Another Hockey Season, Another Year of Bad Camera Angles for Goals

[dumpthemonarchy]

I don't get it, why does the camera only pan half the net when a goal is scored? The camera is so focussed on the shooter that you get only a partial picture of the goalie and net when a shot is made or a goal scored.

They need to lessen the focus and widen the angle when play is around the net. I think they have the idea they need to move the camera at dizzying speed to make the game more exciting. They are helping turn me off hockey. The game is exciting enough without third rare camera work being shown to us on a daily basis.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Need better hockey camera angles

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Does anyone watch hockey out there?

 

[talloola]

Does anyone watch hockey out there?

I have NHL center ice package, and watch hockey every day
all season, don't have any problem with camera angles,
as I said before.

 

[Canaduh]

I have NHL center ice package, and watch hockey every day
all season, don't have any problem with camera angles,
as I said before.

+1...

 

[Canaduh]

+1...

Also if you had the camera zoomed out people would then complain that they couldn't see the puck clearly enough (as they used to, which is why ESPN I think it was tried a puck "highlighter"), its already bad enough on non HD broadcasts.

 

[talloola]

Also if you had the camera zoomed out people would then complain that they couldn't see the puck clearly enough (as they used to, which is why ESPN I think it was tried a puck "highlighter"), its already bad enough on non HD broadcasts.

if one really knows the game, there is nothing to
complain about re: lighting, I can see it if a person watching was very new to hockey, and has learn to follow the
play, but that really has nothing to do with lighting and cameras.

 

[shadowshiv]

Does anyone watch hockey out there?

Check out the How 'Bout Those Canucks? thread. There is a lot of hockey talked about in there.:smile:

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

I have NHL center ice package, and watch hockey every day
all season, don't have any problem with camera angles,
as I said before.

I taped some games and found, yes, you can see the puck go into the net, in the last frame. And this is watching frame by frame. Most people are lazy here and assume it's a goal and join the excitement. But the camera tehniques have not kept up with the game. The focus is too tight and that is what fans like. Which is why the NHL is like the NBA and not the NFL, can't see the forest for the trees.

The NFL is far better here overall and far better on controversial catches and fumbles than the NHL is on goals. Which is why NFL refereeing is also far superior to the other major leagues.

 

[MHz]

I don't get it, why does the camera only pan half the net when a goal is scored? The camera is so focussed on the shooter that you get only a partial picture of the goalie and net when a shot is made or a goal scored.

They need to lessen the focus and widen the angle when play is around the net. I think they have the idea they need to move the camera at dizzying speed to make the game more exciting. They are helping turn me off hockey. The game is exciting enough without third rare camera work being shown to us on a daily basis.

Why can't the open part of the goal have several (10) pin-hole cameras arranged around the steel tube? Better yet put a tracking device in the center of the puck and have the goal-posts act as locators. You wouldn't even need a goal-judge to determine if the puck crossed the line, hidden from view would not be a factor as it's location is via radio-waves.

 

[Canaduh]

I taped some games and found, yes, you can see the puck go into the net, in the last frame. And this is watching frame by frame. Most people are lazy here and assume it's a goal and join the excitement. But the camera tehniques have not kept up with the game. The focus is too tight and that is what fans like. Which is why the NHL is like the NBA and not the NFL, can't see the forest for the trees.

The NFL is far better here overall and far better on controversial catches and fumbles than the NHL is on goals. Which is why NFL refereeing is also far superior to the other major leagues.

Hockey and Basketball are both fast moving free flowing games. American football has 11 minutes of action during a 3 hour game, comparing the 2 is lunacy.

Football games have 11 minutes of action - NFL News - FOX Sports on MSN

You cant compare a sport where the ball or puck can go from one end of the playing field to another within 3 seconds to a sport where you have 30+ seconds to perfectly set up shots on the only people eligble to get the ball (QB, RB, wide receivers. 3 - 4 people max).

