76 replies to this topic

[D.M.N.]

So yesterday and today, quite a few people have been saying that TV coverage is one reason why races are perceived as disappointing. I do agree that overtakes should 99% of the time be captured live, I noticed a few times yesterday that the overtakes weren't actually seen live and in fact came later in a replay.

I also think that they should focus towards the midfield when nothing is going on up front. Did the TV coverage yesterday help to make the race 'boring'?

EDIT on 17th March: by TV coverage I'm talking about Formula One Management, the guys that direct the coverage.

Edited by D.M.N., 17 March 2010 - 19:48.

[Sammyosammy]

So yesterday and today, quite a few people have been saying that TV coverage is one reason why races are perceived as disappointing. I do agree that overtakes should 99% of the time be captured live, I noticed a few times yesterday that the overtakes weren't actually seen live and in fact came later in a replay.

I also think that they should focus towards the midfield when nothing is going on up front. Did the TV coverage yesterday help to make the race 'boring'?

Overtakes??

[pingu666]

partly, but the key product is pretty bad right now :\

[Buttoneer]

Exactly. You can't polish a turd.

[BrendanMcF]

Exactly. You can't polish a turd.

Oh yes you can...

[Kooper]

Did the TV coverage yesterday help to make the race 'boring'?

Well, the coverage doesn't add anything for sure. FOM does a great job of making fast cars look slow.

[BrendanMcF]

Well, the coverage doesn't add anything for sure. FOM does a great job of making fast cars look slow.

Having a Tesco's car park on the outside of every corner doesn't help, but it is no excuse.

Did anyone see any shots of the crowd yesterday? Was there any paying spectators at this race, or were they all on freebies and comp passes?

[Buttoneer]

Oh yes you can...

I don't think I'm brave enough to follow that link.

[BrendanMcF]

I don't think I'm brave enough to follow that link.

Clip from a well known TV show, (pre watershed) so you don't have to worry

[CaptnMark]

Well, the coverage doesn't add anything for sure. FOM does a great job of making fast cars look slow.

Exactly. There should be more fixed / non-tracking cameras. A good cameraman + telephoto lens removes the sensation of speed.

[Buttoneer]

Clip from a well known TV show, (pre watershed) so you don't have to worry

No girls or cups then? I'll still wait until I'm not on the corporate network...

[Crazy Ninja]

I agree with those that say the cars look slow, especially that camera that was placed on the back straight. I think they focused too much on the top 6/8.
Ok, Hamilton/Rosberg, Button/Schuey/Webber were close at times but the front three never were, so i wouldnt have given them as much air time although it is understandable what with them being the leading trio. They should have placed more emphasis on Kubica and Sutil. I dont remember seeing many of their passes (unless they were all done in the pitlane). When they did switch to cars lowere down the grid it wa smore enjoyable to watch (The Lotus' + Virgins).

[Don_Humpador]

The cameras are not there for you to see the cars, they are there for you to see the sponsors.

Edited by Don_Humpador, 15 March 2010 - 17:29.

[Buttoneer]

The cameras are not there for you to see the cars, they are there for you to see the sponsors.

This post was brought to you by Team Red Bull Citroen. Citroen C4 - Alive With technology.

[Don_Humpador]

This post was brought to you by Team Red Bull Citroen. Citroen C4 - Alive With technology.

Oh wow, awesome!

I'll go and buy a Red Bull on my way to buying a Citroen C4!

-section removed by FOM for copyright reasons-

[Dragonfly]

Definitely a TV crew and director are able to make even a good race look like procession.
The director should have understanding about motor racing even better if he has the passion.

There was a German director who made Hungary look exciting.

[SpamJet]

I don't think I'm brave enough to follow that link.

It's hilarious.

[r4mses]

Is TV coverage part of the reason races are perceived as boring?

Yes, doubtless.

