Feedback on Live-Streaming

Feedback on Live-Streaming

Post by MrPi.. » Thu, 06 Nov 2008 01:23:52



Quote:
> maybe such a job should be bidded out to other vidiotographers as
> well. ?There have got to be people in the area that could do the same
> job but ma=ybe at a cheaper cost. ?You know, since there are no
> traveling expenses with local subcontractors.

It would be nice if there were more video crews out there, but you
probably don't want a crew's first gig to be the championship game, do
you?  Even if you're great at your job, there's going to be a bit of
learning curve in applying your general skills to a sport you've never
covered before, no?

     ~p

 
 
 

Feedback on Live-Streaming

Post by eaton.christop.. » Thu, 06 Nov 2008 01:26:20

We loved the live broadcast and would pay
more to see it with instant replay and better resolution.

 
 
 

Feedback on Live-Streaming

Post by joadnt.. » Thu, 06 Nov 2008 02:06:04


Quote:

> False dichotomy, it's possible to support two things at once.

duh
---------------------

 ?Quit

Quote:
> baiting, it's unbecoming.

that would be like me telling you to quit being a ***.
-----------------------------------------------------

Quote:

> Honestly, and I say this as a long-time PTI fan,

uhmm, i wonder how much of a pti fan you would be if they ever
critiqued the sport of ultimate.  now THEY (espesially tone) would rip
ultimate apart.
-----------------------------------------------------------

 I'd rather listen to

Quote:
> any of the three comnentator groups I heard on Sunday, than another
> game called by Tony Kornheiser. ?Gah.

so as a long time fan of someone, you dont like that person??????
----------------------------------------------------

 ?The amateurishness of the UV

Quote:
> commentary wasn't all bad

so basically you are saying you PREFER amaturishness
-------------------------------------------------------

 - it actually sounded like real people,

Quote:
> rather than the inane bullshit that the pro commentators are
> unfortunately so practiced at producing.

your all backwards dude!
------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

> Now, if we can find a Madden or even an Al Michaels in our midst,
> well, then that would be something.

but arent they part of the same group of pro commentators you are
dumping on?
-----------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

> > > Thanks to Rob for doing such a fantastic job; I'm really proud that
> > > our partnership with UltiVillage on this endeavour was so successful.

so sucessful?  how do you figure it was "so succesful"?  how many
viewers were there?  is there a way to figure that out?  sucessful
would have been if i didnt have to pay for it
-------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

> > why are we thanking rob for this so much. ?Didnt he get paid for his
> > service?

> Thanking folks for services even when you're paying for them?

thanking them is one thing but you guys are practically suckin his
***.  I provide service for my renters and clients i build for but
they dont overly thank me the way that you guys are showering rob with
"tanks and prasies".
------------------------------------------------------------

 ?It's a

Quote:
> grown up thing,

kinda like having refs in sports........and its ME that wouldnt
understand???

 
 
 

Feedback on Live-Streaming

Post by joadnt.. » Thu, 06 Nov 2008 02:07:05


Quote:
> We loved the live broadcast and would pay
> more to see it with instant replay and better resolution.

dont speak for everyone!
 
 
 

Feedback on Live-Streaming

Post by joadnt.. » Thu, 06 Nov 2008 02:12:28


Quote:

> > maybe such a job should be bidded out to other vidiotographers as
> > well. ?There have got to be people in the area that could do the same
> > job but ma=ybe at a cheaper cost. ?You know, since there are no
> > traveling expenses with local subcontractors.

> It would be nice if there were more video crews out there, but you
> probably don't want a crew's first gig to be the championship game, do
> you?

c'mon punto. you disapoint me sometimes.  First off, dont you have
more faith in your administrators that to think they would hire a
rookie to set up ONE STATIONARY CAMERA. and second whats so dificult
about setting up ONE STATIONARY CAMERA?????
----------------------------------------------------------------------

 ?Even if you're great at your job, there's going to be a bit of

Quote:
> learning curve in applying your general skills to a sport you've never
> covered before, no?

seriously???? i'd say of observing, comentating and zooming in and out
on a stationary camera.......filming would be the easiest of all three
services.
 
 
 

Feedback on Live-Streaming

Post by MrPi.. » Thu, 06 Nov 2008 04:06:36


Quote:
> that would be like me telling you to quit being a ***.

Sticks and stones, Toadie.

