Offseason Video Review Pilot-Volunteers?

[CalTran]

Originally Posted by MrRoboSteve

4 defense cameras --
2 front facing castle cameras --
2 high mid-field cameras --

Not that I disagree with the prospect of video replays (though I have my own reservations about it), but where does the budget for the proposed 10 "necessary" 1080p cameras come from? I would much rather something like Ryan Dognaux's St. Louis set up that anywhere can set up at minimal cost.

[gblake]

Originally Posted by CalTran

Not that I disagree with the prospect of video replays (though I have my own reservations about it), but where does the budget for the proposed 10 "necessary" 1080p cameras come from? I would much rather something like Ryan Dognaux's St. Louis set up that anywhere can set up at minimal cost.

Maybe Ryan's initial estimate of what a successful system would contain was incomplete ....?

[gblake]

To the folks planning to experiment with video replay/review of challenged calls this year, please take a look at what Tristan and I wrote here: Related thread.

[smitikshah]

I'd love to assist anyone in the greater NYC region at offseason events trying to implement this solution.

[patar8746]

I can help with any summer events in/near Chicago or other seasons in/near NYC

[MrRoboSteve]

Originally Posted by CalTran

Not that I disagree with the prospect of video replays (though I have my own reservations about it), but where does the budget for the proposed 10 "necessary" 1080p cameras come from? I would much rather something like Ryan Dognaux's St. Louis set up that anywhere can set up at minimal cost.

My proposal isn't for the actual system that would be deployed to every field. It's a proposal for what's needed if you want to determine what sort of video replay system is needed. The goal is to answer the question: "what's the minimal setup needed to correct most incorrect referee calls" with data.

The best way to do this is to capture a bunch of data, and score every match under differing sets of assumptions using independent reviewers. Setting up a camera or two, and only allowing a maximum of 8 samples (one challenge per alliance, playoffs only) won't provide enough data to convince anyone to act.

The question I'm trying to answer is the percentage of time these variations prevent a review from correcting a missed call:

* lack of time sync
* low resolution
* slow shutter speeds (blurry)
* bad camera mounting (blurry)
* lack of depth of field (blurry)
* is 30fps adequate?
* bad point of view

For example, consider the FPS value. A robot moving at 10 feet per second moves 4" per frame at 30 frames per second. Is that enough that, in most situations, the correct call can be made?

I missed one thing on my list -- you need the match time, matched with the video.

[synth3tk]

Originally Posted by CalTran

Not that I disagree with the prospect of video replays (though I have my own reservations about it), but where does the budget for the proposed 10 "necessary" 1080p cameras come from? I would much rather something like Ryan Dognaux's St. Louis set up that anywhere can set up at minimal cost.

I think their suggestions wasn't that 10 cameras should be the solution, but that we should use 10 cameras during this testing phase to try various angles and determine the maximum amount of cameras needed.

That still doesn't address the fact that an off-season event may not have access to 10 cameras (or a system to accept and record all those inputs), but maybe they can crowdsource that. Have up to 10 teams bring in a camera that's up-to-spec.