For most of the time we see the top ~6 cruising around the circuit and even though there's more racing in the mid and back of the field, they focus von Alonso driving 10 sec behind Vettel and another 10 sec in front of Massa or smth like that.

They have that one camera that shows like no other cam how fast the cars are and how close (at least some of them...) get to each other - the camera located in the curbs. How often do they use that cam during their broadcast?! Maybe twice?! What a waste. Ofc you don't see much, but it looks interesting, even spectacular compared to watching Button driving down the main straight towards you for 15sec looking as if he's driving with his finger on the pit lane limiter.

Get the cameras closer to the cars! As a welcome side-effect we'd have less tarmac left and right from the track so the cars look faster as well - besides, we'd get rid of the often named parking lots.

[lbennie]

webber overtook button around the outside at turn 9, and you wouldnt even know it.

not even a replay of that one until red button post race bbc coverage

[wepmob2000]

The TV coverage was much the same 15 years ago or more, in the 1970's and 1980's there were a lot of long distance shots, even a lot of camera angles from helicopters, very few or no close-in shots to emphasise the speed. The racing wasn't boring then............. if its perceived as boring now, this perception is correct, The quality of F1 racing has steadily decreased since the mid-1990's to the point where today it amazes me that it has any fans at all, frankly the show is rubbish, and has been since at least the year 2001 (with the very rare exceptional race).

Edited by wepmob2000, 17 March 2010 - 02:53.

[primer]

When it rains, F1 races become exciting. No change in TV coverage happens, if anything during rains the FOM TV director loses her head and misses a few key things (often not even bothering to cover them with replays).

This tells us that the problem is with the product, not with the packaging. Which is not to imply that the packaging could not be made any better (HDTV nao!).

[Classic Ferrari]

Not much wrong with the coverage, lack of HD is just confusing than anything else. And those new graphics aren't anything special, though it's hardly anything sub par. It's the racing first and foremost the problem, or lack of that is.

[jez6363]

Exactly. There should be more fixed / non-tracking cameras. A good cameraman + telephoto lens removes the sensation of speed.

And having just watched a chunk of late 70's racing, they should have a little bit of camera shake as well.

But yes, until the cars are really dicing with each other again in close quarters its hopeless - you can barely put together a shot with two cars in unless you pull back miles, and seeing solitary cars is not at all inspiring.

[Sausage]

It isn't a main culprit but it doesn't help. Worst of all to me is the overused front camera zoom. Every straight nowdays has a camera pointed straight at it from a few meters above and when a car comes the cameraman zooms in because the cars start far. This however cause the image to consist of nothing but tarmac + car, so there is no sense of speed at all

[arknor]

Definitely a TV crew and director are able to make even a good race look like procession.
The director should have understanding about motor racing even better if he has the passion.

There was a German director who made Hungary look exciting.

some directors just plain out suck they should use the same one for every race one who enjoys motorsport and knows his stuff when it comes to formula one.

so countries like bahrain cant have some clown who in qualifying kept switching between cars every 10-20 seconds instead of letting us see someone on a charge.

[Tenmantaylor]

instead of letting us see someone on a charge.

We never miss anyone on a charge on the BBC even if hte director does... Legard says it about anyone everytime theyre on camera.

[Meanbeakin]

One things for sure, if a race is boring, then Legard certainly won't help the situation.


Can only wonder if the race would have been perceived as being as boring if Murray Walker (Or someone equally as exciting and passionate) was in the comm box.

[wingwalker]

YES. It's baffling how little replays or anything we get and it's so frustrating to see position changing on live timing while watching front runners simply completing laps.

[Bouncing Pink Ball]

This weekend, I had my first taste of the full BBC coverage, including preshow. Compared to what I'm accustomed to - RDS, TSN or Speed - I found it an improvement. Yes, TSN does use the BBC commentary feed, but there are ad breaks (split screen with ad audio) and no preshow. RDS and Speed have their own commentary crews, and the Speed preshow is (or was) blocked in my area.

