Slow motion replay technology

[Cadsky]

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

We know that the score review, which is where this comes into play, will always be in front of the goals. So positing 3 cameras solely focused on the goal square from different angles. One on top of the goals post looking straight down, one behind the goal line off to one side and one looking from the 50m arc. Problem solved.

 

[Cadsky]

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.

Don't see why it can't be covered in the next broadcasting rights deal.

 

[Cadsky]

The AFL have used fly cam in the past. It's clearly in their scope to be able to implement different camera technologies. I just don't see money as an excuse. We're talking about a multi billion dollar business.

 

[bourbons]

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.

But you wouldn't get complete coverage with just cheap AFL-installed cameras, you need to the broadcast/manned camera positions too.

Guaranteed there'll be many examples where the goal line cameras or whatever other positions the AFL are able to install with cheap hi-speed cameras won't capture the thing that needs review (touched off the boot etc.) and people will be up in arms about that too ¯\(ツ)/¯

If it was that easy to fix they would have done it. Reality is its just not that easy to fix.

 

[bourbons]

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.

Yeah thats reasonable, you'd think they could get some fit-for-purpose cameras on the goal line at all grounds least.

 

[DopeMaster]

But you wouldn't get complete coverage with just cheap AFL-installed cameras, you need to the broadcast/manned camera positions too.

Guaranteed there'll be many examples where the goal line cameras or whatever other positions the AFL are able to install with cheap hi-speed cameras won't capture the thing that needs review (touched off the boot etc.) and people will be up in arms about that too ¯\(ツ)/¯

If it was that easy to fix they would have done it. Reality is its just not that easy to fix.

It’s a simple/economical enough fix with the mandate/willpower. Just so happens to be my area of expertise. They’re aware of it and I’d be very surprised if they didn’t remedy it over the next year or two.

 

[BomberManU]

How about actually broadcasting in 1080P, or, shock-horror, 4K? I mean, it is 2023, 4K TV's are the standard now, but we still put up with shocking video quality on free to air. It's one of the reasons we're holding onto Foxtel, despite the overpriced subscription.
Wouldn't be as good as dedicated slo-mo cameras, but would help.