Broadcast Style - Camera Angles

[sbrylski]

Does anyone else get tired of the only camera angle you ever see being from ground level behind the pitcher? Clearly, it's the best angle for seeing the pitch, which is the most important thing for the broadcast to display. However, we are missing out on so much but not seeing anything else, such as defensive positioning, pre-pitch movement, and leads and steals by the baserunners. We also miss out on some of the play because there's always a cut to a different angle when the ball is put in play.

 

So here's what I suggest. For just the first pitch of every at-bat, the camera angle shown is from behind the batter, slightly elevated and zoomed out. You could still get a decent look at the pitch, at least whether it was inside or outside, but we can also see the defensive positioning (which will presumably will stay the same for the entire at-bat) and the leads of the runners on base. It would be a kind of "to set the stage" view. For all other pitches, the camera goes back to the standard CF view.

 

If the first pitch isn't put in play, as it often isn't, you can instantly cut to a quick replay of the pitch from the standard CF view, so every pitch would still be broadcast. If it is put in play, they wouldn't have to necessarily cut to another camera, and we would see everything happen fluidly. Then run the replay from the CF camera.

 

You could also show the first pitch from the third base side and elevated when a runner is on first base only, so you see the pitcher, catcher and batter, and first baseman in the screen.

 

These alternate views are frequently used in replays, but I really don't see why they can't be mixed in as the live shots sometimes. Does anyone else like this idea, or am I nuts?

[rluzinski]

Most pitches aren't put into play, so that view, while very interesting, probably isn't showing what's most important. The location and movement of a pitch is So important that the view behind the pitcher almost has to be the default. I have two suggestions, however. First, I wish the Brewers would go to the Target Field view of being directly behind and above the pitcher, Second, with widescreen the standard now, there is plenty of unused area to the left and right of the pitcher/batter during pitches. The Foxtrack thingy makes excellent use of some of the right side of that dead space. I would suggest using the left side to show an alternate viewing angle. It could either be the angle you are advocating or if that view would be too small, perhaps just half the infield (alternate it depending on batter handedness). Not sure how that would work when quickly changing views when a ball is hit into play but it would be interesting.

[kestrel79]

I really like the Target Field, Busch Stadium (very classy) behind the plate view where it's directly behind and a little higher up. You can really see how much movement MLB level pitchers have on their pitches. From the normal Brewers broadcast view sure you can see curves and sliders break but you really don't see how much movement fastballs have from that angle.

[sbrylski]

Most pitches aren't put into play, so that view, while very interesting, probably isn't showing what's most important. The location and movement of a pitch is So important that the view behind the pitcher almost has to be the default.

 

I agree that it is clearly the most important, which is why I suggested replaying the pitch from the CF camera right after, you don't miss out on it. But there's more to the game than the pitcher/batter battle, and I'd like to break that monopoly they have on camera time. And I also think seeing the hit and ensuing action from a continuous camera angle rather than cutting it up is more exciting.

 

I would suggest using the left side to show an alternate viewing angle. It could either be the angle you are advocating or if that view would be too small, perhaps just half the infield (alternate it depending on batter handedness). Not sure how that would work when quickly changing views when a ball is hit into play but it would be interesting.

 

I think that might be too cluttered for the average viewer. It's not mission control. While I see the benefit, I think that would be more a niche market who actually prefers that.

 

I wish the Brewers would go to the Target Field view of being directly behind and above the pitcher...

 

Absolutely. The ideal camera angle would draw a line between the point of the pitcher's release and the center of the strikezone, IMO. Some camera's come pretty close. NotGraphs had an article ranking the center field cameras a few weeks ago, but I can't find it.

 

The Brewers camera angle is way too offset. It's not terrible for right-handed pitchers, but you really notice it when a lefty is on the mound.

[RightFieldCoder]

They would have to do some renovations to get the camera in a better position. The batter's eye (and scoreboard supports) would need some remodeling to make that happen.

