Please give us more long camera shots.We very seldom see a ball in FLIGHT to the outfield or over the fence.All we see is the player going back and the last 5feet of the ball.Iwant to see the ball from the bat to the glove.Ialso do not need to see line drives in the infield too late.The view from behind the pitcher is over done.With HD cameras show more of the whole field and use the up in the stands behind the catcher camera 75% of the time.It would show the ball more in action.This makes the viewer feel like they are really at the game. Thanks for your time.

This is one of those things that doesn't really work on tv. In real life you'd be able to see the ball in flight, the players reactions to it, etc. You can't capture all that at the same time.

This is one of those things that doesn't really work on tv. In real life you'd be able to see the ball in flight, the players reactions to it, etc. You can't capture all that at the same time.

Exactly. If you want to see all that, go to the game. The bonus you get from having to stay home is seeing things up closer than if you were there.

Besides, until SD broadcasts and TVs under 30" go away, showing those wide shots will make the ball impossible to see on many screens.

It would really only work if the pitch was shown from a high angle over either 1st or 3rd base. (ESPN showed alot of the Bonds HR replays from that angle.) While the HR or hit looks pretty good from that angle, the ball or strike pitch would be horrible. Also, cutting directly from the CF camera to the side angle would completely screw up the viewers' perspective on the location of the ball.

Baseball is the trickiest sport to direct because it is so situational. Every pitch, every play is a different combination of variables to try to navigate. You have to take everything into account: a right hander batter/left handed pitcher combo is one set of shots, add a man on first and that changes things a little, add a man on third and now you're navigating whether, when the ball is hit up the middle, to show the guy scoring from third, or the guy rounding second depending on what the score is, how many outs, who the runner is, who the fielder is, etc. And if the bases are loaded, but lets say ARod is on first and Jeter is on third, who gets more attention? When the ball is hit you're constantly changing gears reacting to what happens to be most important at the second; it's an on-the-fly chess match of trying to determine what tells the story for the viewer most effectively.

You get the point, you don't really have enough angles for every circumstance in baseball, so you do what you can to cover the action and still have it make sense to the viewer. It takes years to master this and the best directors have a sixth sense for the game and still you'll get burned by someone stealing a base unexpectedly, etc. Not to mention all the dead time between pitches.

This is one of those things that doesn't really work on tv. In real life you'd be able to see the ball in flight, the players reactions to it, etc. You can't capture all that at the same time.

Kram,

It used to work real well in the days of black&white tv. I for one don't want to see those extreme close-ups of the pitcher's face or someone's face chewing and spitting in the dugout.

I see where extreme long shots would not be popular, but there has to be a happy medium. In particular when you have a left-handed hitter such as Papi. I want to see where the defense is playing. Same when the infield is in with a runner on third. No excuse not to pan back and show the whole infield in both cases.

Let us pause a moment to rememeber the brilliant work of perhaps the best baseball director ever -- the late Harry Coyle of NBC.

He didn't miss much -- and that in an era nowhere near as technologically advanced as today.

I have to take a little issue with what ABCTV99 says about baseball coverage. It is really not that complicated. There really aren't that many situations you can't be prepared for during the course of a game. Typically, a director will rely on two cameras for live coverage of action. For the pitch, the pitcher batter shot from centerfield will be live. If the ball is put in play, director will switch to the coverage shot from high behind home plate 99% of the time. The rest of the cameras, anywhere from 3 to five other cameras on a typical local broadcast, will have assignments based on the situation at the beginning of the play, whether it be to follow runners on base, follow the flight of the ball, or get reaction shots of the crowd or dugouts.

Between pitches, except for the centerfield pitcher-batter shot and, to a lesser extent, the high home coverage shot, the cameras are either scanning the stand for atmosphere shots, looking into the dugouts, covering for a possible pickoff throw if a runner is on base, getting the side swing batter shot, or listening to the announcers and giving the director a shot relevant to what the announcers are talking about. These camera operators are incredibly good at their jobs, and when the pitch is thrown, they immediately switch to their assigned shot depending on the game situation. The majority of these guys can be on a tight shot in the stands and at the crack of the bat, pan down the the field, pick up their runner or the ball, or their fielder, be in focus, compose their shot and follow the action, sometimes in a tight shot of the ball in flight, all in an instant. They really are that good. The best ones know the game well enough that they know where to go on a moments notice.

