Camera Angles !!!!!!!!!

[Guinness]

My wife can't listen to it anymore. Tell me it's not just me...

What I refer to is the curse of the floor cameras and even worse, pocket cameras. Whether it's the fault of the producer, the camera operators, whatever, I don't really care, what I do know is that it is spoiling the coverage and it's getting worse.

Since I'm among people who obviously love the game I would imagine what I'm about to describe will be as irksome as it is to me.

How many times do we have to have a camera zoom in to see the object ball disappear in to the pocket and even sometimes come to rest in the ball tray !! whilst the more skillful part of the shot, ie the positional aspect, the side applied to the white, the delicate canon is ignored. They obviously think we must wonder what happens to the ball once it falls in to the pocket.
Also, as snooker players we are able to tell by how the player is addressing the ball, what pocket he is aiming for, but yet the floor camera operator has to second guess (usually the wrong guess. The end result is a complete mess.

The only worthwhile view of the table is the one obtained from the commentary position. This displays all aspects of the shot, the pot, the intention and the execution.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm ungrateful for the coverage on TV, I'm not. It's just that it could be so much better.

Let's leave the micro cameras that inhabit the pockets to the cricket stumps or F1 driver's helmets and get on with the business of showing ALL aspects of this wondertful game.

So...is it just me ???????

Guinness.

[ferret]

I just wish they would show the top camera more or have it on a seperate interactive channel!! I like to see a birdseye view of the table but they hardly use it.

[Maija]

The only worthwhile view of the table is the one obtained from the commentary position. This displays all aspects of the shot, the pot, the intention and the execution.

I don't quite agree, though I agree that there are less fortunate angles to be showing, like the pocket camera. Someone has run a bit amok with the gadgets and it doesn't add anything to the match at all. Hawkeye was incredibly popular last season, but thankfully they've toned that down somewhat.

The coverage from Malta is the worst of the pro tours, imho, several times they decided to show a close-up of a) the wrong ball b) the player or c) the ref or even the audience, and then we missed the shot entirely. Whoopsie. They also hardly use replays.

I quite like to see a few shots shown from above and to the side of the table. Not sure that was what Ferret meant? A good mix of angles keeps me happy.

[Strickimicki]

Right on Guinness,


why do they do that?

After the ball is in the hole, who cares what it looks like?

I think alot of the people who make snooker coverage come from other sport areas, maybe GOLF?. where they tend to film the ball flying through the air as if they expext a low flying plane or helicopter to alternate it's course!

Why don't these people film more of the bridge cueing arm or stance of the pros, I mean if there is anything more interesting out there (Michaela Tabb) then a quick look at her, then back to the buisiness of the game.

Have you ever wondered why they never film from the back of the players? I mean under thier arms, through thier stance. How they stand, boxer stance for example. When they film the players, they always cut straight to the pocket to watch the ball go in. They could of course film the whole sequense of the shot from the side or back then show the ball going in while the player gets ready for the next shot.

Are there any people in the forum who can influence this?

If not we'll have to put up with it as it is!

Guinness thanks, a real good thread.

Brian

[Guinness]

Brian,

Thanks mate.

If I ever hear the commentator (who obviously can see every aspect of every shot), say, "Just look at that superb canon", whilst we get a view of the ball coming to rest in the ball tray, I think I may lose control.

For me, the micro pocket camera is the work of the devil. The fact that the floor cameras are over used and operated by guys who have never played snooker doesn't help.

Anyway, on a lighter note. GO ON JIMMY, March 10th !!!!!

Cheers,

Guinness

[stegorjus]

I think your wishes may be a little unrealistic. These tournaments only happen because sponsors put up the money. And sponsors want viewers. And not just the avid snooker fans, they want the general public. Who do you think SAGA were targeting their sponsorship at?

Television coverage has to attract more than just the purist, otherwise the sponsors pull out, and the whole thing collapses. The average viewer doesn't have a thorough knowledge of the game, but he/she has to be entertained. What they want to see are big breaks, flamboyant pots, outrageous flukes and their favourite players going through agony and ecstasy. It's a drama unfolding, and it has to be exciting.- Not easy for a game like snooker.

The producers know that the purist won't switch off just because there's too much coverage of Ronnie with a tea-towel on his head. This kind of stuff is box-office. That's what people will talk about the next day. I vaguely recall some interactive coverage a few years back with the single camera and no commentary. It was hard work to watch.

Personally I think the camera operators are quite skilled. Bearing in mind that there are only two floor cameras, I think they do a good job. They have to pre-empt as far as possible they player's next shot and get onto position. One will shoot of the player while the other catches the shot. Then catch the reaction of the opponent and possibly catch the ref calling the score. All without getting in the way of player or ref. And there are no Take 2s. O'Sullivan v Drago must be quite a challenge.

Changing from the current type of coverage would push snooker onto some satellite channel with a very high number. Probably at about 3am, and with a prize fund of £5000. In fact I say let's go further. Roll on the cheerleaders... Only kidding.

