FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[Mike D]

one thing I dont like about current f1 footage is the high and/or long camera angles used paricularly at the start of races and the end of long straights.

Whilst you get to see everything, it makes the cars look very slow.

if you compare to footage of the 60s-70s for example, the cars where slower, but looked a lot faster due to the camera angles chosen

I realise this is so the camera has lots of time focused on trackside adverts but does anyone else share my annoyance of this?

cheers

Mike

[cap-dude]

Can't say I do. I prefer being able to see whats going on, rather than seeing fast shots of the cars.
If anything, it irritates me more when something happens that I can't really see. But apart from that, F1 has some superb coverage in my opinion.

[stonemonkey]

one thing I dont like about current f1 footage is the high and/or long camera angles used paricularly at the start of races and the end of long straights.

I have to say I'm very much the opposite. I like the long shots and don't think it really makes them look slow, I think it's pretty cool seeing how they're cornering and changing direction and accelerating/braking, especially if there's a bit of a battle going on. The thing I can't be bothered with is some of the directors obsessions with close ups of the wheels.
I like the onboard stuff too but although Coulthards helmetcam was a nice idea from what I remember it didn't work out too well, was it too low down on his chin or somethng?

[Mike D]

the modern day quality and editing is very good.

but, for example I was watching a recent french grand prix repeat with my girlfriend who has no real knowledge or interest.

the camera angle heading down the long straight to the hairpin, you see the car coming along head on, with no sense of speed, you cant tell that the car is running fast and then braking, then you see the car turn slowly around the hairpin.
and she said something along the lines of "they dont even look like theyre going fast" because she only sees the car turning, not running fast and braking.


some grand prix starts have a low head on camera angle for the start, when the lights go out you can only see the first 2 cars on the grid, you cant tell that theyve even set off until a few seconds until they start to move side to side, because of the long telephoto lenses used, but you can certainly make out the large advert about the start lights.

its a bit hard to explain.

the fans know that the cars are travelling fast, because we know the circuits and cars, but I think the footage can make it look slower to those who dont really understand.

the camera that looks down the steep gradient at monaco where the cars climb up to casino. on the TV that doenst even look like a gradient.
but a camera half way along that spins round quickly as the car goes up would make give a greater impression.

I love the older footage where they would have a camera half way down a straight, which moves round quickly as the car passes.
something like this although its not f1

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kY5zdnGvT0c

theres an old film of the 67 f1 season where every start looks very impressive.

perhaps Im just looking for something to moan about now that James Allen has gone

Mike

[Jensonb]

Video's what I do, so I completely know what you're getting at. The directors of F1 have a real passion for artsy shots and seem to have instructions to have a lot of long-lasting shots to show off the ads. That's all well and good, but it's worthless for sports coverage. Low angle front shots of the Grid are nonsense, you want a high angle looking down towards Turn 1. As for the racing itself, the directors are more interested in stupid shots of wheels and Lewis Hamilton's face...Well, Helmet...than actually tracking cars as they race. The Director should never be using a shot in which less than 5% of the frame is car - but they frequently do. I would in fact set the minimum at 25%, but they really like longer shots lately.

[Mike D]

cheers jensonb

agree that more percentage of the car should be in shot.

heres something, again not f1, but modern day motorsport coverage, which I think is great,
the 2 cameras half way along mountain straight, that follow the car, the conrod straight and the one half way along the start finish straight
the moving cameras along the pitlane are pretty neat too

enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgBKQPer ... re=related

Mike

[Jensonb]

cheers jensonb

agree that more percentage of the car should be in shot.

heres something, again not f1, but modern day motorsport coverage, which I think is great,
the 2 cameras half way along mountain straight, that follow the car, the conrod straight and the one half way along the start finish straight
the moving cameras along the pitlane are pretty neat too

enjoy

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgBKQPer ... re=related

Mike

That's a great example, the key is to track the car so that at all times either the camera is panning to reflect the speed of the car as it moves or the car is shown with just enough environment that the sense of speed is clear.

[Mike D]

the start of that race is pretty cool too, as it has the old f1 cine film or movie film esq type of shot from the pit wall at the start, the aussies always seem to cover this race very well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ub2LGW4s ... 1&index=36


I think on some f1 tracks its worse than others, Canada isnt too bad, although some of the newer wider circuits have this long camera angle at the start.

also im glad that they used the helmet cam in Coulthards helmet in Brasil, although we didnt see much of it due to the crash, but hopefully its will be used this season, its great in cart and indycar.

Mike

[iPod]

heres something, again not f1, but modern day motorsport coverage, which I think is great,
the 2 cameras half way along mountain straight, that follow the car, the conrod straight and the one half way along the start finish straight
the moving cameras along the pitlane are pretty neat too

I'm pretty sure they have a camera like that at Hockenheim. You do get a much greater sense of speed with that camera.

I really hope they add more on board cameras though. A revision of DC's cam would be really cool/useful. And maybe a "rear camera" shot looking back at the car behind - like they used to have in the 90's. I thought they were great too.

Anyway, having said that, I've always thought quite highly of the cinematography in F1.

[Jag Racing]

I think we need more onboard angles. the MotoGP provides lots of onboardies and uses them alot.

im not a fan of the artsy camera on the boom than swings and follows the car through the turn. not really worth the effort!

[Mike D]

I wonder if there is a rule for how much time the director spends on onboard camera angles in a race?
so that more time is spent filming the cars and trackside adverts.

Im all for more onboard camera time, and anything that improves the footage, its very good as it is now, but it can always be better.

one other thing,

Im not really a fan of the modern leaderboard graphics, the ones from a few years back, the big yellow squares with the black numbers seemed to be a lot bigger and clearer, although the modern one does give better info.

Mike

[EwanM]

The modern ones are trying to usher in the Digital age, but yes I prefer the retro 90s.

I'd expect the graphics to differ again this year with LG now on board.

[Jensonb]

Of those two, the new ones are vastly superior as they are far more efficient.

But they're both amateurish compared to the Might of the Blue/Yellow F1 Digital Graphics

[McLaren Fan]

Video's what I do, so I completely know what you're getting at. The directors of F1 have a real passion for artsy shots and seem to have instructions to have a lot of long-lasting shots to show off the ads. That's all well and good, but it's worthless for sports coverage. Low angle front shots of the Grid are nonsense, you want a high angle looking down towards Turn 1. As for the racing itself, the directors are more interested in stupid shots of wheels and Lewis Hamilton's face...Well, Helmet...than actually tracking cars as they race. The Director should never be using a shot in which less than 5% of the frame is car - but they frequently do. I would in fact set the minimum at 25%, but they really like longer shots lately.

I agree. I don't mind the idea of some long shots, but they need the camera elevation needs to much higher.

[Jensonb]

Video's what I do, so I completely know what you're getting at. The directors of F1 have a real passion for artsy shots and seem to have instructions to have a lot of long-lasting shots to show off the ads. That's all well and good, but it's worthless for sports coverage. Low angle front shots of the Grid are nonsense, you want a high angle looking down towards Turn 1. As for the racing itself, the directors are more interested in stupid shots of wheels and Lewis Hamilton's face...Well, Helmet...than actually tracking cars as they race. The Director should never be using a shot in which less than 5% of the frame is car - but they frequently do. I would in fact set the minimum at 25%, but they really like longer shots lately.

I agree. I don't mind the idea of some long shots, but they need the camera elevation needs to much higher.

Yeah, you need to be able to see more cars, or get a better sense of the track itself.