Opinion 2018 Non-Crows Discussion - Part 2: Tom Doedee, Rising Star Nominee & Port's New Major Sponsor

[Scorpus]

I’m not talking about a pinhole camera here. These particular cameras are probably the size of a tennis ball.

Why would it be unsuitable for broadcast exactly? The AFL already broadcast footage from some goal line cameras that are clearly of a lower quality than the regular cameras.

Broadcast cameras require broadcast-grade features and infrastructure.

When the goal line cameras were introduced, the current ones, the reported cost was around $500k... just for the crap vision they currently provide. That's something like $10k per camera (plus infrastructure) for quality you could get from a $400 GoPro. They need to use the $10k cameras rather than GoPros because GoPros have no broadcast features and couldn't integrate with a broadcast workflow even though they are equivalent or better picture quality for a fraction of the price

 

[hey shorty]

Let’s see how their Round 8 predictions go.
Especially the margins.
View attachment 493559

I don't think I could handle it that close again

 

[arrowman]

There would be lots of additional costs aside from just the cameras. Setting up the infrastructure alone to support an additional 4 slow motion cameras would be a small fortune.

And even then, $20k is extremely optimistic for a broadcast suitable camera. I know you say it doesn't need to be "broadcast quality" but it does need to fit into a broadcast production workflow and that requires specific broadcast features. $20k for that sort of camera and supporting hardware would be a bloody steal; we're more talking like $200k.

I think we're more looking like this: $200k per camera x 4 per venue x 6 venues* = $4.8 million + $1m infrastructure + $1m yearly operating costs. So around a $6m initial outlay + $1m per year to run the system

*separate cameras needed for MCG, Etihad, Optus, AO and then shared between Gabba/Metricon and Spotless/SCG

That said the AFL did make $650m in revenue last year with a $49m profit

Fair enough, and as you say even at that cost it's doable. Perhaps the biggest issue would be implementation. As others have pointed out, Aussie Rules* is more difficult than basketball or American football from that point of view. They'd want to get it really, really right - if they're going to spend that sort of money and then still have "fails" it's not a good look.

Perhaps the AFL could get a Chinese sponsor to supply knock-off "branded" cameras

* The game is Aussie Rules. It is NOT "AFL"

 

[Runnin Blue]

Broadcast cameras require broadcast-grade features and infrastructure.

When the goal line cameras were introduced, the current ones, the reported cost was around $500k... just for the crap vision they currently provide. That's something like $10k per camera (plus infrastructure) for quality you could get from a $400 GoPro. They need to use the $10k cameras rather than GoPros because GoPros have no broadcast features and couldn't integrate with a broadcast workflow even though they are equivalent or better picture quality for a fraction of the price

What are “broadcast-grade features and infrastructure”?

 

[SugarShane]

I thought that last week when JJ was kicking for goal at the southern end. Three bands of moving / flashing lights in his face. Now maybe you could say "meh, that's his job, there's crowd noise and people waving flags and stuff" but really - would it be so bad to turn off the ads for 30 seconds when there's a set shot?

Oh, wait - that's when they get their maximum exposure.

Pretty sure I had the same thought. There was one ad in particular that made great use of a white flashing light when it changed messages. Extremely distracting and happened to be running when we were taking a shot at goal.

These ads are all obviously super effective too because I couldn't name the company for the life of me.

 

[Scorpus]

What are “broadcast-grade features and infrastructure”?

Loads of things. Compatibility with broadcast monitors, compatibility with broadcast capture devices/storage, low latency output for live broadcast, output in formats that work with broadcast software and workflows, uncompressed output, low noise at high ISOs (crucial for high speed cameras), support for various accessories that make a camera operator able to do their job, support for broadcast lenses, etc.

 

[Markthirtytwo2]

True, but at the same time the footage from a goal review camera doesn't have to be broadcast quality (admittedly it does have to be suitable for a big enough display for the reviewer to see detail).

Just as a hypothetical: Let's assume you can get a suitable camera for $20K. I think you'd need at least 4 at each end of the ground - 2 fixed on the goal line* and another 2 under manual direction following the play up to say 30m from goal.

(The manually directed cameras don't have to be producing pretty, well framed images for broadcast, just following the ball from a couple of angles.)

That's 8 cameras x 9 games = 72 cameras x $20K = $1,440,000. Plus operating costs including the manual camera operators.