Quote:
> uhmm, i wonder how much of a pti fan you would be if they ever
> critiqued the sport of ultimate. ?now THEY (espesially tone) would rip
> ultimate apart.

Sticks and stones, dude.  There are a lot of thin-skinned folks around
here with an inferiority complex about ultimate and the way others
view them, but I'm not one of them.  Tony rips anything he doesn't
know, and he doesn't know much.  It works well with Wilbon, but less
well when he's covering football.  All he can do is bring up the
"stars" and his over-simplified "story lines" all the time while Jaws
is fighting like hell to say something informed and intelligent about
what's actually happening on the screen.

Quote:
> -----------------------------------------------------------

> ?I'd rather listen to

> > any of the three comnentator groups I heard on Sunday, than another
> > game called by Tony Kornheiser. ?Gah.

> so as a long time fan of someone, you dont like that person??????

As noted above, his discussion show is humorous, it's long been one of
my favorite ways of getting sports news.  His methodology doesn't
translate at all to live commentary.  He just doesn't know enough
football to be useful, and he doesn't have more than 20 minutes of
good material in him, but football games are 4 hours.  I can take or
leave his radio show.

Quote:
> ??The amateurishness of the UV

> > commentary wasn't all bad

> so basically you are saying you PREFER amaturishness

Not universally, but in this particular comparison, yes, I prefer the
amateur presentation to Tony's.  Careful with that axe there Eugene,
you might over-generalize your way into trouble.

Quote:
> > Now, if we can find a Madden or even an Al Michaels in our midst,
> > well, then that would be something.

> but arent they part of the same group of pro commentators you are
> dumping on?

Madden's a loon, but he's amusing.  Michaels is uncommonly lucid.  The
rule is inane banter for four hours, Al and John were the exception
for a few years.  I actually looked forward to their Monday night
call.  I don't think that Fox employs a decent commentator, and CBS is
hit or miss.  Jaws is pretty cool.  I guess what I'm saying is that
there are a few exceptions, but the general rule is that you've got
folks trying to fill four hours of air time (a pretty tough job), and
most of them sound pretty dumb trying.

Quote:
> > > > Thanks to Rob for doing such a fantastic job; I'm really proud that
> > > > our partnership with UltiVillage on this endeavour was so successful.

> so sucessful? ?how do you figure it was "so succesful"? ?how many
> viewers were there? ?is there a way to figure that out? ?sucessful
> would have been if i didnt have to pay for it

There were enough viewers that they had to mirror the site.  That's a
good initial indicator of popularity.  Hits per match would be nice to
know, certainly, but there was clearly demand.
As for your share, I know that we've asked for the cost and haven't
gotten it yet, but let's go ahead and speculate.  You're a lifetime
member, right?  Since when?  If you signed up for the lifetime when
you were thirty and live to seventy (I can never remember, do angry
folks live longer or shorter on average?  Shorter, I think), that's
forty years.  Divide your dues by 40, divide again by number of
current members, multiply that by the overall cost....  Some known
unknowns in there, but what's the over-under on your contribution
here?  half a cent?

Quote:
> ??It's a

> > grown up thing,

> kinda like having refs in sports........and its ME that wouldnt
> understand???

There are a LOT of grown up things that you don't understand.

     ~p

 
 
 

Feedback on Live-Streaming

Post by MrPi.. » Thu, 06 Nov 2008 04:09:36


Quote:


> > > maybe such a job should be bidded out to other vidiotographers as
> > > well. ?There have got to be people in the area that could do the same
> > > job but ma=ybe at a cheaper cost. ?You know, since there are no
> > > traveling expenses with local subcontractors.

> > It would be nice if there were more video crews out there, but you
> > probably don't want a crew's first gig to be the championship game, do
> > you?

> c'mon punto. you disapoint me sometimes. ?First off, dont you have
> more faith in your administrators that to think they would hire a
> rookie to set up ONE STATIONARY CAMERA. and second whats so dificult
> about setting up ONE STATIONARY CAMERA?????

I don't think anyone's ever done a live feed of an ultimate game
besides Rob, so anyone they hired would be doing their first live
ultimate game.
You do understand that there's more to it than rolling the camera into
place and turning it on, right?  Let me know if I'm going to fast
here, but there has to be someone operating the camera, no?  The guys
who do that in the NFL make bank (and their cameras cost thousands).