[jeffy]

I really like the Target Field, Busch Stadium (very classy) behind the plate view where it's directly behind and a little higher up.

 

I think those shots are at too high an angle, don't like them.

 

With the broadcast in wide screen format, why can't they shift the CF view a bit to the left and get 1st base in the picture, when there is a runner on?

 

I agree with the top 3 here, which are all the lower angle view but as close to straight on as possible without having the pitcher get in the way of the pitch.

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/...nter-field-camera-shots/

 

http://www.fangraphs.com/not/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/ATL.png

[rluzinski]

I think those shots are at too high an angle, don't like them.

 

After seeing those Fangrapgh screen grabs, it's hard to argue against their top 3 picks. Much closer to the action and still almost a straight view.

[DHonks]

I hate high CF angles. In fact when ESPN began using the CF straight-on cam a few years ago, my friends and I overwhelmingly hated it, as it went against how our eyes had been calibrated for years.

[joepepsi]

Looking at the fangraphs screen shots, I hate the Twins angle. It's like you're in a cheap bleacher seat high up and far away in CF.

[sbrylski]

I helped Carson pick those out. http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/smile.gif Camera angles have been on my mind since.

[Oldcity]

I will say that an easy first step to this would be to stop showing people in the freaking crowd during every at bat. Fox is the worst at this during the playoffs with their ultra close-ups of nervous fans, but FS Wisconsin does it too. Show me more of the positioning in between pitches instead of the fans.

[Funketown]

I'm not a huge fan of the high center field angle either, but I agree with most of the top and bottom on that list. Also, it's hard to argue when Rickie Weeks is in the batters box in three of those.

[JohnBriggs12]

I hate the fact that when a ball is hit down either line, the camera doesn't pick it up until its rolling in the OF. I don't see the need to show every single pitch in a game from the CF camera.

 

Stevo's right too about closeups of fans. Who needs to see that? My biggest pet peeve during Brewer broadcasts though is when they give the "tavern of the game" and like clockwork they find some fan with a beer in his hand, implying somehow that having a beer at a game has a connection with a tavern. People who never step into taverns have a beer now and then too. The other day in SF apparently they couldn't find anyone drinking a Miller product, so they found a woman that apparently reminded the producer of a woman he met at a tavern. So she was shown as they gave the tavern of the game out.

[joepepsi]

I will say that an easy first step to this would be to stop showing people in the freaking crowd during every at bat. Fox is the worst at this during the playoffs with their ultra close-ups of nervous fans, but FS Wisconsin does it too.

I've always thought this is because secretly FOX thinks baseball is boring, so they look for interest and drama by showing the fans.

[pebadger]

Fans at sites like these are a extraordinarly small sample of the baseball viewng public. It's the production for the general viewer that matters. People like what they are used to in terms of how the game is presented to them. Simply moving the camera a few feet in the outfield has prven to be off-putting to some, as evidenced by comments in this thread. And while the crowd/non-game action shots have become formulaic, the number of people that prefer them to be in the broadcast, as opposed to those who want to see Rickie Weeks move two feet to his right between pitches, is overwhelmingly large.

 

I think it would be really great for most to watch a Packer game through a Mike McCarthy-cam, with severely limited on-screen graphics, so as to gain an understanding of how different football looks from the sideline (where the big decisions need to be made) than it does from a high angle with a first down and tons of other instant info on the screen. FOX's phones would overload before the end of the second possession of the game.

 

Some folks think the time is coming where you might have the ability to "be your own producer" and have multiple camera angles avialable right through your own viewing device. Some also thing this is a good idea. For some it will be, but most viewers have neither the time nor inclination to be bothered with that stuff.

[The Truth]

All I know is that I cannot stand the strike zone graphic on ESPN broadcasts

[bacon06]

I will say that an easy first step to this would be to stop showing people in the freaking crowd during every at bat. Fox is the worst at this during the playoffs with their ultra close-ups of nervous fans, but FS Wisconsin does it too. Show me more of the positioning in between pitches instead of the fans.