Now, to the OP's point, originally, the job of coverage after the ball was put in play was taken by a camera high behind first base. This is now probably the best shot for the kind of coverage you are looking for, if the game is being shown in high def. But the convention is to use the high home shot, and until the majority of games are shot with the expectation the the majority of viewers are watching ion a widescreen display, I don't expect you'll see that change. Often you will see such a shot on replays, but unfortunately, in my opinion, there is too much fascination among directors with tight shots of action. While these shoots are also useful, you really do miss a lot of the sublties of the game, and that is part of why fans ore so obsessed with the log ball, while many players don't know how to execute bunts, how to move a runner along, how to play different hitters according to how he is being pitched, and so on. Ironically, the focus on an individual aspect of a play obscures how that individual aspect contributes to the overall development of a play, and of the progress of a game.

Fran

I definitely agree that they need to significantly dial back on all the extreme closeups between pitches. Zoom out a little and let us see more of what's happening. I don't care about the batter grimacing or spitting into his hands, or the manager and coaches nervously chewing gum in the dugout. At least not to the extent that they want to show it.

+1

There is a lot you can get from a wide angle shot behind center field, home plate, or off to one side of the field. There's not a lot I can get from the close-ups. There is no excuse for giving us more screen real estate and moving to more close-ups. Its like the camera men/women want to show off their ability to get extreme close-ups with focus in HD. Don't need it, thank you very much.

Chris

I have to take a little issue with what ABCTV99 says about baseball coverage. It is really not that complicated.....If I remember correctly, Fran works for WGN, and is involved with their Cubs & White Sox broadcasts.

+1

There is a lot you can get from a wide angle shot behind center field, home plate, or off to one side of the field. There's not a lot I can get from the close-ups. There is no excuse for giving us more screen real estate and moving to more close-ups. Its like the camera men/women want to show off their ability to get extreme close-ups with focus in HD. Don't need it, thank you very much.

Chris

You've got that right! Last night watching a game, the runner at second was taking a big lead, but we didn't see it because the CF camera was showing the pitcher/catcher usual closeup. The runner gets picked-off and we have to see it on replay!

Same thing with a runner at first, taking a big lead and attempting to steal. All we see is the replay. I'd rather they go to wider lens and be able to see the pitcher/runner/batter in the same shot.

No wonder so many people complain about baseball on tv being boring. It's the same it used to be with F1 coverage. All they used to show us was the lead car on and on for umpteen laps. Recently, they have finally decided we need/want to see more cars fighting it out in back of the pack!

In the interest of full disclosure, while I have worked for WGN on their baseball telecasts, most of my work is for CSN-Chicago. I do audio for their broadcast of Cubs, Sox, and Bulls home games. I also do, among other shows, the majority of the visiting hockey feeds out of the United Center, where, as you may know, the Blackhawks rarely televise home games.

Fran

p.s.
As the OP alluded to, the director, and in many cases the producer on site or the Executive Producer of the originating rightsholder, is primarily responsible for the shot selection and the philosophy behind the types of shots being shown. Trust me, no director is going to let a camera operator dictate the types of shots shown on a broadcast.

It would be great to see HD bring a completely different perspective in sports programing. HD really does open up possibilities that were impractical with SD sports. On one of the holes at the Masters they had a camera set up on, or near, ground level behind the tee. You could see what the player faced and where the ball went after it was struck. You could see it slice, hook or go straight. With SD the ball would just disappear and you'd lose the full visual impact. An HD camera from behind home plate would give you the same effect.

While I can only guess, based on what Fran said broadcasters are still setting things up for SD viewers. Perhaps as time goes by we'll see longer shots that take advantage of the resolution of HD. That one hole at Augusta really opened my mind up to this subject. Here's hoping the broadcasters will change camera placement and image perspective once HD becomes the rule.

It would really only work if the pitch was shown from a high angle over either 1st or 3rd base. (ESPN showed alot of the Bonds HR replays from that angle.) While the HR or hit looks pretty good from that angle, the ball or strike pitch would be horrible. Also, cutting directly from the CF camera to the side angle would completely screw up the viewers' perspective on the location of the ball.
The reason you saw that angle on the Bond HR is that FSN Bay Area has a camera in the 3rd deck down the right field which they dub the "Splash Cam", obviously to show ball going into McCovey Cove. They typically don't show the live game from that angle. Usually they just use it to show replays. It's a great angle for that use.

It's good to have these kinds of discourses on a forum like this. Enlightens everyone to different perspectives and brings together the resources of this forum. If only we could get past banal 720p vs 1080i debates.