Whether the camera is moving up and down the sideline isn't relevant,
what is is tracking, zoom, focus, shot selection, etc.  That's what
you're paying for.  The equipment and the know-how to use it.

Quote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> ??Even if you're great at your job, there's going to be a bit of

> > learning curve in applying your general skills to a sport you've never
> > covered before, no?

> seriously???? i'd say of observing, comentating and zooming in and out
> on a stationary camera.......filming would be the easiest of all three
> services.

Obviously, you're not a golfer.  Or a video tech...

     ~p

 
 
 

Feedback on Live-Streaming

Post by joadnt.. » Thu, 06 Nov 2008 04:56:37


Quote:

> Sticks and stones, Toadie.

if it didnt hurt then whyd ya bring it up
---------------------------------------------------

Quote:

> Sticks and stones, dude. ?There are a lot of thin-skinned folks around
> here with an inferiority complex about ultimate and the way others
> view them, but I'm not one of them.

so you are like "out of the closet" so to speak???.....thats probably
because you play coed
--------------------------------------------------------

 ?Tony rips anything he doesn't

Quote:
> know, and he doesn't know much.

yea, people get jobs on major networks cause they suck and dont know
much about what they are doing.  right
-----------------------------------------------------

 ?It works well with Wilbon, but less

Quote:
> well when he's covering football.

ehhh, thats simply a matter of preference.  I happen to like him on
both.  but that just may be because WE BOTH KNOW he would rip ultimate
apart.....and for the same reasons i do.
-------------------------------------------------

 ?All he can do is bring up the

Quote:
> "stars" and his over-simplified "story lines" all the time while Jaws
> is fighting like hell to say something informed and intelligent about
> what's actually happening on the screen.

hey, they make wierd choices for mnf.  i happen to like phil sims on
color.  anyof em work for me on play by play with the exception of joe
buck.
------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
> folks trying to fill four hours of air time (a pretty tough job), and
> most of them sound pretty dumb trying.

and they guys that did nationals were no exception.  how can you sound
more dumb than being corrected time after time on a players name and
still managing to *** it up?  not to mention the use of the word
"chilly"?  c'mon.....chilly????  do people really use that word?
-----------------------------------------------------

Quote:
> > so sucessful? ?how do you figure it was "so succesful"? ?how many
> > viewers were there? ?is there a way to figure that out? ?sucessful
> > would have been if i didnt have to pay for it

> There were enough viewers that they had to mirror the site.

which is how many?
-------------------------------------------------

 ?That's a

Quote:
> good initial indicator of popularity.

how good?
-------------------------------------------------------

 ?Hits per match would be nice to

Quote:
> know, certainly, but there was clearly demand.

define clearly?  actual numbers is "clearly".  do you(or anybody) have
actual numbers???
--------------------------------------------------

Quote:
> As for your share, I know that we've asked for the cost and haven't
> gotten it yet, but let's go ahead and speculate. ?You're a lifetime
> member, right? ?Since when? ?If you signed up for the lifetime when
> you were thirty and live to seventy (I can never remember, do angry
> folks live longer or shorter on average? ?Shorter, I think), that's
> forty years. ?Divide your dues by 40, divide again by number of
> current members, multiply that by the overall cost.... ?Some known
> unknowns in there, but what's the over-under on your contribution
> here? ?half a cent?

so, if its my half cent then i should have a say in where i want that
half cent to go.  I'd imagin there are thowsands of people that thru
in their half cent and didnt even watch it.  so it aint fair to them
either.
-----------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

> There are a LOT of grown up things that you don't understand.

are you saying that ultimate is one of em?
 
 
 

Feedback on Live-Streaming

Post by scoreforgonz » Thu, 06 Nov 2008 05:09:15


Quote:



> > > > maybe such a job should be bidded out to other vidiotographers as
> > > > well. ?There have got to be people in the area that could do the same
> > > > job but ma=ybe at a cheaper cost. ?You know, since there are no
> > > > traveling expenses with local subcontractors.

> > > It would be nice if there were more video crews out there, but you
> > > probably don't want a crew's first gig to be the championship game, do
> > > you?

> > c'mon punto. you disapoint me sometimes. ?First off, dont you have
> > more faith in your administrators that to think they would hire a
> > rookie to set up ONE STATIONARY CAMERA. and second whats so dificult
> > about setting up ONE STATIONARY CAMERA?????