Could not agree more. Why am I looking at pictures of people I don't know? Is this an attempt to show that, yes, people really are in the stadium? The most important part of a sporting broadcast is the action on the field. The constant switching to people in the crowd breaks the viewer's train of concentration on the game. Obviously with baseball there is a lot of down time between pitches, but why can't the camera always stay focused on a player on the field? Or the dugout? Flash a graphic with some stats or something because tunes in to see fans in the crowd. If I wanted to see the people there, I would go to the game myself.

[jeffy]

So here's what I suggest. For just the first pitch of every at-bat, the camera angle shown is from behind the batter, slightly elevated and zoomed out. You could still get a decent look at the pitch, at least whether it was inside or outside, but we can also see the defensive positioning (which will presumably will stay the same for the entire at-bat) and the leads of the runners on base.

 

Actually, they could even show that view, then cut to the normal CF view as the pitch is delivered. Better directing could avoid missing so much, they have a lot of cameras and could show runners leading off and fielders positioning (particularly when there is a significant shift) by just cutting from one camera to another. I don't know if the Brewers director is lazy, bad, or just typical, but it does seem like he makes very little effort to show anything other than pitcher, batter, catcher until after the ball is hit. I don't pay enough attention to know if the Brewers broadcasts are unusually static, meaning not often cutting from one camera to another to show everything that is going on on the field (instead of cutting to show crowd shots).

[pebadger]

I'm pretty sure the rule of thumb is to avoid camera shifts during the action except as needed to basically follow the ball. When you shift the viewpoint it takes viewers time to reorient their minds to what is going on; it may not be at all clear to the view why the focus has been shifted. Then, it takes time to shift your mind again once you shift back. The ball is the anchor for the broadcast. If things are going on in play on the periphery which end up having a big impact on what happens in a given sequence, the preference is to use replay (with explanation from the analyst) to provide that information after the fact.

 

I know people complain about crowd shots and the like, but those shots are very often what a general audience will remember about a given broadcast: "that idiot in the hat" or the camera guy fixating on a particular person, or some kid doing something that will end up going viral on youtube. Many still don't like the ancillary video, but I think they underestimate just how much time needs to be filled with some video. The general viewer wants that stuff a lot more than a text graphic explaining wOBA. And what about sound? Can you image a baseball broadcast without crowd noise (even feeble crowd noise)? The non-baseball stuff is probably much more vital to the "feel" of a broadcast than most realize. Like it or not, all that stuff that hardcore baseball people dislike about broadcasts is probably very necessary to keep baseball ratings from sinking even lower than they are. The broadcast is entertainment (broadly-defined). I don't think they will be changing their formula anytime soon.

 

One person noted upthread that if they wanted to see the crowd and stuff like that they'd just go to the games. I honestly think that's kind of backwards. Once at the game, you can largely ignore all that "fluff" and the crowd (with the exception of your immediate neighbors) and probably enjoy the game more as a hardcore fan than you can at home. You miss the immediacy of replay and some graphical information/breaking news that the broadcast might provide, but if you have a wireless device you can probably provide that for yourself.

[RightFieldCoder]

I believe it is a Fox philosophy that viewers will feel a more emotional bond with the game if they see the emotions of the crowd. If it was just field shots, the viewer would feel like he's watching a video game or other contrived form of entertainment. If the viewer sees lots of shots of the crowd, they feel more like they are there and are part of the crowd. I don't know how true it is, but that is their belief.

 

It does kind of make sense. When I'm at the game, I do spend time looking at the people around me. And I know there are plenty of people that are at the game that barely pay attention to it. Like the lady who got up five times to leave the section and only did so during an at bat last night. It would make sense that they would want the broadcast to do other non-baseball things (like scan the crowd) between pitches. Heck, Uecker will go off on a non-baseball tangent during some of the slower paced spots.