Thanks for all the info.It just seems to me with the center field camera shot of the pitch ,we miss a lot of the ball travel either a line drive or flyball.The other cameras are late picking up the ball.

I definitely agree that they need to significantly dial back on all the extreme closeups between pitches. Zoom out a little and let us see more of what's happening. I don't care about the batter grimacing or spitting into his hands, or the manager and coaches nervously chewing gum in the dugout. At least not to the extent that they want to show it.


Don't even get me started on FOX MLB broadcasts. FOX is the absolute worst about doing this exact thing. THE worst coverage of any sport by any major broadcaster.

I don't have a problem with the way live action is shot on most of the broadcasts, my issue is the way they handle the between pitch stuff. I don't need to see so many shots of people in the stands. I could care less who is in the stands and what they are eating. Show me the defensive alignment, the baserunners, the coach giving the sign, replays of the hitters last st-bat, pitch by pitch sequence from the previous at-bat, the line-up card in the dugout so we can see who is left on the bench, the out of town scoreboard, a shot of the scoreboard that shows the pitch count, a graphic with useful statistics -- anything but another useless crowd shot.

When I watch a Chicago Cubs home broadcast, I almost get dizzy watching the screen go from crowd shot, to crowd shot, to crowd shot, to crowd shot and finally to the center field shot right before the pitch is thrown. Then before the catcher can even throw the ball back to the pitcher it is back to another rapid fire series of crowd shots. I will agree with Fran that the cameramen are fantastic and follow the action extremely well. I just wish the director chose to do more to enhance the viewing of the game between pitches instead of showing us the spectators (who are able to see what is taking place on the field while we are stuck looking at them.)

Please give us more long camera shots.We very seldom see a ball in FLIGHT to the outfield or over the fence.All we see is the player going back and the last 5feet of the ball.Iwant to see the ball from the bat to the glove.Ialso do not need to see line drives in the infield too late.The view from behind the pitcher is over done.With HD cameras show more of the whole field and use the up in the stands behind the catcher camera 75% of the time.It would show the ball more in action.This makes the viewer feel like they are really at the game. Thanks for your time.

I don't know if longer shots or different angles would do it, but I wish that MLB broadcasts could give a truer depiction of the speed and movement of the pitched ball. As it is, the ball looks way too easy to hit. The hitters look ridiculous missing as bad they do on several pitches. I look at the screen and say to myself I could hit that better than you, what is your problem? Obviously the video doesn't due the difficulty justice. Any ideas or just inherently impossible to accomplish?

P.S. Ironically, what does look hard to hit in HD is women's softball. Now that looks diffuclt. Maybe because the distance from pitcher to batter is shorter?

I don't know if longer shots or different angles would do it, but I wish that MLB broadcasts could give a truer depiction of the speed and movement of the pitched ball. As it is, the ball looks way too easy to hit. The hitters look ridiculous missing as bad they do on several pitches. I look at the screen and say to myself I could hit that better than you, what is your problem? Obviously the video doesn't due the difficulty justice. Any ideas or just inherently impossible to accomplish?

P.S. Ironically, what does look hard to hit in HD is women's softball. Now that looks diffuclt. Maybe because the distance from pitcher to batter is shorter?

At Safeco Field in Seattle right below the left field scoreboard is a little place called the Bullpen Pub that has holes in the wall to watch warmups from what is essentially inches to the view the catcher and plate umpire see. Sadly, the way parks are setup I don't think you could ever get a camera placement like that.

BTW - Saw Randy Johnson warmup from there one time... dude looks about 15ft. tall on the mound and more wicked stuff flyin' at ya that seemed to defy physics. Good Times.

Please give us more long camera shots.We very seldom see a ball in FLIGHT to the outfield or over the fence.

Heck, I wish MLB would fix their assinine blackout rules already so that I can actually watch some games, never mind the ball in flight.

Now, to the OP's point, originally, the job of coverage after the ball was put in play was taken by a camera high behind first base. This is now probably the best shot for the kind of coverage you are looking for, if the game is being shown in high def. But the convention is to use the high home shot, and until the majority of games are shot with the expectation the the majority of viewers are watching ion a widescreen display, I don't expect you'll see that change. Often you will see such a shot on replays, but unfortunately, in my opinion, there is too much fascination among directors with tight shots of action. While these shoots are also useful, you really do miss a lot of the sublties of the game, and that is part of why fans ore so obsessed with the log ball, while many players don't know how to execute bunts, how to move a runner along, how to play different hitters according to how he is being pitched, and so on. Ironically, the focus on an individual aspect of a play obscures how that individual aspect contributes to the overall development of a play, and of the progress of a game.