> I don't think anyone's ever done a live feed of an ultimate game
> besides Rob, so anyone they hired would be doing their first live
> ultimate game.
> You do understand that there's more to it than rolling the camera into
> place and turning it on, right? ?Let me know if I'm going to fast
> here, but there has to be someone operating the camera, no? ?The guys
> who do that in the NFL make bank (and their cameras cost thousands).

> Whether the camera is moving up and down the sideline isn't relevant,
> what is is tracking, zoom, focus, shot selection, etc. ?That's what
> you're paying for. ?The equipment and the know-how to use it.

> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------

> > ??Even if you're great at your job, there's going to be a bit of

> > > learning curve in applying your general skills to a sport you've never
> > > covered before, no?

> > seriously???? i'd say of observing, comentating and zooming in and out
> > on a stationary camera.......filming would be the easiest of all three
> > services.

> Obviously, you're not a golfer. ?Or a video tech...

> ? ? ?~p

Overall I definitely enjoyed the webcast.  And I will echo that the
feed was great during the time I was watching (open and mixed) and was
actually pleasantly surprised by the resolution. This opinion isn't
really informed since we still haven't heard a cost (or even a ball
park) but I kind of like the idea of seeing it for free if you're a
UPA member and paying a small fee if you're not.  Making it pay-per-
view might be risky and/or difficult since it would probably be pretty
difficult to get an accurate idea of how many people will order it by
the time you're writing the check to ultivillage.

Also I didn't mind the commentary... as people have already said, it
sounded like real people, and was kind of a nice break from the cookie
cutter BS you get from pro's... that said, I would certainly welcome
improvement/more professionalism from the commentators.  Not a huge
deal to me tho.

My number 1 priority: being able to watch live again next year one way
or another (be it the same or ppv or other).  And maybe other
tournaments before then??  Or more than just the finals next year?  I
don't want to be greedy, but I'll watch whatever I can if I'm not
there playing!

~score

 
 
 

Feedback on Live-Streaming

Post by joadnt.. » Thu, 06 Nov 2008 05:19:15


Quote:

> I don't think anyone's ever done a live feed of an ultimate game
> besides Rob, so anyone they hired would be doing their first live
> ultimate game.

so you dont think some other professional that has shot other events
or sports (FROM A STATIONARY CAMERA) could handle doing what the
camera operater did during nationals?
-----------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
> You do understand that there's more to it than rolling the camera into
> place and turning it on, right?

like what? and after its set up what is there "to it"?
---------------------------------------------------------------

 ?Let me know if I'm going to fast

Quote:
> here, but there has to be someone operating the camera, no?

are you saying thats a hard task that 9 out of 10 people that were at
nationals couldnt perform.  You are aware that most everybody owns
their own video cameras these days?
------------------------------------------------------------------

 ?The guys

Quote:
> who do that in the NFL make bank (and their cameras cost thousands).

are you saying that rob could have been doing an nfl game with the
equiptment he has?
-------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

> Whether the camera is moving up and down the sideline isn't relevant,
> what is is tracking, zoom, focus, shot selection, etc. ?That's what
> you're paying for. ?The equipment and the know-how to use it.

please.....your payin for the product you see on the screen (at least
with the nfl)  camera men are a dime a dozen. a good buddy of mine
shoots all kinds of sports (football, golf, winter x) and hes says
there aint really all that much to learning how to use the
cameras.....especially the stationary ones.  Its a skill, but i bet i
could learn how to work a camera faster than he could learn how to
build a house.....or even just run a little interior trim (and i know
plenty of, what you would call, dumbass red necks that are
unbelievable carpenters)
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

> > ??Even if you're great at your job, there's going to be a bit of

> > > learning curve in applying your general skills to a sport you've never
> > > covered before, no?

> > seriously???? i'd say of observing, comentating and zooming in and out
> > on a stationary camera.......filming would be the easiest of all three
> > services.

> Obviously, you're not a golfer.

i golf a little....ive also reffed ultimate, commentated
ultimate(while drunk) and actually done a little ultimate filming.  of
the three i'd say commentationg was the hardest. fimling was the
easiest but definitely the least fun.
---------------------------------------------------------------

 ?Or a video tech...

i havent been one of those.....have you?  if so, please explain to me
what is so hard about shooting an ultimate game with your standard
equiptment FROM A STATIONARY (ON A TRI POD) CAMERA.  and from an
endzone view no less.  a ***ing monkey could do that.  but then again
i've seen monkeys golf too.