Which is very doable IMO, but as has been said above, if you can't get it right, don't do it at all, and the same principle applies to a large outlay like this. Spend up to $2 mill on cameras just for goal reviews, and people will be expecting perfection.

* In theory you could get away with one camera on each behind post, trained inwards to cover the whole goal line and therefore able to detect e.g. mark or behind as well as goal reviews. But the goal posts would then get in the way of some shots. Put a camera inside each of the 4 posts and the total cost is now over $2 mill.

There was one game on the weekend where a decision was overturned because of the possibility of a touch before the flags attached to the goal posts making the goal line obsolete in this situation. It's ridiculous.

 

[SugarShane]

View attachment 493418

A lot to like about this latest Squiggle. Port missing the 8, Melbourne missing the 8, Carlton getting the spoon....only bad thing is having to play the Hawks at the G in a final.

I'm off the squiggle. If they got it right we'd have 4 flags by now.

 

[Runnin Blue]

Loads of things. Compatibility with broadcast monitors, compatibility with broadcast capture devices/storage, low latency output for live broadcast, output in formats that work with broadcast software and workflows, uncompressed output, low noise at high ISOs (crucial for high speed cameras), support for various accessories that make a camera operator able to do their job, support for broadcast lenses, etc.

I honestly feel that there is very little issues with any of these. Except the “low noise at high ISOs” as I am no expert on these cameras.

Also, broadcast lenses are designed to be functioned manually (in other words, focussed), which would lead me to believe that the goal line cameras currently in use are not utilising broadcast lenses. Unless that is, we are to believe that a manual operator is permanently remote-controlling each goal line camera throughout the duration of a match, which seems ridiculous.

Anyway, I am not completely doubting you, as I am not an expert, but I think the issues you raise are not as serious or insurmountable as you believe.

 

[Scorpus]

I honestly feel that there is very little issues with any of these. Except the “low noise at high ISOs” as I am no expert on these cameras.

Also, broadcast lenses are designed to be functioned manually (in other words, focussed), which would lead me to believe that the goal line cameras currently in use are not utilising broadcast lenses. Unless that is, we are to believe that a manual operator is permanently remote-controlling each goal line camera throughout the duration of a match, which seems ridiculous.

Anyway, I am not completely doubting you, as I am not an expert, but I think the issues you raise are not as serious or insurmountable as you believe.

Well yeah it does depend on whether we're talking about goal-line slow motion cameras or the 'follow' cameras that would require more kit.

It also depends on whether the broadcast team want to overcome the limitations of non-broadcast cameras. It might be easier to just spend the money to get broadcast capable gear rather than transforming enthusiast or prosumer gear into broadcast gear. When the goal line cameras were originally installed they clearly went with existing broadcast gear rather than trying to hack GoPros onto the goal posts.

Most broadcasters show no inclination whatsoever to use anything but broadcast gear because it simplifies the workflow for them. They just spend the money.

 

[Linekers Ears]

View attachment 493418

A lot to like about this latest Squiggle. Port missing the 8, Melbourne missing the 8, Carlton getting the spoon....only bad thing is having to play the Hawks at the G in a final.

Nah - they've jumped the shark when Richmond get so much movement from a home win where their opponent, the 17th rated team, scored 2 goals. And this week - we go "backwards" with a 10 goal win over Carlton.

 

[Shaz2012]

Wouldn’t right then off from getting 4 wins.

I would. 15 games to go, they would have to go at a rate of better than 1 win in every 4 games.

 

[fabs33]

Let’s see how their Round 8 predictions go.
Especially the margins.
View attachment 493559

If losing to us by 84 got Hinkley a three year extension, imagine what the reward would be for a one point loss.

Life time contract!!!

 

[skam85]

Let’s see how their Round 8 predictions go.
Especially the margins.
View attachment 493559

If we win by 1pt at a Port home game, there will be homicides.

 

[AFC3000]

Well yeah it does depend on whether we're talking about goal-line slow motion cameras or the 'follow' cameras that would require more kit.

It also depends on whether the broadcast team want to overcome the limitations of non-broadcast cameras. It might be easier to just spend the money to get broadcast capable gear rather than transforming enthusiast or prosumer gear into broadcast gear. When the goal line cameras were originally installed they clearly went with existing broadcast gear rather than trying to hack GoPros onto the goal posts.

