast to the next, the sound seems inconsistent. One week the "on track" sounds are clear as day and the announcing is muted. The next week will be the exact opposite. Getting a good trackside "sound perspective" would add to the perception of speed.
Note, for the web broadcasts I can usually adjust the sound on my pc to my liking, but on the cable broadcast the on-track sound usually sounds distant.
Pit Row
It may just be a factor of perspective in 2D media. The sensation from a lens-view at the top of Mt. St Helens and standing there are going to be different, in stills and video.
Maybe 3D TV will make a difference.
That's not to say that there can't be more improvements in production value, as there have been already.
As a amateur videographer I know it's really hard to find views that make the riding justice. Maybe they could send one or two cameras out who try to capture some artistic shots that doesn't necessarily cover the racing the best. For example to get a good feeling of the steepness of a hill you need to place the camera really low at the bottom.
F1 and MotoGP looks slow on TV.
The TV camera's have incredible zoom and stay with the cars / bikes for a long time.
You don't actually see the speed the come upon you or move away from you.
Just guessing here but I wonder if they don't do much handheld, low camera work because there are too many people in the way at a national?
Post a reply to: TV Angles - Don't do the speed justice?