 
 
 

Feedback on Live-Streaming

Post by MrPi.. » Thu, 06 Nov 2008 05:33:32


Quote:

> > Sticks and stones, dude. ?There are a lot of thin-skinned folks around
> > here with an inferiority complex about ultimate and the way others
> > view them, but I'm not one of them.

> so you are like "out of the closet" so to speak???.....thats probably
> because you play coed

What was all that shit about ***ity?  What the ***, has
anything got do with ***ity?  What the *** are you talking
about?
1) That's another Lebowski reference, you usually whiff on those, so
fair warning.
2) I don't now and never have played co-ed.  I mean pick-ups and hats
tourneys and such, but never on a team that went to the series or
anything.  My wife and I might do it sometime, but what has that to do
with anything?

Quote:
> ehhh, thats simply a matter of preference. ?I happen to like him on
> both. ?but that just may be because WE BOTH KNOW he would rip ultimate
> apart.....and for the same reasons i do.

What has your speculation about Tony's opinion to do with anything?

Quote:
> hey, they make wierd choices for mnf. ?i happen to like phil sims on
> color. ?anyof em work for me on play by play with the exception of joe
> buck.

Finally we agree on something.  Joe Buck sucks ass.

Quote:
> and they guys that did nationals were no exception. ?how can you sound
> more dumb than being corrected time after time on a players name and
> still managing to *** it up? ?not to mention the use of the word
> "chilly"? ?c'mon.....chilly???? ?do people really use that word?

The "Calvin" thing was pretty hysterical.  Any ultimate player would
know what "chilly" means.  If Madden can talk about "A-gaps," and
delayed draws, we can expect ultimate fans to know what chilly offense
means.

Quote:
> > There were enough viewers that they had to mirror the site.

> which is how many?

More than were expected.

Quote:
> ??That's a

> > good initial indicator of popularity.

> how good?

Quantitatively, poor.  Qualitatively, decent.  =)

Quote:
> define clearly? ?actual numbers is "clearly". ?do you(or anybody) have
> actual numbers???

I would imagine that UV would have numbers, but it's not 100% cut and
dry.  You've got to aggregate hits over the mirrors and control for
dupe IPs (folks re-entering the feed).  I'd imagine they could come to
a pretty accurate total though, I'd be interested in knowing what it
was.

This wasn't a paid thing or really a promoted thing (other than RSD
and the UPA site), so I don't know how important the ratings are
beyond our obvious curiosity.

Quote:
> so, if its my half cent then i should have a say in where i want that
> half cent to go. ?I'd imagin there are thowsands of people that thru
> in their half cent and didnt even watch it. ?so it aint fair to them
> either.

God help you if you ever get a whiff of the federal government's
budget.

     ~p

 
 
 

Feedback on Live-Streaming

Post by MrPi.. » Thu, 06 Nov 2008 05:42:28


Quote:

> so you dont think some other professional that has shot other events
> or sports (FROM A STATIONARY CAMERA) could handle doing what the
> camera operater did during nationals?

Any video tech with sports experience ought to do a decent job.
Still, you'd probably want them to do their first run on a game that
wasn't the UPA Open Final.  Wouldn't you think it'd help if the techs
had a sense for the flow of the sport, the rules, who was involved and
when?  You want to avoid situations where the camera is including too
much or not enough field, overshooting the play, focusing on something
unimportant, etc.  Shot selection isn't necessarily trivial.

Quote:
> > You do understand that there's more to it than rolling the camera into
> > place and turning it on, right?

> like what? and after its set up what is there "to it"?

Operating the damn thing.  Do you think you could do Matt Lane's job
by sitting yourself in a corner of the endzone with a cardboard
disposal that you bought at a 7-11 on the way to the gig?  That's
essentially what you're saying - toss a 640x480 *** up behind a
cone and call it a day.

Quote:
> are you saying thats a hard task that 9 out of 10 people that were at
> nationals couldnt perform. ?You are aware that most everybody owns
> their own video cameras these days?

Yes, I am saying that.  Sure anyone could get some amateur video, but
what we saw on Sunday was better than that.  Decent zoom on the plays,
few missed plays, missed focus situations, etc.

