Directing the cameramen

[Steve W]

As with all areas in FIRST we do not always emphasize the winning but try and celebrate all teams. To show only the team scoring would take away from other teams that worked just as hard or harder. As an announcer/MC I know that we try to show the good in all teams equally throughout a match. I would not be surprised if the camera team does the same. As for a lot of wide shots, I would find it a bit boring, somewhere in line with watching grass grow.

[Koko Ed]

Multiple angles provide more dramatic shots of robots to make videos of the event with. Static shots of the field would not do so at all.

[ALIBI]

Don't forget, this was the first week that the camera crew has seen this years game. On one hand they do not want to switch between shots too fast, on the other hand, a lot happens in two minutes and fifteen seconds. Just like the teams, shots will get better as the weeks progress. Personally, I did not think the camera angles were that bad for week one.

[Cory]

Originally Posted by ALIBI

Don't forget, this was the first week that the camera crew has seen this years game. On one hand they do not want to switch between shots too fast, on the other hand, a lot happens in two minutes and fifteen seconds. Just like the teams, shots will get better as the weeks progress. Personally, I did not think the camera angles were that bad for week one.

If it's anything like the last 8 years of FIRST that I've seen, the camera work won't be improving from week to week.

This is the status quo, and has been so forever. We just gotta deal with it.

[Leav]

Steve,
I was not suggesting to focus only on winning teams, on the contrary!
I want to see everyone and not just a single robot which happens to be next to the cameraman....

Most matches see incomprehensible to me due to the constant POV changes.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Think about sports:
Real sport games are shot in the wide view, and the close ups are reserved for the instant replays. (millions of people agree that this way is at least marginally more entertaining than watching grass grow )

Sports movies are with the "you are on the field" POV, because no one really cares what's going on - they want the dramatic shot.

When you want to understand what's going on you go for the wide shot.
When you want to dramaticize the event you go for the close-up.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I must agree with Ken:
The answer to "Who is the audience for the mixed video?" is most likely the audience at the event (as far as the cameramen are concerened).
and this is the main cause for why the video is shot they way it shot.

I suggest that people in charge of recording videos for the web and TBA try and get the wide angle feed 100% of the time.
I would even go as far as to say that it is more important to have the wide angle feed than have the score keeper at the bottom of the screen.


Just my 0.02NIS....

-Leav

[GaryVoshol]

One thought, would a wide-angle view provide enough detail? I can imagine the comments - "Thunderchickens just scored another hurdle. I wonder how their arm works? I wish the camera would zoom in on them."

[Qbranch]

Now that FIRST is providing a small electronic device to count laps to each robot as they go on the field, this doesn't seem as much of a stretch as it used to...

What about a solid-state video camera that teams put on their robot when they go on the field? It could be as simple as turning the flag into a square-shafted object for anti torque and just putting the camera up there with the lap marker.

The camera probably couldn't be hurt very easily... I envision a (up to) 1/4" thick lexan box with the wireless camera inside, all solid state so it can withstand the G's of falling off a robot/getting run into and over. The whole module probably could be just a little larger than the lap indicator as CCD cameras really aren't that big anymore, and with new pocket rocket DSP processors for cellphones these days even doing digital video transmission could fit in a 1.5x1.5" board.

This should still be able to run off the +5 pin of the processor, but if it cant, you could put a couple supercapacitors in it and charge them inductively between matches to eliminate all external connections.

In car cameras anyone?

-q

[synth3tk]

Since this is a NASCAR-like game, in-car (or on-robot) cameras would've been appropiate. But I do agree that the close-up shots are more exciting. A few of us from 964 were watching week one and we were all into it. I like it as a general audience member.

Yes, wide angle views are much better for scouting or whatnot, so maybe you can team up with a team that's recording. Hopefully sometime in the future, maybe TBA/SOAP can allow seperate official videos and scouting videos on their servers. Maybe a new service can be started just for scouting videos.

[Swan217]

Originally Posted by Leav

Steve,
Most matches see incomprehensible to me due to the constant POV changes.
Think about sports:
Real sport games are shot in the wide view, and the close ups are reserved for the instant replays. (millions of people agree that this way is at least marginally more entertaining than watching grass grow )

Sports movies are with the "you are on the field" POV, because no one really cares what's going on - they want the dramatic shot.

When you want to understand what's going on you go for the wide shot.
When you want to dramaticize the event you go for the close-up.

This is very true. Close ups are "the dramatic shot." It's the video equivelant of the DJ playing high-energy music the entire time. A DJ knows that you have to have both highs and lows. Nobody can stay at 100% energy the entire time - you get burned out. If the video guys were at all professional sports recorders, they would know this.

But obviously they aren't. So we need to explain it to them - we need to train them like we train the referees and the DJ's and everyone. I'm sure none of these videographers are actively involved with FIRST or have any idea what it's about. A simple whitepaper may be able to clear it up for them.

The balance needs to be being close enough to see detail, while still being far enough away to not miss anything important. Take hockey or basketball or football video - they don't show the entire rink/field - they just show where the major action is (who's got the puck/ball). The same needs to apply to FIRST Comps. What we NEED in a video is a rotating isometric shot of about 1/3 of the field, following the big effective hurdlers or speed demons mostly. For the occasion when a robot releases magic smoke, or loses a wheel, or something where the audience would say, "What the heck is happening down there?" ONLY THEN do you do the closeup.

What we DON'T need is closeup shots of a robot struggling to dig a trackball out of a corner, or a robot slowly lining up to make a hurdle, or a battery lying on the field. And I disagree with Gary about close up shots of mechanisms. If you're at the competition, you can just go down to the pits and check it out. If you're in the stands or at home on the webcast, you are probably more interested in the overall game.

