Can we please get a better shot of the Washougal whoops

mx332 wrote:

The straight line view is terrible and you miss all the different line choices/combos.

What? You mean a zoomed in shot from 100 yards away doesn't work??? Lol

I was thinking that same thing yesterday. "Damn, there have been some great moves and passes in that section....too bad for everyone watching on TV it just looks like the rider is on a pogo stick for 10 seconds"

TV coverage in a lot of ways seems dated to me, in my uneducated opinion. Seems like they have the tech to get the fans closer to the action, as opposed to a pulled away perspective to cover more. That may have been necessary back in the day when a few cameras had to cover a lot of square footage with less than stellar equipment, but now it seems like they could get more immersion out of the TV experience.

But what do I know, that's not even 2 cents worth.

Screen shots from my snap chat recordings... They don't look as bad as I thought they would be. Pretty sure the 450s were quadding them.

MxKing809 wrote:

What? You mean a zoomed in shot from 100 yards away doesn't work??? Lol

I was thinking that same thing yesterday. "Damn, there have been some great moves and passes in that section....too bad for everyone watching on TV it just looks like the rider is on a pogo stick for 10 seconds"

A zoomed in shot from 100 yards away is the only way to do it. Otherwise you'll have a static shot of riders hitting the same spot on the track. They'll ride into the frame and out of the frame with no variation.

Contrary to the opinions of some people on this board, the camera placing is deliberate to give the best view of the racing to the TV audience. In Washougal's case, putting a camera anywhere other that the entrance/exit of the whoop section won't give a better view of the action. At best, you'll actually miss passes because the camera will be panning to catch something else (which already happened several times yesterday). At worst, the camera will have to be so close to the track that anyone watching on a device bigger than an iPhone will get motion sick from the panning.

I have this same thought every year. I dont hate the TV view, but I am curious on how the whoops look like from the side.

smashingpumpkins167 wrote:

Screen shots from my snap chat recordings... They don't look as bad as I thought they would be. Pretty sure the 450s were quadding them.

They dont seem bad but they are slick. And add in how they water and it makes it worse.

mx332 wrote:

The straight line view is terrible and you miss all the different line choices/combos.

MxKing809 wrote:

What? You mean a zoomed in shot from 100 yards away doesn't work??? Lol

I was thinking that same thing yesterday. "Damn, there have been some great moves and passes in that section....too bad for everyone watching on TV it just looks like the rider is on a pogo stick for 10 seconds"

Sully wrote:

A zoomed in shot from 100 yards away is the only way to do it. Otherwise you'll have a static shot of riders hitting the same spot on the track. They'll ride into the frame and out of the frame with no variation.

Contrary to the opinions of some people on this board, the camera placing is deliberate to give the best view of the racing to the TV audience. In Washougal's case, putting a camera anywhere other that the entrance/exit of the whoop section won't give a better view of the action. At best, you'll actually miss passes because the camera will be panning to catch something else (which already happened several times yesterday). At worst, the camera will have to be so close to the track that anyone watching on a device bigger than an iPhone will get motion sick from the panning.

I've never been to Washougal and those two screenshots give me such a better perspective of them than any TV broadcast over the last 10 years. On TV they are always shooting into the shade so it gives off dark images with very little detail. Maybe the camera angle isn't best for them?

Would an overhead crane or drone give a better view or is it not possible?

tcannon521 wrote:

I've never been to Washougal and those two screenshots give me such a better perspective of them than any TV broadcast over the last 10 years. On TV they are always shooting into the shade so it gives off dark images with very little detail. Maybe the camera angle isn't best for them?

Would an overhead crane or drone give a better view or is it not possible?

I agree the shade was pretty distracting, but unfortunately, I think the only way around that would be to cut down a bunch of the trees - something I doubt any of us want to see.

I've never been there either, but from watching on TV over the years, the trees where smashingpumpkins is standing don't look like they would allow a TV tower (like the scissor lift in the background) to fit there. I don't know if it's cost prohibitive, or even logistically possible, but one idea might be to do something like that overhead camera/zipline thing they use at Supercross. They could have it running the length of the whoops, just above crowd level. It would definitely give the audience an idea of the speed these guys carry through that section.

Good place to do an overhead shot. The one they use during the race isn't very good.

raced there twice in 05 and 06. theyre actually more sketchy than they look. i was thinking i was guna be like tp199 on terrafirma. nope. slick. peakyer than they look

I ont like the front view either.while watching, I was thinking I'd like to see a different view.

I've thought the same thing for a long time. Can't tell if someone has a pass made until they hit the finish line

they need a camera on the Teryx to ride beside them thru there like they do at Daytona. would have been money shot!

JW381 wrote:

TV coverage in a lot of ways seems dated to me, in my uneducated opinion. Seems like they have the tech to get the fans closer to the action, as opposed to a pulled away perspective to cover more. That may have been necessary back in the day when a few cameras had to cover a lot of square footage with less than stellar equipment, but now it seems like they could get more immersion out of the TV experience.

But what do I know, that's not even 2 cents worth.

Washougal's coverage seemed more terrible than usual.

I take it the visibility with trees, etc, makes it hard to place cameras in better spots, but damn, the amount of times the camera switched to the next camera, only to focus on an empty corner for a second or 2 was frustrating. Links between cameras didn't have much flow at all.

Same people running the show it will produce the same results....

These photos are the first time I've ever actually seen the whoops.

those are whoops!?!?

Hard to judge the size of the whoops from the TV angle

Maybe I'm the only one but I really like the shot from the front. The guys always look badass either jumping through them or blitzing them and it gives you a different view than we're used to seeing.

c0ncEpT wrote:

Maybe I'm the only one but I really like the shot from the front. The guys always look badass either jumping through them or blitzing them and it gives you a different view than we're used to seeing.

They need one of those overhead zipline cameras to follow the bikes from overhead and from the side.

The whoops were massive and steep this year.

It looks like they could fit a side by side right next to the section to record while they drive next to the track.

The wider shots from the MXGP series are MUCH better than the stuff NBC gives us in the US for our outdoors. We have way too many tight shots of the action and the producers in the production trailers love to cut away from battles to go to some inconsequential shot of the winner crossing the finish line and then wiping dirt off their faces. I feel for the guys having to announce because they can only see what is being shown on the screen. Sometimes we never find out how that raging battle turned out.

I get the feeling that most of the camera ops and producers used for the Outdoors are all newbies that don't have a lot of motorsports experience. We seem to be the training ground for a lot of broadcast crew. Once they get some experience they move on and the cycle repeats itself. Such is the life when you are a niche sport with a relatively low viewership.

Swann wrote:

They need one of those overhead zipline cameras to follow the bikes from overhead and from the side.

I think a drone would be just as easy.........

DavetheVintageGuy wrote:

The wider shots from the MXGP series are MUCH better than the stuff NBC gives us in the US for our outdoors. We have way too many tight shots of the action and the producers in the production trailers love to cut away from battles to go to some inconsequential shot of the winner crossing the finish line and then wiping dirt off their faces. I feel for the guys having to announce because they can only see what is being shown on the screen. Sometimes we never find out how that raging battle turned out.

I get the feeling that most of the camera ops and producers used for the Outdoors are all newbies that don't have a lot of motorsports experience. We seem to be the training ground for a lot of broadcast crew. Once they get some experience they move on and the cycle repeats itself. Such is the life when you are a niche sport with a relatively low viewership.

Totally agree with you.

This has happened so many times this year. An intense last lap battle and they cut back to the leader who has a 15 second gap. We watch him cross finish line and ride to the podium. And then we never know how the other intense battles turned out.

You gotta have a set of brass balls to blitz those things