Directing the cameramen

[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.

[technoL]

As I went back and watched some matches this week, I realized that there were a lot of great moments missed due to the camera being focused on joystick-action rather than on-field action. While I really want to see just a static wide-angle view, it would be great if the cameras were only focused on robots on the field, not zooming in for extended periods of time on dead robots or just only one robot. But I'm grateful to just be able to see the videos at all

[MegaSparks]

It is real interesting to read the comments about the camera crew as I ran a camera in one of my past lives. Most often the camera crews have little knowledge of what is important, especially when it comes to something out of the ordinary like FIRST robotics. They try to record what would normally be exciting images, like car wrecks (robots tipped over) or operator or driver images. Camera operators are taught to record People when ever possible. If we could in a very nice way inform the camera people that the field is more important than the joysticks this might lead to better images on the big screens for all of us to enjoy. Gracious Professionalism even with the camera people.

[FRANK(WGH)]

A few people have nailed this one on the head. The video provided at regionals is created for the spectators at the event. I do think that a production could be put together to satisfy both those at the competition and those watching at home. The fix to this is a larger production company unfortunately. You'd need at least 3 cameras, and the addition of a director. Currently most regionals have 2 cameras and a director/technical director (switcher) as one person. It's difficult to switch and look at make a decision on what to switch to at the same time. It can be done, but when a person only sees FIRST events once a year, it's difficult.

:WISH:
I'd like to see the regionals become more produced to be like a TV show. The announcers in Pittsburgh did interviews after some matches.
:WISH: