Anybody watch the game on Versus last night??

[LabattBlue]

WTF was up with the camera they mounted along the top edge of the glass. Did they ever consider how distracting it might be when it constantly zooms in and out of the picture when the regular camera angle is on.

 

:wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash:

[SDS]

WTF was up with the camera they mounted along the top edge of the glass. Did they ever consider how distracting it might be when it constantly zooms in and out of the picture when the regular camera angle is on.

 

:wallbash: :wallbash: :wallbash:

 

where along the boards was this placed?

[X. Benedict]

where along the boards was this placed?

it was on a rail on top of the glass on the side opposite the benches.

[SDS]

it was on a rail on top of the glass on the side opposite the benches.

 

So, this was the camera that was supposed to give us the new "looks". I assume it was moving back and forth in front of the main camera.

[LabattBlue]

So, this was the camera that was supposed to give us the new "looks". I assume it was moving back and forth in front of the main camera.

That it was. The worst part about it was the size of the unit and the fact that the pictures coming from it were terrible.

[SDS]

That it was. The worst part about it was the size of the unit and the fact that the pictures coming from it were terrible.

 

if only you had a nickle for every time you said that phrase! :nana:

[X. Benedict]

That it was. The worst part about it was the size of the unit and the fact that the pictures coming from it were terrible.

 

Some were, but I think it is probably better utilized for replays, and highlights rather then trying to get a continuous shot. Kinda like ESPN's football skycam.

[hopeleslyobvious]

I didn't see the game on Vs. last night, but I am surprised, I liked the railcam when they used it at the World Juniors.

[LabattBlue]

if only you had a nickle for every time you said that phrase! :nana:

:lol: :lol:

[mediumishot]

i understand that its a lil distracting but i liked the angle, especially on the goal from modanno to lindross

[Screamin'Weasel]

Perhaps it is just me, but in this high-tech world we live in, we should be able to do better. I understand the urge to use a "different" -type camera for sports, but could they not do better than a rail camera?

 

There are like 8-10 cameras already on the standard camera perch. One above each net. One inside each net. Reverse angle cameras. Now a rail camera.

 

The rail camera was originally made for race-type events (ie: Olympic foot races, speed skate races, horse races). It was meant to move very quickly along the "sidelines" and capture the action as it moved from point A to point B. While I like the idea of a constantly moving camera to capture fast action at the hockey games, an entire game broadcast like that would give me motion sickness. Pass the Dramamine! We may get some great angles and cool shots from it, but again, I think they are not "thinking outside the box."

 

Why not instead, go a different route? For example, how hard can it be to film in widescreen to capture more of the ice at once without having to zoom way out with a standard camera? Couple this with more high-tech wizardry and we can load a small microchip inside the puck that the camera "locks" onto and follows. With a widescreen format causing very little up/down movement of the camera, it would essentially just go back and forth with the puck being (not absolute) centered in the recording area. Think of a widescreen image with a smaller rectangle taking up the majority of the scene: as long as the puck's signal remains inside that rectangle, the camera is still, only moving to follow the puck as it tries to "leave" that area.

 

Add in microchips that clip on a player's equipment for cameras that follow single players throughout a game.

 

Microchips in the pucks and sensors in the ice, goal posts and crossbars that alert the overhead camera if the puck has crossed the goal-line, under the goalie's pads or not. It could also determine whether a puck came in through the front of the net, through a hole in the net or even under the net. Much better than "light up goal posts," in my opinion.

 

Maybe my ideas are bad or have a crucial flaw I am missing, but I still think it better to improve the cameras and thier capabilities rather than just adding new ones.

[SDS]

Maybe my ideas are bad or have a crucial flaw I am missing, but I still think it better to improve the cameras and thier capabilities rather than just adding new ones.

 

probably because the puck is usually biased to one side of the other. If the puck was deep in the zone, you wouldn't want half the crowd in the picture. There would need to be compensation for that (along with what area most guys were on the ice.

[Screamin'Weasel]

probably because the puck is usually biased to one side of the other. If the puck was deep in the zone, you wouldn't want half the crowd in the picture. There would need to be compensation for that (along with what area most guys were on the ice.

First, I apologize for not being able to find a better image to use. I was looking for an image from approximately camera level and would have preferred one in the end of the ice. However...

 

This image is a standard format for cameras:

 

 

Now, here is the same image in widescreen. The red box indicates where the puck can be without the camera having to move:

 

 

I think you can see that if the puck were in the offensive zone and along the backboards, the camera would still have to move very little and very little crowd shot would be added. Now, imagine this at actual camera level. You'd see the entire zone during most of the play there and even at the extreme, lose very little.

 

Again, I could still be wrong.