Fran

Fran,

First, thanks for your insights. I really appreciate them!

Up until a few weeks ago, I was a volunteer video director for a church in the northwest suburbs, which had 9 cameras. My producer told me the format of the service; lyrics had to go in the bottom and centered left part of the screen. And I was also a camera person for a decade there, and they still ask me in to do camera for special events. I've done Christian rock concerts, dramas, direct a satellite feed from Germany (that was a blast!). I was either a director or camera op, and from 10 years of doing that, I can give you this insight...

I learned through my own investigation that I had to be accomodating for a lot of people...making them "happy", I guess, is one way of putting it. Many people would watch on our 30' tall sidescreens. Getting a head to shoulders shot for very long on those things made it look like the pastor or worship leader wasn't praising God; it looked like he was out to kill you. :D But then we also had disabled people in back watching on 13" wide screens. We also have people who can buy a DVD copy of the sermon and play it on their HDTV's and their 13" black and white(!) sets. And then we have lots of people watching on a 3" or 6" screen via RealPlayer(tm) or Windows Media Player(tm) from home via the Internet...and that might be our largest audience in the near future! And I had to make all of them "happy", within the context of what my producer told me to get. I have creative latitude to do the job, but within the guidelines and hard rules of the service format, and knowing how my audience would watch it. And, since we also send this to remote sites, we have a second feed which shows wider shots. On this feed, it gives the satellite campuses "breathing room" to see more of the sanctuary/stage area. If you think directing one feed is tough... :o

From all this experience as a director and camera op, I can tell you that if a baseball broadcast was tailored more for any specific taste, many others would be seasick, be unable to see the action, or see their favorite player up close on a 3" screen. This goes for any sport...in fact, anything put on video. It's the best compromise...and that's not to say we can't deliver more of what you want, but we always have to consider our total audience. At a conference I worked at last year, I had a Canon "Extreme Sports" lens, 101x magnification with a 2x "extender", or 202x total zoom-in possible over the widest shot I could get. I literally could see the nose hairs of the speaker from the back of the auditorium! However, when I was live, a non-2x shot of head-waist was chosen, since the speaker was walking fast and I didn't want to make anyone seasick as he paced back and forth.

With the arrival of the IPhone(tm) and likely spinoffs and other technological advances, more and more people will be watching game highlights (and games) on 3" screens! The producer and director of any event in the future, from a church service to the Olympics, will have an even more challenging role in the years to come as the diversity of viewing habits and screen sizes change. That's why we don't use some shots regularly that would look great in HD.

But I do wish I could be a substitute cam op for a Cubs or Sox game. I'd love that challenge! Even if it goes to someone's 3" screen... :D

....The view from behind the pitcher is over done....

I'll second that motion. My dad used to say that watching baseball on TV was just watching two guys play catch... boring.

My idea is to use a full screen shot from either behind home plate or the first or third base dugout, depending on the baserunning/defensive shift, and then inset the standard pitcher/catcher image into that screen (but make it a very tight closeup and very tightly cropped so that it obscures as little of the field as is practical. [edit: I forgot to mention that when there is contact with the ball the inset should be dropped.]

This would not get all the ball flight shots you wanted, although it would get some of them. But at least we would be able to see the vast majority of the base running and defensive moves.

I'll second that motion. My dad used to say that watching baseball on TV was just watching two guys play catch... boring.

My idea is to use a full screen shot from either behind home plate or the first or third base dugout, depending on the baserunning/defensive shift, and then inset the standard pitcher/catcher image into that screen (but make it a very tight closeup and very tightly cropped so that it obscures as little of the field as is practical. [edit: I forgot to mention that when there is contact with the ball the inset should be dropped.]

This would not get all the ball flight shots you wanted, although it would get some of them. But at least we would be able to see the vast majority of the base running and defensive moves.

How are you going to replace the revenue for hawking products on the green screen behind home plate?:rolleyes:

How are you going to replace the revenue for hawking products on the green screen behind home plate?:rolleyes:

Well I have to admit you've got me on that point. :(

I guess they could use those animated pop-ups that cover the bottom third of the screen that they seem so fond of lately. :mad:

I just wish Fox would show the game instead of the fans reaction every 3 seconds. I hate missing part of the game to watch some kid eat a hotdog :(