As to the directors and the way they miss some of the action...How many of you have worked as part of a television crew at a racetrack? This is an actual question, since I can only go by my own experience and it may not measure up at all to what others have. Anyway, I have worked camera for a few races - not F1, but races nonetheless - and, based on what I've dealt with, I can tell you it is extremely difficult to catch everything.

For starters, the director would have to be psychic in some instances. These cars are zooming by at incredible speeds. The camera operators have to focus on following one car at each pass, and that car is selected before it ever arrives in front of you. Directors will tend to focus on local talent, teams and drivers with a history of making exciting moves, wherever the most recent action was (two cars battling for position), whoever sponsors or organizers have placed onboard cameras with, and whoever is popular so that no matter what, they have something of interest on screen. Some are better at balancing the mix than others, that comes with experience I suppose, but it's not easy for anyone.

The director will have multiple views to choose from at all times, but can only select what the cameras are catching. Say a very interesting battle is going on between two backmarkers; first, someone has to notice it happening, then it has to move into camera range, then the nearest camera person has to get a good clear shot of it and only then can the director switch away to that action. It's not instantaneous, and sometimes it's impossible to catch the action live. The longer and twistier the track, the more difficult it becomes. Replays usually show whatever was missed, provided there's usable footage.

I forgot to mention the automated cameras; those can only catch what's directly in front of them and, obviously, can't radio in to let the crew know an exciting moment might be coming into view. I really think motor racing is one of the most difficult events to cover live; even on oval tracks it can be tricky to predict and then catch all the best action.

Edited by Bouncing Pink Ball, 17 March 2010 - 14:27.

[pingu666]

thats a good post

the gps? or whatever system nascar uses for its raceview service thingy probably helps them with coverage, and if they miss stuff, they can show it on the 3d simulation.....

[Kooper]

some directors just plain out suck they should use the same one for every race one who enjoys motorsport and knows his stuff when it comes to formula one.

so countries like bahrain cant have some clown who in qualifying kept switching between cars every 10-20 seconds instead of letting us see someone on a charge.

Legard, is that you?

[Bouncing Pink Ball]

New technologies are really helping with televised sports. Not everyone loves the 3D bits, and the other fancy graphics that point out different lines taken into corners and whatnot, but from the perspective of making an entertaining show those tools are excellent. I haven't worked with television production in a few years, and even then it was on a casual basis, but I have respect for how hard it is to direct live shows. It's insanely busy for everyone.

Geez, now I want to hunt down the local cable station and see if they need volunteers. On location, live tv is such fun!

[wingwalker]

I understand catching most of the action live is impossible, but that's what replays were invented for. BCC forum provided a much better view of what was going at the start that FOM coverage did. And it's not like there wasn't time to show replays because action on track was constantly breathtaking, to say the least.

[One]

That is correct. There are so much impossible things around.


Yes this much I can say.

I prefer watching BBC instead of local F1 TV. Why? 'cause BBC give out much more info. It should not be too difficult to make the racing more exciting on TV.

[Bouncing Pink Ball]

Most races do feature replays; too many of the same incident at times, IMO. If a particular event lacked in replays, I'd guess that either it was the director's choice or a lack of footage. If no camera covered the pass, for instance, then there's nothing to show. I can't see there being too many times when that would happen at an F1 race - there are cameras everywhere, even a shot from high above would be better than nothing - but it is possible, especially if the coverage is being provided by a local outfit that only encounters races one or two weekends a year. Is it common practice with F1 coverage to have a local crew in charge, because that could be iffy at some tracks. Ideally, the television crew should include as many of the same people as possible at every race, I think.

F1 isn't exactly being presented with all the available technologies. It doesn't bother me, mainly because, esthetically, I prefer simple, uncluttered television with the other stuff presented separately, but I'd bet many people would rather have more graphics, more information and more replays as part of the main broadcast. In that case, then I suppose FOM's coverage would appear boring and off-putting. It's terribly hard to please everyone. I'd say that perhaps more optional feeds that fans could subscribe to might be the answer, but wasn't something like that tried and it failed? Are multiple packages offered to the various international channels showing F1, or it one style for everyone?

