Slow motion replay technology

[Cadsky]

It's been a great topic of debate recently and I'm well aware I support the team at the centre of most contention. But I think we can all agree that goal line replay technology is not up to scratch. It's just not in the 21st century and I'd like to know why? Why in this day and age is the replay vision so inadequate?

It's not like the technology doesn't exist. Take the following video as an example. The Supercars are able to slow down vision of cars going at 200+ kph to a fraction of a second with perfect clarity. Yet the AFL's vision is so blurry and jittery, it's no wonder the wrong calls get made, even when there is a review.




This type of slow motion vision is something that is done regularly during a race telecast, not just after the race is over, most often during the endurance events and they've been doing it for years.

So tell me why the AFL can't get this type of vision for their replays? If this type of clarity was available, we wouldn't see half the poor review decisions we have today.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

 

[HarryBeef]

Slow motion replays are a government conspiracy anyway, slowing down time is impossible.

 

[Cadsky]

Money should not be an obstacle. Supercars wouldn't be worth the hair on the arse of the AFL.

 

[HarryBeef]

Can't really tell if that tyre is touching the lip of the kerb.

 

[DanielLaneDC]

I think high FPS cameras are more specialised and therefore more expensive and possibly more difficult to obtain. You can hear this kind of talk from the slow mo channels on YouTube. But that said, if there are YouTube channels that can get/afford them, it's hard to stomach that it's not obtainable by the AFL.

The microchip technology is the only real argument to "not bothering right now" I think, but I still don't know how I feel about that. Can we put up with the current status quo for 5+ more years?

 

[Cadsky]

I think high FPS cameras are more specialised and therefore more expensive and possibly more difficult to obtain. You can hear this kind of talk from the slow mo channels on YouTube. But that said, if there are YouTube channels that can get/afford them, it's hard to stomach that it's not obtainable by the AFL.

The microchip technology is the only real argument to "not bothering right now" I think, but I still don't know how I feel about that. Can we put up with the current status quo for 5+ more years?

Definitely not. We can't have more instances like the Swans/Crows debacle. It needs to be definitive and it can't wait 5 years.

 

[deck]

Definitely not. We can't have more instances like the Swans/Crows debacle. It needs to be definitive and it can't wait 5 years.

That problem was the rules not the technology. The technology clearly showed it was a goal and would've been paid if they had time to review it. The rules didn't allow once Sydney brought the ball back into play.

 

[Cadsky]

That problem was the rules not the technology. The technology clearly showed it was a goal and would've been paid if they had time to review it. The rules didn't allow once Sydney brought the ball back into play.

There's still plenty of room for improvement in the technology

 

[DopeMaster]

It’s because the AFL uses the feeds from the ch7 broadcast cameras for their replays, which shoot in PAL 25fps. Have spoken to someone who works for the AFL part time in the field (he was driving an Uber).

Cameras that shoot high frame rates (slow motion) are extremely cheap these days and could be easily implemented by the AFL. There really are no excuses.

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Money should not be an obstacle. Supercars wouldn't be worth the hair on the arse of the AFL.

Of course it shouldn't be. But the AFL/broadcasters are tightarses.

 

[Underarm]

It's been a great topic of debate recently and I'm well aware I support the team at the centre of most contention. But I think we can all agree that goal line replay technology is not up to scratch. It's just not in the 21st century and I'd like to know why? Why in this day and age is the replay vision so inadequate?

It's not like the technology doesn't exist. Take the following video as an example. The Supercars are able to slow down vision of cars going at 200+ kph to a fraction of a second with perfect clarity. Yet the AFL's vision is so blurry and jittery, it's no wonder the wrong calls get made, even when there is a review.




This type of slow motion vision is something that is done regularly during a race telecast, not just after the race is over, most often during the endurance events and they've been doing it for years.

So tell me why the AFL can't get this type of vision for their replays? If this type of clarity was available, we wouldn't see half the poor review decisions we have today.

1. Money. Those cameras are stupid expensive.
2. They're slow. The ARC aims to finish reviews far faster than they would ever need Those slow mo camera angles.
3. They're fixed cameras. Most controversial ARC calls involve whether it's touched off the boot, which can happen anywhere on the field. Those slowmo cameras are not dynamic enough to cover the entire field.

 

[DopeMaster]

1. Money. Those cameras are stupid expensive.
2. They're slow. The ARC aims to finish reviews far faster than they would ever need Those slow mo camera angles.
3. They're fixed cameras. Most controversial ARC calls involve whether it's touched off the boot, which can happen anywhere on the field. Those slowmo cameras are not dynamic enough to cover the entire field.

1. No they’re not. Your iPhone can shoot 240fps, or approx 10x slower than what the video review guys have access to.
2. So long as camera feeds are coming through live, they can scrub through to the relevant moments just as fast as the current version.
3. They’re no more fixed than current broadcast cameras.

 

[Pie eyed]

Slow motion replays are a government conspiracy anyway, slowing down time is impossible.

Moot.
Supercars is a non-existent concept.
"supercars" has nothing to do with cars any more than "formula one" has anything to do with cars.

Advertising dollars and TV rights. nothing more.

