42 replies to this topic

[FirstnameLastname]

Watch this if you’ve got a few spare minutes;

https://youtu.be/83mb5Erd8ZY

That shows better than any of the usual camera angles we see, the true pace of these cars. Insane.

[NixxxoN]

I see this as a fake sense of speed because of the image distortion that this tipe of camera creates. This is not what you see IRL

[as65p]

I see this as a fake sense of speed because of the image distortion that this tipe of camera creates. This is not what you see IRL

 

Just what I was about write....   

 

Plus, they should really try and find a half realistic way with video stabilizing, i.e. not overdo it. Or am I supposed to believe Singapore is as smooth as a billard table?

[NixxxoN]

Just what I was about write.... 

 

Plus, they should really try and find a half realistic way with video stabilizing, i.e. not overdo it. Or am I supposed to believe Singapore is as smooth as a billard table?

You get all that with the normal onboard camera

 

[as65p]

You get all that with the normal onboard camera

 

 

Sure, but from an obviously too high angle. The OP video is closer to the drivers eye, just that IMO the smoothness and camera distortion ruins it again.

[OO7]

I see this as a fake sense of speed because of the image distortion that this tipe of camera creates. This is not what you see IRL

I think the sense of speed is most probably very accurate and the video is a compromise between distortion and the sense of speed.  In reality peripheral vision which the driver perceives enhances the sense of speed, unfortunately the standard lens robs us of that perception.

[OO7]

Sure, but from an obviously too high angle. The OP video is closer to the drivers eye, just that IMO the smoothness and camera distortion ruins it again.

I think the smoothness is generally fine.  From the drivers POV, the eye and brain tend to filter out most of the bumps.

[NixxxoN]

I think the sense of speed is most probably very accurate and the video is a compromise between distortion and the sense of speed.  In reality peripheral vision which the driver perceives enhances the sense of speed, unfortunately the standard lens robs us of that perception.

 

I can't agree with that. The video looks like the car is going 1000 km/h

[OO7]

I can't agree with that. The video looks like the car is going 1000 km/h

That's how peripheral vision works when you're travelling at 170+ mph with barriers just a few feet either side of you.

[NixxxoN]

That's how peripheral vision works when you're travelling at 170+ mph with barriers just a few feet either side of you.

Most of the time the car didnt even come close to that 170mph.

[OO7]

Most of the time the car didnt even come close to that 170mph.

It also depends on how you view the video.  If you watch on a small screen (phone or tablet) the representation can be quite skewed.  If however you use a large screen, large enough that the edges of the video fall close to or into your peripheral vision, then it works far better.

Edited by OO7, 24 September 2018 - 15:19.

[absinthedude]

The barrel distortion of the camera lens is horrendous, just look at the shape of the tyre. Everything on the periphery is grossly distorted making the track walls and perimeter lights seem to flash past faster than they really do. And they should not be using image stabilisation at all. 

 

I agree that watching on a large screen would negate this to some extent. 

 

Some of the best videos for getting that sense of the speed were in the late 80s and early 90s with a camera simply placed aside the airbox, no image stabilisation, no fancy "360" camera...just bolt the thing on and turn it on. Before the halo and the head rest you could see the driver at work, his head bobbing around, all the effects of the bumps...it almost felt painful to watch. Not that I am against the increased driver protection but you got a real impression of the speed.

[Nemo1965]

I think the smoothness is generally fine.  From the drivers POV, the eye and brain tend to filter out most of the bumps.

 

That... I doubt. Research has shown, for example, that tennisplayers who JOG to a position where they want to hit the ball (meaning: reaching a topspeed of 15 km/per hour) their eyesight is impaired by fifty percent. In the words of tenniscoach Vic Braden: 'Any tennisplayer that hits a ball where he has to move for, is legally blind.'

 

I don't know how heavy the bouncing of modern F1-cars is, over how great a distance, and at what speed. But I doubt that if you would reproduce these movements in a chair of an optomologist, the scores would not be pretty...

[OO7]

That... I doubt. Research has shown, for example, that tennisplayers who JOG to a position where they want to hit the ball (meaning: reaching a topspeed of 15 km/per hour) their eyesight is impaired by fifty percent. In the words of tenniscoach Vic Braden: 'Any tennisplayer that hits a ball where he has to move for, is legally blind.'

 

I don't know how heavy the bouncing of modern F1-cars is, over how great a distance, and at what speed. But I doubt that if you would reproduce these movements in a chair of an optomologist, the scores would not be pretty...

In what way is their eyesight impaired though?  Loss of peripheral vision counts as a reduction of eyesight, however would be less relevant when a players eyes are focused on a ball.  In any event check out vestibulo-ocular reflex.