[dgduris]

What makes televised sport interesting is drama throughout the event - either real competitive drama or induced drama. Either way, there are constantly unfolding sub-plots and races within the race - when the production is top quality and those things are shown.

When there were pit stops for fueling, there were always multiple races within the race unfolding around who would stop first and who would be ahead at the end of the race, regardless of whether it was a race for the lead or within a train of backmarkers...always some competition to follow. THAT IS ALL GONE NOW...and 2 second tire stops don't give enough drama or contain enough things that can go wrong to make them exciting. Combining those facts with "racing" fully fueled (massively heavy) cars leaves the competition cold. Even if there is enough weight for cars to outbrake one another, there is too much mass to accelerate to a winning position after outbraking someone.

So this isn't really racing.

There is an interesting discussion in another thread about the efficiency/turbulence of downforce funnels (as on Indy Cars) vs. diffusers.

http://forums.autosp...howtopic=126099

It is illuminating - at least to me - and indicates a potential way forward...especially in conjunction with harder tires that shed less and - potentially - leave a broader clean groove so there is more than one possible line through a corner.

Short term, I say bring back refueling - RIGHT NOW!

2011, ditch the diffusers and give us venturi tunnels that deliver downforce sans turbulence allowing the cars to run more closely together...and maybe pass each other.

[Velocifer]

Definitely part of the reason.

No HD, fights are missed, close-ups when you want to see the bigger picture, 3 minute shots of people getting out of stricken cars or driving into the pits when action is happening on track, but the worst is lack of info about gaps, lap times etc.

Things have improved from before, but a long way to go.

If onboard shots are avoided because sponsors logos are not visible there, why not overlay it somehow?

Also add helmet cams, a really exciting angle that.

[Don_Humpador]

They should also replace the dull t-cam to the 'over the shoulder' camera as standard for onboards - it's not brilliant, but it feels more 'involved' somehow, you can actually get a feel for the work the driver is doing at the wheel.

[Jelinski619]

I voted yes, purely because Jonathan Legard is so dire. He has no enthusiasm or passion, and I get the impression he has no idea what he's talking about. He was FREQUENTLY naming the wrong cars in Bahrain and it happens most weekends. It'll be "Here's Hamilton chasing Schumacher" and then Brundle will correct him with "Or actually its Sutil following the safety car" or something ridiculous. James Allen is the man for the job.

[JKTRacing]

Educate the viewer, its not just about overtaking.


Edit: Did anyone watch the Slow Motion documentary by the Hamster on BBC last night?

Imagine does cool shots in F1... imagine HD slow mo of pitstops. F1 TV has to get a load more creative!


Edit 2: here it is if you missed it: http://www.bbc.co.uk...s_Speed_Limits/

Edited by JKTRacing, 17 March 2010 - 16:06.

[Don_Humpador]

I voted yes, purely because Jonathan Legard is so dire. He has no enthusiasm or passion, and I get the impression he has no idea what he's talking about. He was FREQUENTLY naming the wrong cars in Bahrain and it happens most weekends. It'll be "Here's Hamilton chasing Schumacher" and then Brundle will correct him with "Or actually its Sutil following the safety car" or something ridiculous. James Allen is the man for the job.

Wrong place - you're looking for the BBC F1 thread! Here it is :

http://forums.autosp...w...0&start=960

[FredF1]

The TV coverage was much the same 15 years ago or more, in the 1970's and 1980's there were a lot of long distance shots, even a lot of camera angles from helicopters, very few or no close-in shots to emphasise the speed.

Can't have helicopter shots as the cars are too far away to show the sponsor logos.