Most broadcasters show no inclination whatsoever to use anything but broadcast gear because it simplifies the workflow for them. They just spend the money.

An interesting look at what the NFL use for their pylon cams.

http://www.nfl.com/videos/nfl-network-around-the-nfl/0ap3000000608527/Inside-look-at-the-pylon-cam

Some of that technology built into our goal posts might get us close...

It's really about being able to do the super slow motion for our game though, we need to be able to find the frame with the ball touching the defenders hand, not frame 1 ball hasn't got there yet, blurry frames, frame with ball gone past and bent finger - maybe from the ball.

 

[Vader]

I would. 15 games to go, they would have to go at a rate of better than 1 win in every 4 games.

Four is not beyond the realms of possibility.

• They play Essendon this weekend. Essendon have stunk it up badly against everyone except the SA sides (I'm still seething that we lost to them). Carlton won't start favourites, but they won't be rank outsiders either.
• In R13 they host Fremantle. Freo would be favourites in WA, but this is probably a line-ball game at Jihad Stadium.
• In R16 & R17 they play Brisbane & St Kilda, neither of whom are significantly (if at all) better than the Blues.

That's 4 winnable games. I'm not saying they'll win any of them, let alone all of them, but they are winnable.

 

[Samcro24]

I like how channel 7 are zooming right out, so players look like ants on my 70'' TV.

Its like being in the nosebleeds in my own home.

 

[TRP1996]

Let’s see how their Round 8 predictions go.
Especially the margins.
View attachment 493559

Are the lions any chance against the Bulldogs? Or will they fall in a demoralised heap after another close lose?

I'd also like the Gold Coast to win but I'm not sure they're up to it, especially with the captains missing.

 

[Runnin Blue]

I like how channel 7 are zooming right out, so players look like ants on my 70'' TV.

Its like being in the nosebleeds in my own home.

I’d probably prefer that to when they wait for a moment of forward pocket action and then zoom in with the super closeup angle from ground level so all you can see is a mess of abdomens with no idea of what is happening or where the ball is and they stay in that ******ed shot until the action is over before switching back.

Whomever comes up with these “innovative” ideas should be publically flogged.

 

[mistylake]

If we win by 1pt at a Port home game, there will be homicides.

Probably one heart attack I’m pretty sure of to.

 

[Golumless]

This is bullshit though. You can tell by the bottom line. 4???

It's how the squiggle rounds results, and occurs more in the early games.

Mind you, historically most bottom 4 teams have fluked 3-4 wins.

 

[cm_perfect]

If losing to us by 84 got Hinkley a three year extension, imagine what the reward would be for a one point loss.

Life time contract!!!

Put on a staff contract.

 

[WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot]

I’d probably prefer that to when they wait for a moment of forward pocket action and then zoom in with the super closeup angle from ground level so all you can see is a mess of abdomens with no idea of what is happening or where the ball is and they stay in that ******ed shot until the action is over before switching back.

Whomever comes up with these “innovative” ideas should be publically flogged.

There was a finals series a few years ago where, for some strange reason, Channel 7 decided to show a much more close-up view compared to what they normally did during the regular season. It was terrible as you couldn't see how a play was going to develop as any potential handball options, would-be tacklers, etc. were out of frame.

Thankfully that only lasted for the 4 games in that week of the finals before sanity prevailed and they went back to the medium-range shot they were using before.

 

[Shaz2012]

It's how the squiggle rounds results, and occurs more in the early games.

Mind you, historically most bottom 4 teams have fluked 3-4 wins.

But do the bottom 2 teams usually start 0-7? I think Brisbane have been very unlucky. I can see their luck turning around and getting 4 wins. But Carlton have not been unlucky. I really hope that Brisbane and Carlton get their lucky wins over Melbourne

 

[relapse]

But do the bottom 2 teams usually start 0-7? I think Brisbane have been very unlucky. I can see their luck turning around and getting 4 wins. But Carlton have not been unlucky. I really hope that Brisbane and Carlton get their lucky wins over Melbourne

I think Brisbane will win a few games at the Gabba, Carlton on the other hand they potentially could go 0-22.

There is no Brisbane or GC in Victoria for them to get a default win against.

I am sure that they will most probably pinch a win from somewhere, but it is going to be hard for them because there's not going to be a game that they'll be going in as favourites for, for the rest of the year.