I'm personally sick and tired of the closeup. I'm tired with the closeup camera guy nearly getting speared by a robot, or knocked out by a stray ball, or getting in the way of the referees and scorers and other volunteers that need access to the field. It adds absolutely nothing to the game when they're doing closeups of a robot being impeded or inching along, or any of the other "DON'Ts" I mentioned.

I suggest that anyone that notices amateur videography like this to GRACIOUSLY explain to the video crew what their job is supposed to be and where they are failing at their jobs at adding informative alternate viewpoints to the competition.

EDIT: The annoyance factor is mostly with the camera crews that are getting paid. Volunteer FIRST member camera crews are excluded from my rancor, but they should still learn how to be better camerapeople.

[Ryan Dognaux]

So... there's a lot of bickering about the camera work at FIRST events. There is no way that a static wide field shot would be a good idea. The camera output is mainly for the large video screen at the events, it's just a plus or an added bonus that the feed can be webcasted on the interwebs.

If anything those guys and girls need a pat on the back, that work is a lot harder than it looks. The shoulder mounted cameras are heavy and lugging one of those suckers around for 8 hours a day for 2 days takes a toll on you. I would know, I got tired and sore after operating one for an hour and a half. Granted, most of these crews are professionals - but how often do they film a robotics competition?

I somewhat agree with Dan here though. If the camera work at your event is just bloody awful, talk to the guy operating the mixing board who is choosing the shots. From my experience, all of those people are very nice and are happy to accommodate reasonable requests. Reasonable, keep in mind, not 'can we have a static open field-wide shot for 30 minutes' requests.

[Alan Anderson]

Originally Posted by Dan Swando

I suggest that anyone that notices amateur videography like this to GRACIOUSLY explain to the video crew what their job is supposed to be and where they are failing at their jobs at adding informative alternate viewpoints to the competition.

Complaining about the videography is applying pressure to the wrong point. The camera crew is doing the job. The problem is that the job is to provide closeups for the big screen at the venue. Broadcasting the game to remote viewers is not a priority. Recording the match for later review is not a priority.

I think what you want to do is get the regional organizers to change the priorities, not to accuse the camera operators of being unprofessional.

[Swan217]

Originally Posted by Alan Anderson

Complaining about the videography is applying pressure to the wrong point. The camera crew is doing the job. The problem is that the job is to provide closeups for the big screen at the venue. Broadcasting the game to remote viewers is not a priority. Recording the match for later review is not a priority.

I think what you want to do is get the regional organizers to change the priorities, not to accuse the camera operators of being unprofessional.

Alan - my complaint is about the videography at the competition for the benefit of the people in the stands, probably even more so than for webstreams. Like I said, it doesn't do the crowd (especially scouters) any good if the handheld cameraman is focused on only one robot up close. This should NOT be the responsibility of the camera crew - if they are, they are doing the wrong job, and if they were professional sports videographers (instead of professional general intent videographers) then they would know this. Their responsibility should be to add informative points of view of the field that you don't get in the stands. But you are correct - we need to get the regional organizers to better explain the video crew's responsibility to them.

Now practically speaking, I don't believe there should be a handheld camera near the field at all. They are too much of a danger to themselves and the volunteers around them, and they are a liability to FIRST. In the corners of the field with a tripod, where people aren't running around, should suffice for most camera angles. If you need a closer view, that's why man invented the "zoom" button.

[XaulZan11]

Originally Posted by Dan Swando

Alan - my complaint is about the videography at the competition for the benefit of the people in the stands, probably even more so than for webstreams. Like I said, it doesn't do the crowd (especially scouters) any good if the handheld cameraman is focused on only one robot up close. This should NOT be the responsibility of the camera crew - if they are, they are doing the wrong job, and if they were professional sports videographers (instead of professional general intent videographers) then they would know this. Their responsibility should be to add informative points of view of the field that you don't get in the stands. But you are correct - we need to get the regional organizers to better explain the video crew's responsibility to them.

Now practically speaking, I don't believe there should be a handheld camera near the field at all. They are too much of a danger to themselves and the volunteers around them, and they are a liability to FIRST. In the corners of the field with a tripod, where people aren't running around, should suffice for most camera angles. If you need a closer view, that's why man invented the "zoom" button.

I don't think I understand your point. I think a close up of a robot on the big screen is extremely helpful to the people in the stands. Unless they have amazing super-human eyes, they probably will not be able to see the close up of the robots. Thus, the close up pictures of one robot does give the people in the stands "a view of the field that you don't get in the stands".

As someone who watches the webcasts online and has done prescouting in the past, I would love them to just show the entire field, and not focus on one robot while the other 5 are scoring. But I understand that those videos are not intended or taken for me, but for the people in the stands that already have the entire field right in front of them.

(On a side note, I know for digital photography, the 'zoom' function can drastically change the image by changing the depth of field. I would think it is the same with video cameras).

[Racer26]

It would be cool to see a team set up for next year a webcast similar to what NASCAR has, in that you could stream any/all of the feeds into a nice interface, where the viewer can pick which one to pay attention to. However, I think that there are only 2 maybe 3 cameras at most of the events, so its probably overkill.

[synth3tk]

Originally Posted by 1075guy

It would be cool to see a team set up for next year a webcast similar to what NASCAR has, in that you could stream any/all of the feeds into a nice interface, where the viewer can pick which one to pay attention to. However, I think that there are only 2 maybe 3 cameras at most of the events, so its probably overkill.

lol, I was looking into that with Flash, it's really complicated after a while. Would it be overkill? Sure! But it'd be cool just to have it. It would mean that the providers of each webcast would need access to the mixer. And to make it interesting enough, we could see if solid-state cameras could be sent out in KOPs so we could have an "in-car" view.