[Flexa]

Haha I just did it. 50/50

[Velocifer]

I voted yes, purely because Jonathan Legard is so dire. He has no enthusiasm or passion, and I get the impression he has no idea what he's talking about. He was FREQUENTLY naming the wrong cars in Bahrain and it happens most weekends. It'll be "Here's Hamilton chasing Schumacher" and then Brundle will correct him with "Or actually its Sutil following the safety car" or something ridiculous. James Allen is the man for the job.

Yes not only did you miss the thread topic, but you must have missed Allen's stint as F1 commentator completely or you wouldn't be saying that as he was atrocious.

[alfista]

I was really surprised how they managed to put together so bad coverage. Camera angles neutralized all the sense of speed and director perhaps hibernated a couple of times.
First lap collision between Sutil and Kubica was one of the key moments of the whole race and they managed to effectively miss it. Even RTL commentators didn't realize what happened and how Sutil went from P10 to P23. Replay was also terrible. If something like that happened in NASCAR race, we would have replays from three different stationary cameras, then from onboard cameras of both involved cars and from about three onboard cameras of other cars.
IMO Bernie's product was real crap in Bahrain and TV did all they could to show it even crappier. If I was NASCAR I would seriously start to think about going global. Maybe it's not right time yet but seems Bernie is losing contact with reality step by step.

[wingwalker]

Reading Humprey's blog, I saw this image:

http://www.bbc.co.uk...us_getty595.jpg

Which reminded me that Kubica went from 21 to 16 on the first laps according to live timing (he also mentioned overtaking new teams in an interview). Is this even possible it all happened off cameras? Cause I don't remember seeing this on tv at all.

[D.M.N.]

we would have replays from three different stationary cameras

Nascar cars run round circles with 4 corners. F1 cars go round about 16 bends, and almost certainly require a lot more trackside cameras. It is impossible, on lap 1 therefore to spot everything - as the director you'd be told to focus on the leader all the way for lap 1.

then from onboard cameras of both involved cars and from about three onboard cameras of other cars.

I can probably agree with you here, though. Although then you'd probably get moaning that you'd only have 1 onboard on each car, and all from the same sort of position.

[wllsfjrch]

In the last couple of years I've noticed this tendency to cut to a shot of the crew in the team's garage whenever an overtaking move happens, sometimes before the move is even completed. It seriously annoys me. They should keep the focus on the track while there is actually something important going on out there. They can show a replay of the crew getting excited afterwards if they feel that they really have to, but that stuff does not need to be seen live. I got so sick of seeing Nicole Scherzinger bouncing around the McLaren garage last year.

[Ruf]

I was really surprised how they managed to put together so bad coverage. Camera angles neutralized all the sense of speed

Actually that was not the camera angle but simply the lack of any background. The poor director couldn't do anything since there's only sand. And I'm not talking about sand traps. There's nothing there except the asphalt and sand. And a few distant palm trees. Even onboard cams didn't give you the sense of speed precisely for that reason. I reckon that the director did well with what little was available.

First lap colision between Sutil and Kubica wasn't missed at all, perhaps RTL needs better comentators. It was clearly visible during the live start and it was also replayed (different angle, closer range) a lap later. Indeed Kubica's recovery was missed but hey, it's starting stages and they focused mostly on the leaders.

PS: Oh yes, the fact that Weber's car turned into a smoke generator didn't help the things but that wasn't TV's fault either...

Edited by Ruf, 17 March 2010 - 18:21.

[Kucki]

Nascar cars run round circles with 4 corners. F1 cars go round about 16 bends, and almost certainly require a lot more trackside cameras. It is impossible, on lap 1 therefore to spot everything - as the director you'd be told to focus on the leader all the way for lap 1.

Nearly all cars in a NASCAR race have onboard cameras, in F1 only 2 or three cars have. Also in NASCAR the cameras are remote control so they can turn and zoom in, they also have cams at the back of thecars and inside the cars. Surely F1 could afford that aswell. Not to speak of HD. NASCAR got it since 5 years, F1 still tries to catch up with technology.