terrible coverage of US-Hondo [r]

Read up, son [post=2591125]already discussed elsewhere[/post]. They don't control the cameras.

Thx,

Jay!
(via da_cfo)

 

It was fairly atrocious.

I can't believe some of the choices of when to show replays (during times the ball was in the attacking third of the field) or the use of particular camera angles for extended periods of time.

Ironically enough, on a night where the booth was damned good (Max kept the over the top stuff to a minimum and Sullivan was great), the rest of the telecast had problems.

 

I want my free beer served in a frosted mug.

A FROSTED MUG DAMN YOU

 

Free beer served in a frosted mug? BRILLIANT!

 

It ain't free, North. I pay good $$ every month in order to get FSW. And I expect at least a semi-professional product. I couldn't believe when they would cut away from the live action in the attacking third to show a replay, while being able to hear the crowd in the background react to something I couldn't see......there really is no excuse for such poor production. And I don't really give a damn who really did the production, if it appears on your channel, then you are responsible for the product.

 

HDNet did the production.

FSI was just a subcontractor that paid for an el-cheapo feed with some FSI graphics patched in.

 

Horrible graphics (like showing the records of both countries against each other --- hey dip********s, if it's 5 - 2 - 3 one way, it'll be 3 - 2 - 5 the other way. Why they chose to run them both is beyond me) that were waaaaaaay too deep and flashed up on the screen while the ball was being pushed toward goal in the last 1/3 of the field.

 

I'm just glad they picked it up. No other English-speaking channel was going to do it.

I pay for FSW too and while there are thinsg that can be improved, they ar enot limited to FSW. ESPN and ABC screw up all the time. Why - I have no idea. Its doesn't seem that hard. Probably because most of the producers in the trucks have never seen a game outside the trucks. But ragging on FSW for it - well, they are not the problem.

And I can't believe anyone is upset over the 5-2-3 / 3-2-5 graphic. That goes beyond even nit-picking. Lordy.

FSW gives us 90% of what we want and does it cheaply.

 

You are right, Northside, and I am happy for FSW existence. Its just damn frustrating when you are trying to follow the match and the lack of production capability gets in the way. I don't care about the stupid little stuff, like Bretos being annoying or redundant graphics. I do care about showing a close up of a player for a full 3 seconds while the ball is travelling in the opposite direction and the play results in a shot on goal that I don't see. Damn good thing I didn't miss any goals due to their ineptitude.

 

HDNet shows matches in 16:9 ratio high definition. When watching an HDNet broadcast you get not only the replay but you can also see the current action in a split screen (since 16:9 ratio is much wider than 4:3 ratio standard TV). I suspect that the reason Fox showed only the replay is that they had to make a choice one way or the other as HDNet doesn't really break from the action to show replay in the traditional manner.

HDNet broadcast s kick ass. If you have never seen one you are truely missing out on an incredible broadcast.

 

Guys, Guys, Guys,

Since I've worked in TV Sports for a lot of years, you have to understand the basic economics of a telecast.

The poster who said a booth shot would mean just a cameraman shows ignorance of what it would cost to have that cameraman there.

About closeups and long shots....American Sports broadcasting has become over the last five years a closeup medium with constant shot changes. Witness a major league baseball playoff game where between pitches I once counted 10 different camera shots before the ball was released. In hockey (similiar to soccer in style..where you want to see more ice), watch a Stanley Cup broadcast this weekend, and count the number of camera changes on a simple up ice rush. Your brain cannot keep up with the changes in perspective. They go low behind the net then from behind to carry it to center ice then low again then up high then a closeup of a meaningless body check and the puck is out of the zone. The viewer is thrown off.

In Prem coverage, we see the field from above most of the time, and the contrasting angles are left for the replays. Since the outfield players in football (soccer) are more widely spaced then any other sport, the wider perspective gives you a better sense of flow. And it becomes easier to watch, and your head doesn't swivel in agony.

But switch producers and directors to the US for soccer, and all of a sudden you get meaningless closeups. I remember Claudio taking successive corners in the second half and tehy we using a camera angle that gave you absolutely no perspective on flight of ball or closeness to the box. It was an angle that has never been seen before in soccer coverage. challenges MUST be shown in detailed clsoeup, and as we now it is the ball that is the most important element in soccer not the challenge. Becasue if the challenge is lingered on, and the ball squirts to an unmarked player it will be in the back of the net before you have time to change your camera.

If I was in charge, I would force these production teams to watch their broadcasts after the fact and see where they are interrupting the flow of the game with bad graphics, bad camera shots, and lack of flow.

I am a firm believer that those who manage television production don't actually watch what they broadcast. Because if they did watch they would be as furious as we are at the lack of discipline in the coverage.

The announcer situation is simply dollars and sense. I'm not spending money to send Max to a friendly that means nothing. I'll save my meager funds for another day. But, I will pay a stringer to get information to the team back in LA. Pay a college kid to be the press box contact. The eyes at the event. ABC did this for years (they were called runners). And the subs could be noted in a more timely fashion, injuries could be observed, and other pertinent information could be relayed by phone back to LA. Not impossible, in fact simple.

Directors and producers are operating in an atmosphere where they are given the tolls and then they overbuild the house. We don't need the Taj Mahal to appreciate the broadcast. Just a simple little house that allows us to see the action on a big scale with goood solid replays. There is nothing like seeing the buildup to a goal from a big wide shot, and then getting the nitty gritty done with the replays.

What do you guys think?

R

 

FYI, Bretos and Sullivan were at the game in Dallas, but called the Honduras game from LA.

 

Excellent post. But you'll soon find out that actual knowledge of something is a black mark here.

 

Strangely enough, the production on HDNet didn't suck.

 

They do that during EPL broadcasts too. I've never quite understood that.

 

Of many many good points, I think this was your best.

 

Someone hire this man.

 

We are getting trained to watch this type of coverage with the Adu phenomenon. I mean, it's much more important to watch Freddy adjusting his shin guards than to see a quick counter, right?