Also, this is one of my favourites in terms of fan position. Especially from 2mins 15 sec. From the vantage point of standing on the bridge at the circuit in Abu Dhabi.
Posted 09 April 2014 - 14:34
Also, this is one of my favourites in terms of fan position. Especially from 2mins 15 sec. From the vantage point of standing on the bridge at the circuit in Abu Dhabi.
Advertisement
Posted 09 April 2014 - 15:06
Part of the problem is that, naturally, broadcasters will look for uninterrupted camera views. As with anything moving, unless you have something to use as a point of reference, the sensation of speed cannot be conveyed. Many of the hand-held fan cameras have grandstand uprights, trees, buildings or gantries 'in the way' which gives the viewer a sense of speed, as you would see if you were trackside. The other problem is that all cameras pan to follow the subject, which removes the ability to comprehend just how fast they are travelling. The onboard cameras are even worse and thanks to their angle and positioning, the resulting undynamic view conveys no real feel of speed whatsoever. The only camera angles that really work in that sense are the rotating cameras inboard of the front wheels and the front facing chin/spoiler camera.
Edited by superden, 09 April 2014 - 15:11.
Posted 09 April 2014 - 15:08
I agree with everything in this thread.
Posted 09 April 2014 - 15:32
Edited by wepmob2000, 09 April 2014 - 15:33.
Posted 09 April 2014 - 16:03
Yeah, but the camera work is terrible. It looks like it's filmed from one camera on top of the pit building.
Posted 11 April 2014 - 03:10
The front-on and elevated start is the best one, I can't think of how you'd improve it other than a directly above shot from a helicopter.
Posted 12 April 2014 - 00:08
I hate to agree with Lazy, but, "yeah".
Don't zoom. Ever.
Get rid of zoomed shots. Foreshortens the distance. Always looks slow. This is the worst thing in racing video. If there is a wreck, follow that, fine. Don't zoom a half mile away and show the car, frozen, for 10 seconds.
Add more static medium shots.
Get rid of panning. Panning wrecks a sense of location because you're blurring the surroundings and making the car itself static.
Get rid of shots that are head on, UNLESS you're not going to zoom, and will stay with the car from the beginning of when it comes into view and when it leaves.
45 degree perpendicular, static.
Wide shots are fine, if they are *close* to the track *and* includes something in the foreground: fans, etc..
Don't do a shot without a reference object: on Giant Desert Tikie-dromes, you must have a tree, a parked car, *something that yields a sense of scale. Otherwise you get boring shots of cars in beige "space"
Leave off the filter (UV/polarized?) that comes off when it becomes overcast.
There can (and should) only be one establishing shot.
In general, the shots look better during FP1 when they haven't got their zooms and pans worked out.
Posted 12 April 2014 - 01:32
Can I just add how much I miss destabilised over-the-shoulder cockpit shots? The rock-steady T-Bar is boring as hell and gives you no impression of vibrations or anything of the sort. I know we've got big long noses now, but how much better is this than the T-bar?
Posted 12 April 2014 - 01:53
I hate to agree with Lazy, but, "yeah".
Don't zoom. Ever.
Get rid of zoomed shots. Foreshortens the distance. Always looks slow. This is the worst thing in racing video. If there is a wreck, follow that, fine. Don't zoom a half mile away and show the car, frozen, for 10 seconds.
Add more static medium shots.
Get rid of panning. Panning wrecks a sense of location because you're blurring the surroundings and making the car itself static.Get rid of shots that are head on, UNLESS you're not going to zoom, and will stay with the car from the beginning of when it comes into view and when it leaves.
45 degree perpendicular, static.
Wide shots are fine, if they are *close* to the track *and* includes something in the foreground: fans, etc..
Don't do a shot without a reference object: on Giant Desert Tikie-dromes, you must have a tree, a parked car, *something that yields a sense of scale. Otherwise you get boring shots of cars in beige "space"
Leave off the filter (UV/polarized?) that comes off when it becomes overcast.
There can (and should) only be one establishing shot.
In general, the shots look better during FP1 when they haven't got their zooms and pans worked out.
Panning shots at Estoril's last turn were iconic imho. Cars looked like fighter jets there.
Advertisement
Posted 12 April 2014 - 02:43
what works in some places doesnt work in others
I like the static camera stuck on corner exit that nascar use, its great for showing the speed and how close they run to the wall
Posted 12 April 2014 - 09:08
My impression/guess is that FOM hires "camera men", who are probably sub-contracted by groups that do other sports. They cover the track and keep things in focus.
