God knows the residents (the people who live on BS and refuse to let us visitors say anything they don't agree with) will jump on me for this and say it is a trivial matter, but if you dont care dont post. MLS films games from further back than the European leagues, and I think it makes the quality of play look worse. I dont want this to be a debate on how we compare with Europe, but suffice to say our guys have been holding their own over there for the last couple years. But from watching an MLS game, our boys look vastly inferior. The camera is too far for you to see any on-ball skills. All you see is the and tiny players moving around, apparently very slowly (the ball also looks like it's moving slowly), and then the players often take too big a first touch and lose the ball. With the EPL games on FSW, you can only see about 1/3 of the width of the field as opposed to all of it, you can see that the players and ball are travelling very fast, and you can see some great on-ball skill that, with the MLS angle, just looks like bad defending. This goes to a deeper issue: that to get the US interested in soccer, you have to get rid of the perception that nothing happens for 30 minutes at a time until someone scores a goal. To impress Americans, MLS needs to show how impressive the on-ball skill is; it's the same attraction as with fancy dribbling in basketball. Anyway, I think they should zoom in.
It's just a topic that's been broached before again and again. It comes down to stadium construciton, lack of expierence, expertise or desire from broadcasters, and simply personal preference from what you're used to seeing. Some people like a hugely wide camera angle like you see in South American games, others like the more tightly wound of EPL. Basically there's probably an underlying issue of the fact that there's not that much motivation to dump a bunch of money into production quality due to the current economics of broadcasting soccer.
I agree 100%. The "still" sideline roving cam that is used in Premier League matches for corner kicks etc is much needed in MLS. The slow-mo replay camera in Premiership matches( after a shot or free-kick) would be welcome to MLS telecasts. The camera work on ESPN2 for Soccer Saturday is awful. The problem with MLS telecasts could be the lack of cameras at a match.
One CBS director told me that he thinks most MLS matches are lucky to have more than a handful of cameras. On the other hand, ESPN college football games usually have 17+ cameras. I think the cameras are placed a little higher in MLS stadiums because (for the most part) they're more than double the size of EPL stadiums. Of course, that's nothing a little zoom action couldn't quickly fix. I would like to see a camera on the jimmy-jab that could follow runs down the flanks. The best example I can think of for these cameras are when they have a pan down to a sideline reporter for a football game. CBS does a great job with this set-up for their SEC games.
I TOTALLY AGREE. When I saw the Metros game the Metros DC game the other day MY FIRST COMMENT was "Why is the camera so far back...I can barely identify the players". Clever camera work can make the game sooo much better to enjoy on TV. But they lack that here for the most part.
I'm also in complete agreement. The notion that it's due to a lack of money and cameras doesn't really seem relevant as it would cost nothing for the program director to say, "zoom in %10". It would make the game seem faster and give a greater sense of intimacy with the players... not to mention reducing the constant reminder that the stadiums are only 1/5 full.
So wait a second--MLS players look less skillful than EPL players because of the camera angle? I hate to disappoint you, but MLS players, on the whole, are less skillful than EPL players. The only thing that a closer camera angle will do in this situation, is let you better identify the person who just had that horrid first touch to lost the ball. The camera angle won't help a player trap the ball better. And without being sarcastic, I too think it would be better to show closer-ups of the players. But often, I think the EPL cameras are too close, since I can't see what other players are doing off the ball.
It is relevant. The EPL broadcasters do have the 'distant' view. When there are more cameras the director can show the tight shots, and when a quick long ball is played immediately switch to the the distant shot and not miss anything. You don't want to have MLS directors zoom from close to far while the camera is live. You probably noticed that World Cup coverage was even better than EPL, and most of the time the same can be said of Champion's League. In small part this is due to the fact that the best directors and camera operators work the big games, but it's also because of more equipment, particularly cameras. If you watch NFL, compare a weak mid season matchup with the SuperBowl, the same thing applies. Week in/Week out for soccer camera work I find Televisa (shown on Univision/Galavision/Telefutura) to be the best, rather better than EPL.
You're right you wouldn't want the director to "zoom in" while following live action... I'm saying they zoom in %10 overall for their regular "wide" coverage. Any closer shots can be handled in the same way they handle them now. This isn't a matter of numbers of cameras. It's an overall decision to cover the general action a little tighter. It won't be EPL or Champions League but, again, it will make the game seem a little faster without sacrificing too much off the ball (which tends to be too static anyway )
When MLS isn't losing millions of dollars per year, some of this stuff will happen. First things first.
I do agree, I was thinking that exact thing during the Metrostars game this weekend. Hit the zoom once or twice and get a good shot of whats going on the field. I know they can get closer When Freddy did his spin trick / cross they had the camera on him from a very close distance.
Well remember guy's one person's attitude of too far a vantage point is another's idea that they're not showing enough of the players on the feild. Additionally, MLS camera work is probably complicated by the 'frenetic' nature of MLS play. A little easier to plan around when people aren't losing possesion every two seconds and the ball is ping ponging around.
I agree with you about the camera angle from Giant's Stadium. The main camera angle did seem far away. I personally like the "tighter"angle's that you get when you watch EPL,League 1. The far away angle is good for replaying the build up to a goal. But I prefer the "tighter"shot for the main angle. I believe that with the tighter shot you capture more of the emotion of the game. You can see the expressions on the players faces. You see more of the nuances of the sport. When the main camera angle is focused farther away it does make the game appear slower,and we know that's not the case. I believe the desiegn of American Football stadiums has something to do with this. With the stadium's being bigger,the television gantry's are higher up in the stadium's. Thus providing a farther shot(Disclaimer:Of course, I have never filmed a sporting event in my life). But to be fair,if you watch a match from Columbus Crew Stadium,the camera angles are closer. With MLS starting to build thier own stadium's,we'll start to see better produced matches in staduim's that are purpose built.