Quote:
> ??The guys

> > who do that in the NFL make bank (and their cameras cost thousands).

> are you saying that rob could have been doing an nfl game with the
> equiptment he has?

Where the *** do you come up with this stuff?  Perhaps you could
spend some more time reading for comprehension and less putting words
in my mouth?  The NFL guys have cameras that can come close to reading
the playcards on QB's arms from a few hundred meters away, in the rain
and in HD.  That's light years from what UV provided, but that doesn't
mean for a second that UV isn't light years ahead of a *** on a
poll or the Toadster rocking his Sony camcorder on the sidelines.

     ~p

 
 
 

Feedback on Live-Streaming

Post by joadnt.. » Thu, 06 Nov 2008 07:07:02


Quote:

> Any video tech with sports experience ought to do a decent job.
> Still, you'd probably want them to do their first run on a game that
> wasn't the UPA Open Final.

is that all you require?
--------------------------------------------------

 ?Wouldn't you think it'd help if the techs

Quote:
> had a sense for the flow of the sport, the rules, who was involved and
> when?

sure......which should take all of two minutes.  Punto c'mon, all it
is is throw, catch, run.......soccer with a disc........etc.  why do
you think its such a complex sport?
----------------------------------------------

 ?You want to avoid situations where the camera is including too

Quote:
> much or not enough field, overshooting the play, focusing on something
> unimportant, etc. ?Shot selection isn't necessarily trivial.

duh, duh, duh and duh
-----------------------------------------------------

Quote:

> > > You do understand that there's more to it than rolling the camera into
> > > place and turning it on, right?

> > like what? and after its set up what is there "to it"?

> Operating the damn thing.

1) turn on camera
2) point
3) zoom in and out as needed.
---------------------------------------------------------

 ?Do you think you could do Matt Lane's job

Quote:
> by sitting yourself in a corner of the endzone with a cardboard
> disposal that you bought at a 7-11 on the way to the gig?

i dont know who the *** matt ,ane is but i think i could do just as
good of a job as whoever shot what you watched on sunday.
----------------------------------------------------------

 ?That's

Quote:
> essentially what you're saying - toss a 640x480 *** up behind a
> cone and call it a day.

no....i included steps 1,2 and 3 as well
------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

> > are you saying thats a hard task that 9 out of 10 people that were at
> > nationals couldnt perform. ?You are aware that most everybody owns
> > their own video cameras these days?

> Yes, I am saying that.

why?  what is the big skill behind operating a video camea that im
missing.  point, shoot, zoom.......what is so hard about that.  Jerry
sienfelf seemed to pick it up pretty quick
--------------------------------------------------------------

 ?Sure anyone could get some amateur video, but

Quote:
> what we saw on Sunday was better than that.

how so???? ive seen tons of ultimate videos shot by amatures and i
couldnt tell any difference in the quality of the camera work
-------------------------------------------------------

 ?Decent zoom on the plays,

Quote:
> few missed plays, missed focus situations, etc.

but c'mon.....the camera was on a tripod and it was an enzone shot.
Zooming in when they are far away, zooming out when the are
close(pretty basic).  it would almost impossible to "miss a play" from
that angle......and corect me if im wrong but dont most cameas have
automatic focusing?
---------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

> > ??The guys

> > > who do that in the NFL make bank (and their cameras cost thousands).

> > are you saying that rob could have been doing an nfl game with the
> > equiptment he has?

> Where the *** do you come up with this stuff?

from you....you brought it up.
------------------------------------------------------

?Perhaps you could

Quote:
> spend some more time reading for comprehension and less putting words
> in my mouth?

and you wonder where the gay jokes come from.
------------------------------------------------------------

 ?The NFL guys have cameras that can come close to reading

Quote:
> the playcards on QB's arms from a few hundred meters away, in the rain
> and in HD. ?That's light years from what UV provided, but that doesn't
> mean for a second that UV isn't light years ahead of a *** on a
> poll or the Toadster rocking his Sony camcorder on the sidelines.

thats the thing though, i saw no difference in the local surf cam i
view and the video that was shot at nationals.  Now robs edited
versions migh be better but, lets face it, the live webcast looked no
different from any other generic ult vid i've ever seen
 
 
 

Feedback on Live-Streaming

Post by mkt » Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:42:13


[...]