[Strickimicki]

Hi Stegorjus,

personally I think we could meet in the middle with our argument, pro and con
snooker coverage as it is now and how in my opinion it should be.

The english speaking commentators are really quiet good as I remember, so we'll keep those. But have you ever tried listening to a german commentator that dosen't know his arse from is elbow? I have to quiet alot.

As to the camera mans work I'm not knocking that either! He's doing what he's been told to do. I think it could be done a little better though, more whole views of players through the whole shot. More time for the technical part of the game. It could still be very appealing to the general public, if they play themselves or not. It should be tried.

And as for the CHEERLEADERS I'm quiet happy with Mrs Tabb

Com'on Guinness

what do you think?

[stegorjus]

Do you think she might dress up as a cheerleader? That's a good idea.

[Strickimicki]

It could be possible

is she in/on the forum? We could ask!

World Championship Final.

It would probably get an awful lot of spectators. Even people who don't care for snooker

[Guinness]

Steg,

Don't see how limiting the use of the floor cameras detracts from the drama. If anything, watching the full table shot, more of the time, can only enhance viewing for the public, whether snooker players of whatever level or simply the casual observer.
Nothing wrong with zooming in on the players to gauge their reaction equally nothing wrong with shots of the crowd. All I'm saying is lets see the game, lets see all aspects of all shots. It is, after all, a game requiring sublime skill. I just dont think the skill aspect is being portrayed using multi camera images.
One view, the full table view ie the one obtained from the commentary position is sufficient.
Leave the multi angle, arty farty, innovative stuff to Jamie Oliver's cooking programmes.

Guinness

[Blondie]

My wife can't listen to it anymore. Tell me it's not just me...

What I refer to is the curse of the floor cameras and even worse, pocket cameras. Whether it's the fault of the producer, the camera operators, whatever, I don't really care, what I do know is that it is spoiling the coverage and it's getting worse.

Since I'm among people who obviously love the game I would imagine what I'm about to describe will be as irksome as it is to me.

How many times do we have to have a camera zoom in to see the object ball disappear in to the pocket and even sometimes come to rest in the ball tray !! whilst the more skillful part of the shot, ie the positional aspect, the side applied to the white, the delicate canon is ignored. They obviously think we must wonder what happens to the ball once it falls in to the pocket.
Also, as snooker players we are able to tell by how the player is addressing the ball, what pocket he is aiming for, but yet the floor camera operator has to second guess (usually the wrong guess. The end result is a complete mess.

The only worthwhile view of the table is the one obtained from the commentary position. This displays all aspects of the shot, the pot, the intention and the execution.

I don't want to give the impression that I'm ungrateful for the coverage on TV, I'm not. It's just that it could be so much better.

Let's leave the micro cameras that inhabit the pockets to the cricket stumps or F1 driver's helmets and get on with the business of showing ALL aspects of this wondertful game.

So...is it just me ???????

Guinness.

Hey Guinness,

.........interesting one, and missed this thread yesterday, and I agree with you as well that the camera angles are disappointing, and don't show enough of the 'whole aspect' of the pot. And not sure at this stage as well who the actual 'fault' lies with:

- the camera operator himself?, who to an extent is not doing an easy job;

- the tv company televising the match, and whether they 'direct' the camera guys as to 'how' the pots should be 'visually' shown as their 'interpretation' of what will keep the audience/fans happy; or

- if it's more to do with the actual 'layout/positioning' of the table itself, and the lack of space around it for the operator to work with, so limiting the different kind of angles that can be shown?

- the players no doubt have a view as well, and whether this is taken into consideration too, in terms of 'playing' under the camera spotlight, potential 'distractions', and what works best for them during potting, i.e. whether the camera is positioned in front of them, to the side etc, and how close to their pot;

- or maybe it's the sponsors 'dictating' to an extent their 'own' views on how 'joe public' would like to be 'entertained', forgetting about the real fans, who have an interest in the 'whole' side of the game.

And I'd definitely like to see the cameras 'capturing' more of the players' techniques shown during potting though, so if possible, everything from the stance, to cueing action, taking the pot on, positioning, side, backspin for example, and then finally the 'outcome' of the pot, in the pocket, or wherever else it ends up. And it would be good also if all of this could be shown in conjunction with a 'back', or 'front' view. And some pots shown in slow motion as well, if poss. [And don't think I'm asking for too much, am I? ]

And just wonder as well if the WPBSA has any 'rulings' on 'media coverage', whether it be say what type of questions can be asked at press conferences/interviews, through to televised events, and camera coverage, and any views in particular on the 'type' of camera coverage to be used during televised tournaments. And as well, maybe, if there any particular 'stipulations' that have to be adhered to, or whether the camera operators have more 'freedom' to operate using their own initiative, to an extent.

...and interesting thread Guinness, , and we can live in hope that some changes may be made. [And in a bit of a rush today, so hope made some sense.., and can't wait till the day is over so I can get a couple of hours practice in.]

Lol....xx

[missneworleans]

I like when there's a lot of replays of great shot from different angles. But they never do it!