 

[bourbons]

Money should not be an obstacle. Supercars wouldn't be worth the hair on the arse of the AFL.

Supercars wouldn't need anywhere near as many cameras capable of generating decent slow mo. AFL would need, what, 8 to 10 4k cameras per ground capable of 120 frames per second or whatever the standard is for proper slow mo.

I agree they should probably do it, but yeah it would be bloody expensive.

 

[bourbons]

Definitely not. We can't have more instances like the Swans/Crows debacle. It needs to be definitive and it can't wait 5 years.

Better technology wasn't the issue there, you could see clear as day it was wrong with what we have now. That one was just human error plain and simple.

 

[bourbons]

It’s because the AFL uses the feeds from the ch7 broadcast cameras for their replays, which shoot in PAL 25fps. Have spoken to someone who works for the AFL part time in the field (he was driving an Uber).

Cameras that shoot high frame rates (slow motion) are extremely cheap these days and could be easily implemented by the AFL. There really are no excuses.

I don't think the cameras they'd need are that cheap. They still have to be broadcast quality gear remember in addition to doing the stuff they need for slow-mo.

 

[maskmcgee]

A quick google search for high speed cameras showed a model that's pretty small for only about $20,000. Now they might need smaller ones to fit in the post but really, how much could it possibly cost to get good cameras in the posts?

 

[Belnakor]

A quick google search for high speed cameras showed a model that's pretty small for only about $20,000. Now they might need smaller ones to fit in the post but really, how much could it possibly cost to get good cameras in the posts?

the high speed cameras used in cricket are 250k+ which is why you only see them typically in eng/ind/aus games.

the supercar example isn't really relevant

• camera is much much closer
• fixed location
• known location of the car

 

[DopeMaster]

I don't think the cameras they'd need are that cheap. They still have to be broadcast quality gear remember in addition to doing the stuff they need for slow-mo.

They would have to be different cameras to what Ch7 use for broadcast, which shoot at 25fps. It’s not incumbent on Ch7 to shoot on high-speed cameras to facilitate the AFL score review system. The AFL is just piggybacking on the Ch7 feeds with the exception of the goal line cameras. These broadcast cameras can’t simultaneously record 25fps for broadcast and 250fps+ for slow-mo review, so the AFL would need their own solution for their own score review system.

High-speed (slow-mo) cameras are ubiquitous and cheap. For an entry level, the Sony ZV1 is about $1000, and shoots 960fps (32x slow-mo) -

Id expect the AFL to invest in a higher-level product, this is just an example to demonstrate the AFL is not being priced out of the equation here.

For the purpose of a score review, you don’t even need it that slow. 250fps+ (10x slower) would be sufficient.

 

[Billy_01]

The afl probably sees it as a rabbit hole they don’t want to fall into. One thing having expensive cameras at the G but then they need to set it up at all the shitty suburban grounds they send teams to for money.

 

[Bunk Moreland]

The AFL don't broadcast anything, it's all produced and broadcast by Seven or Fox. The broadcasters aren't going to pay for it, there's nothing in it for them, so the AFL would essentially be purchasing the cameras for them, maintaining them, replacing and upgrading them, etc.

You'd need a series of them at the right angles at each end. Maybe eight or ten? I'm not sure. Multiply that the 10-12 grounds in regular use at AFL level.

Of course it could be done but yes, it'd get real expensive real quick.

Then of course, people would be screaming for AFLW.

Supercars is different, it's a travelling roadshow of a single event every week or two.. There's not nine different events happening every weekend.

 

[maskmcgee]

• camera is much much closer
• fixed location
• known location of the car

This can also be easily fixed by putting in a designated score review zone. Have a semicircle, say from 15m out directly in front all the way around the goals. Focus the high speed cameras and Hawkeye technology on this area, including a camera directly overhead, and only review touched balls in this area. If a player has a kick from 50 and the umpire calls it touched off the boot, just call it a behind, don't even try to review it.

 

[DopeMaster]

The AFL don't broadcast anything, it's all produced and broadcast by Seven or Fox. The broadcasters aren't going to pay for it, there's nothing in it for them, so the AFL would essentially be purchasing the cameras for them, maintaining them, replacing and upgrading them, etc.

You'd need a series of them at the right angles at each end. Maybe eight or ten? I'm not sure. Multiply that the 10-12 grounds in regular use at AFL level.

Of course it could be done but yes, it'd get real expensive real quick.

Then of course, people would be screaming for AFLW.

Supercars is different, it's a travelling roadshow of a single event every week or two.. There's not nine different events happening every weekend.

Let’s say you set-up 4x fixed cameras at each end. So 8 per ground. Replicate for 10 grounds. So 80 cameras.

‘Blackmagic URSA 12K shoots 4K at 240fps, more than enough for score review, and is broadcast grade. It retails for 10K.

So the equipment outlay would be 800K, less than a year of Brodie Grundy. Plus you’d no doubt pay a whole lot less when buying that kind of bulk.

Again, it’s not that it’s too expensive for the AFL to do. It’s extremely achievable and in the greater scheme not a huge investment.

 

[D-N-R]

Why can't these cameras become part of the broadcast rights? You want the rights, supply the cameras.

If nothing else, the ones in the posts can be upgraded.