Quote:
> > Whether the camera is moving up and down the sideline isn't relevant,
> > what is is tracking, zoom, focus, shot selection, etc. ?That's what
> > you're paying for. ?The equipment and the know-how to use it.

> please.....your payin for the product you see on the screen (at least
> with the nfl) ?camera men are a dime a dozen. a good buddy of mine
> shoots all kinds of sports (football, golf, winter x) and hes says
> there aint really all that much to learning how to use the
> cameras.....especially the stationary ones. ?Its a skill, but i bet i
> could learn how to work a camera faster than he could learn how to
> build a house.....or even just run a little interior trim (and i know

It's not rocket science but there's still a learning curve, which even
Toad is now admitting.  Moreover the cameramen need to know something
about the sport (and to be able to figure out the best tradeoff
between wider angles with less detail, vs. closer shots which cut off
some of the downfield action).

For example, network TV camerawork for soccer games is pretty good
now, but it was terrible during the 1984 Olympics; the cameramen (or
the directors instructing them) were clearly used to covering American
football, and zoomed in for football-style close-ups of the player
with the ball, so the audience could never see what else was happening
on the field.  Those were Toad's vaunted professionals, and they
failed utterly despite NASL soccer having been televised for many
years.

How many cameramen have a clue about Ultimate?  Yes, they can learn,
but if you just hire a local video crew for the championships, one
which hasn't shot Ultimate before, you're likely to get subpar
results, which was David Pinto's original point.

OTOH, if all we're looking for is amateur-level streaming for a free
webcast, which is after all the level where Ultimate currently is,
then reasonably competent camerawork is all we can ask for.  The bells
and whistles of instant replay, multiple cameras, professional
commentators, etc. raise the costs tremendously.  If people are
willing to volunteer to do that, great, but professional quality work
costs money.  And Ultimate has neither the broadcast audience nor the
sponsorship revenue to pay for that quality level of a broadcast.
Even this webcast evidently cost the UPA some money.

--MKT

 
 
 

Feedback on Live-Streaming

Post by joadnt.. » Thu, 06 Nov 2008 15:08:32


Quote:

> It's not rocket science but there's still a learning curve, which even
> Toad is now admitting.

yea, a two minute one.
------------------------------------------------

 ?Moreover the cameramen need to know something

Quote:
> about the sport (and to be able to figure out the best tradeoff
> between wider angles with less detail, vs. closer shots which cut off
> some of the downfield action).

dude, get over youself.  ultimate is a very simplistic game.
----------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

> For example, network TV camerawork for soccer games is pretty good
> now, but it was terrible during the 1984 Olympics; the cameramen (or
> the directors instructing them) were clearly used to covering American
> football, and zoomed in for football-style close-ups of the player
> with the ball, so the audience could never see what else was happening
> on the field. ?Those were Toad's vaunted professionals, and they
> failed utterly despite NASL soccer having been televised for many
> years.

so learn from them on that note.  and while your at it, take some
notes on how they arbitrate their sport too.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

> How many cameramen have a clue about Ultimate?

again, whats to be clued in on.  Throw, catch, run.....right?
---------------------------------------------------

 ?Yes, they can learn,

Quote:
> but if you just hire a local video crew for the championships, one
> which hasn't shot Ultimate before, you're likely to get subpar
> results, which was David Pinto's original point.

and my point was that the difference in the quality of some random guy
zooming in and out ON A STATIONARY CAMERA and rob doin it would be
neglidgable.......yet possibly much more cost effective.
------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:

> OTOH, if all we're looking for is amateur-level streaming for a free
> webcast, which is after all the level where Ultimate currently is,
> then reasonably competent camerawork is all we can ask for.

exactly!!!! but c'mon, do you really think you coulda told the
difference between rob filming somthing and one of his trainees
filming somthing......especially from a STATIONARY CAMERA from an
endzone view?????
----------------------------------------------------

 ?The bells

Quote:
> and whistles of instant replay, multiple cameras, professional
> commentators, etc. raise the costs tremendously. ?If people are
> willing to volunteer to do that, great, but professional quality work
> costs money.

how much is the question.......and i'm talkin about how much to do it
unprofessionally......like they did at nationals, right?
----------------------------------------------------

 ?And Ultimate has neither the broadcast audience nor the

Quote:
> sponsorship revenue to pay for that quality level of a broadcast.

so lets just pass that expense on to the membership at large without
consent or approval, right?  those suckaaaas wont know the difference.