[P123]

I can't agree with that. The video looks like the car is going 1000 km/h

If you were sat in the car looking out to the side I'm sure that's what everything would look like as you passed by... plus the lights above enhance the effect.

[secessionman]

Some of the best videos for getting that sense of the speed were in the late 80s and early 90s with a camera simply placed aside the airbox, no image stabilisation, no fancy "360" camera...just bolt the thing on and turn it on. Before the halo and the head rest you could see the driver at work, his head bobbing around, all the effects of the bumps...it almost felt painful to watch. Not that I am against the increased driver protection but you got a real impression of the speed.

 

My thoughts turned to this.

 

[AustinF1]

Watch this if you’ve got a few spare minutes;

https://youtu.be/83mb5Erd8ZY

That shows better than any of the usual camera angles we see, the true pace of these cars. Insane.

I like it except for the way they turn the camera on corner entry. That distorts the image and actually takes away from the sense of spend and direction change imho. It takes away much of the sense of direction change and makes the track seem straighter than it is. It does show speed well though.

[tmekt]

I see this as a fake sense of speed because of the image distortion that this tipe of camera creates. This is not what you see IRL

Probably more true than the fake sense of slowness a normal onboard creates. It won't be like that in real life.

OP's video while obviously distorted is more what the laymen who have tried an F1 car say it's like. The corners jump before you and your thought can't quite keep up. The video certainly creates that impression. Obviously you can't simulate the experience 100 per cent on video but I'm sure that captures the sense of speed better than onboard or shoulder cam. Those lack, for example, the mentioned peripheral vision effect that you'd have in real life.

[Nigol]

I think the sense of speed is most probably very accurate and the video is a compromise between distortion and the sense of speed.  In reality peripheral vision which the driver perceives enhances the sense of speed, unfortunately the standard lens robs us of that perception.

 

Disagree. Especially the sense of speed is completely ruined in this video. You can't judge distances there because the FOV (field of view) is way to high. Curves are becoming 'less tight' but 'faster'. It's actually the SAME for the "normal" onboard view form above the halo, just that it not that severe. But it is STILL to high.

 

If you want a realistic view, the onboard shots which shows half the helmet from behind are the best. Closest to reality. 

Edited by Nigol, 24 September 2018 - 16:09.

[Nigol]

It also depends on how you view the video.  If you watch on a small screen (phone or tablet) the representation can be quite skewed.  If however you use a large screen, large enough that the edges of the video fall close to or into your peripheral vision, then it works far better.

 

You would need to be incredible close to a very large screen to make it work though...Plus It'd need to be curved.

 

Edit: Thinking of it, just look at a real F1 simulator, like here:

 

 

0:11 if you want a view close to reality.

0:32 to give you a very bad view in terms of realism (because the camera man tried to catch the whole screen and is too far away from the screen)

[NixxxoN]

Probably more true than the fake sense of slowness a normal onboard creates. It won't be like that in real life.

OP's video while obviously distorted is more what the laymen who have tried an F1 car say it's like. The corners jump before you and your thought can't quite keep up. The video certainly creates that impression. Obviously you can't simulate the experience 100 per cent on video but I'm sure that captures the sense of speed better than onboard or shoulder cam. Those lack, for example, the mentioned peripheral vision effect that you'd have in real life.

I've driven a fast car in a real race track... you and the OP's camera view make it sound like you go 1000 km/h, not the case at all.

[tmekt]

I've driven a fast car in a real race track... you and the OP's camera view make it sound like you go 1000 km/h, not the case at all.

You have driven an F1 car in Singapore or some other street circuit?

[NixxxoN]

You have driven an F1 car in Singapore or some other street circuit?

No, and it doesnt matter, its the same for any track, you never see this blurry effects or very distorted thing

Edit: what is missing in the video is the stuff you experience IRL that cannot be experienced in a video... G-forces, bumps, air wind, noise from the car and the tires... stuff like that

Edited by NixxxoN, 24 September 2018 - 16:49.

[prty]

If you have a high field of view you'll have a higher sensation of straightline speed but you lose completely the lateral speed sensitivity. The impressive thing about F1 is how the cars turn.

[AustinF1]

No, and it doesnt matter, its the same for any track, you never see this blurry effects or very distorted thing

Edit: what is missing in the video is the stuff you experience IRL that cannot be experienced in a video... G-forces, bumps, air wind, noise from the car and the tires... stuff like that

Yeah I've driven fast cars at COTA a few times. It doesn't even really seem like you're going all that fast until you hit about 130-140, at least in my experience. More than once I've been cruising 100 mph down the freeway and didn't even realize it.