 

[Canaduh]

Why can't the open part of the goal have several (10) pin-hole cameras arranged around the steel tube? Better yet put a tracking device in the center of the puck and have the goal-posts act as locators. You wouldn't even need a goal-judge to determine if the puck crossed the line, hidden from view would not be a factor as it's location is via radio-waves.

Didn't they try this in soccer and it failed?.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Why can't the open part of the goal have several (10) pin-hole cameras arranged around the steel tube? Better yet put a tracking device in the center of the puck and have the goal-posts act as locators. You wouldn't even need a goal-judge to determine if the puck crossed the line, hidden from view would not be a factor as it's location is via radio-waves.

Anyone who knows hockey can follow the puck, no tracking device is needed. It's called anticipation. Any decent athlete has it. I think the current camera guys are geeks and never played hockey. Or they are bossed by corporate hacks who tell them to needlessly jiggle the camera to create action where it is not needed. and around the net!!??!! :angryfire:

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

Hockey and Basketball are both fast moving free flowing games. American football has 11 minutes of action during a 3 hour game, comparing the 2 is lunacy.

Football games have 11 minutes of action - NFL News - FOX Sports on MSN

You cant compare a sport where the ball or puck can go from one end of the playing field to another within 3 seconds to a sport where you have 30+ seconds to perfectly set up shots on the only people eligble to get the ball (QB, RB, wide receivers. 3 - 4 people max).

Oh please, every game has its intense controversial moments, where an inch makes a difference. They have had decades to get their camera angles down pat. Is that not long enough? Such a corporate lackey.

I watch less hockey because they give us crap. I watch the Canucks on a regular basis, but I just turned off the Montreal Boston game for this reason.

 

[talloola]

I've read all of your opinions throughout the months, about
bad camera angles, and still can't find anything about the
camera angles that bother me at all, and I don't miss a thing during a hockey game, and we get replay after replay to show us anything we missed when a goal is scored, or fights, or penalties, or pretty plays etc.

The only thing that ever bothered me was the picture before
HD, but that is history now too.

The brain has the ability to know at the time, what is happening on the ice in areas that we can't see for a few
seconds, yes, we can do that, maybe those who don't know
the game will have trouble, but can soon learn.

It is multi tasking with thought, not hard at all.

I think again, as I did before, that you need new glasses, or just start watching curling, maybe you can follow it
with more success.

 

[Canaduh]

I agree, although the angles are not always the best possible its never "hard" to follow the play or the puck. With the addition of HD to game center its a non issue.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

During the intermission of an Olympic hockey game at GM Place, they have the ability to place the camera well ahead of the puck as it travels towards the net.

Those replays were beautiful. People oohhd ahhhd as the puck hit the crossbar, the post. The contrasts in colour we fantastic. They showed all the goals and close plays.

Truly, they feed us dogfood for camera angels on the regular TV compared to the elegant camera angles they showed at GM Place for an Olympic hockey game. Not only do you get to see the game live, you get top notch replays on the big screen.

 

[talloola]

During the intermission of an Olympic hockey game at GM Place, they have the ability to place the camera well ahead of the puck as it travels towards the net.

Those replays were beautiful. People oohhd ahhhd as the puck hit the crossbar, the post. The contrasts in colour we fantastic. They showed all the goals and close plays.

Truly, they feed us dogfood for camera angels on the regular TV compared to the elegant camera angles they showed at GM Place for an Olympic hockey game. Not only do you get to see the game live, you get top notch replays on the big screen.

I always see games live, and those big screens aren't any
different than the big one at the NHL games, and replays
are very similar, I'm enjoying the olympic hockey games,
and I also enjoy the NHL, as long as it is in HD, and
with NHL center ice, most of the games are in HD now.

 

[dumpthemonarchy]

I always see games live, and those big screens aren't any
different than the big one at the NHL games, and replays
are very similar, I'm enjoying the olympic hockey games,
and I also enjoy the NHL, as long as it is in HD, and
with NHL center ice, most of the games are in HD now.

"Very similar" means, the puck is off the screen, but I don't mind.

You must work for a nework.