But it's probably not an operation where someone is tasked with "make this look good", rather than "professional". It's a stagnant field. LIke most everything else in the 21st century, the goal is to be "safe", not "great".
They need to hire a cadre of Hollywood cinematographers to scout all of the tracks on foot and suggest shots. Medium wide close up is what's missing IMO; there are plenty of shots available that could exploit the locale more and yield an impression of not only speed, but great distance.
I was surprised walking the track at Montreal, at how many areas you don't see on the broadcast. Also, how many potentially great shots there are to be had. As evidence of this I offer my own video; not taken from exactly where I would like, but the speed is evident AND the distance AND... the great sound in the distance (RIP).... No, you don't see the car well enough to see advertising. And, you'd have to have an establishing shot prior to this, and afterwards (see my "series of static" shots bit further down):
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=lNItpPRLMEU
(/ sorry, that sounds 1000% better than the cars today. Note that you can hear what the car is doing in the distance.....)
I would also surmise a problem would be a director thinking about utilization of a camera's "time": shots where a car *is* fast in the shot means it's a *brief* shot, generally. "We can't "waste" a camera just for that!" I would imagine is said outloud. While that might have been an issue 40 years ago, camera technology is much more affordable today, as is mixing/multing. A series of close STATIC medium wide shots in sequence, following the car through an entire sector, would be all you need.
Actually, this is kind of how they used to shoot portions of the Goodwood time trial; and likewise, it always looked fast. As with the Isle of Man TT, you see the bike enter the screen from a medium wide distant shot, then a series of static 45 degree enter/exit shots. It really conveys the speed (as anyone who has watched that event will attest). Establishing shot>fast static entry/exit>fast static entry/exit>fast static entry/exit>reverse angle exit. Fastfastfastfast.
Not "there are the cars nearly a mile away. They're still there on the screen, floating in zoomed-narrow angle space. Here are the cars slowing AFTER the braking zone. Here are the cars being followed with the zoom. Here are the cars as the camera pans to follow them". Not moving. Slow. Slow. Not moving.
I think they've gotten a little better since last season, but old habits die hard. Fan shots look good because they generally have something in the foreground, and they're not ultra-long shots.
Edited by chipmcdonald, 12 April 2014 - 09:19.
Posted 12 April 2014 - 13:02
Unless the YouTube link changed or wasn't the one you intended, that was a terrible angle. I couldn't even guess which car it was.
Posted 12 April 2014 - 17:45
Unless the YouTube link changed or wasn't the one you intended, that was a terrible angle. I couldn't even guess which car it was.
You didn't read what I wrote: "you'd have to have an establishing shot prior to this, and afterwards".
Posted 12 April 2014 - 18:04
I don't want an 'establishing shot' I want to see the cars and any action that happens. Once in a while they do go to a camera more like that. Something stationary and arty that gives you the cars zooming by. But they aren't frequently used because they don't accomplish the primary point of the broadcast. Which is showing us the race. If I wanted one view of the cars, that didn't tell me much and gave me a limited angle; I'd buy a ticket.
Posted 12 April 2014 - 18:12
They need to hire a cadre of Hollywood cinematographers to scout all of the tracks on foot and suggest shots.
I can't think of anyone less suited to live broadcasting of a sports event to be honest. The top priority is showing what's going on on track, giving as clear a picture of events as possible. OK when not much is going on have a couple of action shots to make things interesting and show off a bit, but I'd rather know what's going on in the race.
That youtube video. Is that a joke? You can't actually tell anything about what's going on. Sure it might be exciting for a couple of femtoseconds, but it doesn't help you follow a race at all, which is why I bother to switch on the TV in the first place. I guess you found Driven exciting, what with all the fast on screen action and loud noises.
Posted 12 April 2014 - 21:02
This one worked?
Posted 13 April 2014 - 02:02
I can't think of anyone less suited to live broadcasting of a sports event to be honest.
Of course you can't. Hey, I think the sky is blue, what do you think?
Posted 13 April 2014 - 02:07
II guess you found Driven exciting,
Oooh, now *that* is a low blow! That's going too far! Mods, mods!!!!
Again, there is an establishing shot (look that up), the "femtosecond" "no point, visceral" shot, and the "closing" shot. Of course, if one is brain dead that might be difficult to follow.
/ you may want to check out some classic car movies like _Grand Prix_, _LeMans_, _King of the Hill_, et. al.....