 

The car speeds up, but when you're driving fast so does your brain. Or at least you better hope it does.

 

And re: the other sensations you mentioned, that has a lot to do with it. I feel like I'm going faster in a kart going 60 than in a car going 100.

Edited by AustinF1, 24 September 2018 - 17:02.

[AustinF1]

If you have a high field of view you'll have a higher sensation of straightline speed but you lose completely the lateral speed sensitivity. The impressive thing about F1 is how the cars turn.

Yeah that's removed to a great degree in the clip imho by the way they turn the camera on or before turn-in.

[tmekt]

No, and it doesnt matter, its the same for any track, you never see this blurry effects or very distorted thing

No one said the blurry effect is what you see. Of course that's not how it "looks". That was the whole point. It's not simulating the look of the thing, only the sense by distorting the periphery and putting you lower than normal onboard.

Edited by tmekt, 24 September 2018 - 17:10.

[statman]

the current t-cam on top gives me a sort of fake sense of speed, as if it's zoomed in or so

 

I really liked the old t-cam, which gave (in my opinion) a better sense of speed. Check any classic onboard @ youtube:

 

[NixxxoN]

the current t-cam on top gives me a sort of fake sense of speed, as if it's zoomed in or so
 
I really liked the old t-cam, which gave (in my opinion) a better sense of speed. Check any classic onboard @ youtube:
 

More like the opposite, the old T-Cam had an unrealistic wide FOV that made the cars seem to go faster than the current ones, and also the image quality was worse

[prty]

Cameras with lower FOV and high framerate is where you can better tell what the car is doing and how the track really looks like:

 

 

Compare the elevation change in the first corner in the COTA onboard with this one:

 

Edited by prty, 24 September 2018 - 19:58.

[OO7]

Cameras with lower FOV and high framerate is where you can better tell what the car is doing and how the track really looks like:

 

 

Compare the elevation change in the first corner in the COTA onboard with this one:

 

I'd add the following to your selection prty:

[ANF]

I'd like to add this as well:

[OO7]

I'd like to add this as well:

The Indycar visor cams are very good.  I really like the fact that the look-into-turn aspect is quite subtle, but I don't know if that's down to the driver or some form of system compensation.  I'd make just a few slight changes such having it angled downwards a little more, so more of the steering wheel is seen and increase the FOV.

Edited by OO7, 24 September 2018 - 20:26.

[AustinF1]

Cameras with lower FOV and high framerate is where you can better tell what the car is doing and how the track really looks like:

 

...

 

Compare the elevation change in the first corner in the COTA onboard with this one:

 

Wow, that first one really highlights COTA's bumpiness, and viewing the two of them back to back really shows how much changed in just 5 years. 

[jonpollak]

My thoughts turned to this.

 

oooh oooh I was looking for that today... !!!

Bless you.

 

PS..

I think it's a great video.

Jp

[jonpollak]

Here's a good onboard.

 

Jp

[f1paul]

This is speed...

 

[Kalmake]

This is speed...

But 30 fps. Very sad.

Edited by Kalmake, 25 September 2018 - 19:13.

[Juan Kerr]

I'm loving the traction control in the corners 

[potmotr]

I liked it. 

 

Whatever happened to helmet cameras in F1?

[rockdude101]

Sure, but from an obviously too high angle. The OP video is closer to the drivers eye, just that IMO the smoothness and camera distortion ruins it again.

 

This is what I like. A camera that gives you that lower view so you don't see the HALO!!!

 

 

 

The barrel distortion of the camera lens is horrendous, just look at the shape of the tyre. Everything on the periphery is grossly distorted making the track walls and perimeter lights seem to flash past faster than they really do. And they should not be using image stabilisation at all. 

 

I agree that watching on a large screen would negate this to some extent. 

 

Some of the best videos for getting that sense of the speed were in the late 80s and early 90s with a camera simply placed aside the airbox, no image stabilisation, no fancy "360" camera...just bolt the thing on and turn it on. Before the halo and the head rest you could see the driver at work, his head bobbing around, all the effects of the bumps...it almost felt painful to watch. Not that I am against the increased driver protection but you got a real impression of the speed.

 

Amen. Another reason why I love IndyCar. Visorcam is the business. You can see them fighting to hold onto the car over the bumps at Toronto, it's crazy. 

 

I 100% LOVE this Camera view. It gives you a sense of speed and action, really cool. Need more of this F1 for promotion and marketing PRONTO. It's better than anything else they've created in the last year, at least. 

Edited by rockdude101, 26 September 2018 - 21:14.

[OO7]

i'll throw the following into the ring:

[genespleen]

Sense of speed, car-control, etc.  

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=1ZY0ecWFx6A