FIRST has done a fantastic job of improving the field views via the webcast unit provided at Regionals. Though I understand not all events currently implement this setup… There are typically viewing options for a static full field view of the field, and a dynamic view that zooms in and changes camera angles for most events. I’m curious to know if anybody actually enjoys the dynamic view of events… I’ve never met somebody who prefers the dynamic view to a full field static view, so if you prefer a dynamic view I’d love to understand why.
I’d like to advocate for FIRST to continue moving in the right direction in regards to the event production by making it standard practice to show the full field static view in the pit area of events. The events I’ve attended in recent years have typically shown the dynamic view, and I’ve had numerous conversations with students and mentors in the pit area that aren’t able to watch their team play because of the constantly changing views.
What is your preference for camera views for viewing online?
Dynamic View
Static Full Field View
Don’t Really Care
0voters
What is your preference for camera views while watching from the pit?
Dynamic View
Static Full Field View
Don’t Really Care
0voters
What is your preference for camera views while watching from the stands?
Looking through the various VoDs from FIRST Inspires channels on Twitch, the viewer counts certainly don’t seem as cut-and-dry on this issue as the poll results on CD would imply. For instance, the Orlando regional dynamic view being at 8K here, with the static view at 3.8K. Electric City with 2.9K for dynamic view, with 1.9K for static view.
Nothing worse that watching a robot acquire a full limit worth of game pieces and line up to score only for the view to change to a dead robot or a portion of the field with no robots.
When I’m in the stands I like dynamic view for the various close ups the provide, because my eyes provide me with a full field static view.
When I’m watching at home (and the pits for that matter), I prefer dynamic view for the portions of the event where I want to see close ups, like pre-match (to see the drive teams during intros), alliance selection, and ceremonies, while a static view for the actual matches.
Dynamic view IIRC is almost always the lower numbered channel (Example: 1 dynamic, 2 static) and is what events tend to push out in their messaging as the ‘primary’ feed. I think this lends to more of the less-engaged and general public viewing the dynamic feed.
So I do like the static but I have a couple issues this year:
The main cam for static is different this year and set to more wide angle so it can be closer to the field. Practical but not a huge fan of the distortion.
The main cam for static has a much smaller aperture/image sensor than before as it’s more of how the sideline cameras are causing a lower quality product.
Many of the main feeds do not seem to have a level full field shot.
Main camera has been placed behind the scoring area for most events I have seen. I like the shot of seeing the audience in the background but I don’t like seeing the scoring panel not covered by a lower third, looks unprofessional to me (see Tech Valley shot below)
Exposure is all over the place here and doesn’t seem to be adjusted correctly. With the smaller sensor and aperture this is accentuated even more.
I will add; I really enjoy the well-done dynamic views because it feels like I’m watching like, an event. The combination of the fish-eye lens and lower quality camera on the full field view just makes it look dead if you are watching for funs sake.
Obviously, a full field view gives you more information, and even with the well-done dynamic views, if your team isn’t the most interesting robot in the match, you won’t get much screen time.
that doesn’t even begin to touch the surface of poorly done dynamic views (which is most of them). It feels like they try to balance the screen time which results in a lot of cuts to dead robots
Despite being a past vocal proponent for the dynamic views, ive been extremely unimpressed with the quality this year of the dynamic streams. Maybe its because its been a couple years? But some training is desperately needed (e.g. if you need to tilt the camera straight down to catch something, thats not something that camera should be capturing, happened more times than I could count already, and its not even week 3.)
Edit: Actually the dynamic views in general (specifically PNW) straight up baffle me. I feel like a much better job could of been done there, half the views just show the backside of refs, and are taken way more often than they should be…
IMO, as someone who does AV at events, the ONLY acceptable ways to show anything other than a full-field view during a match are:
Using a “Multi-View” where the full-field shot is the primary, and other views go in the corner without blocking anything meaningful on the full-field view. (See Tyler_Olds example above)
Selecting a view that shows a close-up when there is nothing else interesting happening off-screen (IE, excluding disabled/ineffective robots is fine).
Showing both of the end-game elements close-up when nothing else is happening.
In any case, any cuts away from the full-field view should be limited in duration to minimize the possibility of missing something. The biggest problem with the wide-field view is that the limited resolution of the stream makes it hard to see details, hence the desire to use close-ups. In the future when we can reliably have 4k streams and users can just zoom in on action, this should be less of an issue, but until then, I think strategic use of close-up shots can definitely be important to get the best views of the action.
None of the current systems are really what I want in event streaming. (Even when I helped run a stream, it wasn’t fully what I want.)
As has been pointed out, dynamic views are plagued by camera operators (through no fault of their own) who don’t really know what’s going on so don’t know when to focus where. This is frustrating, especially when dramatic situations get missed on camera.
Full field doesn’t have that problem, but is usually stymied by field elements blocking at least some portion of the field at all times. They also lack any sort of cues that an audience with little to no knowledge of the game can use to pick where to watch when. No one is watching the whole field the whole time, it’s just the wide view gives experienced viewers all of the options we can switch between at will. Streams try to get around some of this by setting up three static shots, one full field with two cut-ins focused on aspects hidden from the full field, but then they’re stacked in a weird geometry that makes all three views much smaller and harder to follow with any detail.
When I’m watching, I usually default to dynamic just because I like getting close looks at the bots who I won’t get to see in person. And switch to the full field view for finals or once I’ve seen the bots I wanted to see.
If I ruled the world, had an unlimited budget, and time, my ideal setup would be a crew of camera operators alongside some static cameras and a commentator who was deeply familiar with the game who could watch all of the different angles, find the narrative of the match, and switch the cameras as they commentated. This would provide a satisfying match narrative for both hard-core FIRSTers and newbies who found the stream through Twitch recs or a friend.
Watch how Alton Brown commentates an episode of Iron Chef: America and you’d have a pretty good idea of what I’m getting at.
For casual viewing (seeing some neat robots) I like dynamic view close-ups. For serious viewing (scouting, following a particular team, being really invested in the outcome of a match) I like static view.
Field view is really best for teams (and scouts in particular). But for the non-participant, dynamic view is far more interesting because it (should) guide you to action and things to be excited about. Bearing in mind that most FRC feeds operate with very very few operators, I’d say the current multi-angle solution really is the best we can do on a general scale (of course, events with more AV power like FiM are all the better for it). But thinking big picture and drawing the general public in, we need the dynamic view more.
