Posted on 12/01/2007 11:59:34 AM PST by OKIEDOC
This morning I watched the Tulas vs UCF football game.
After about so many useless camera shots I decided to keep score of the number of camera shots in just 10 minutes of the second half.
CAMERA SHOTS:
OTHER (INCLUDES REPLAYS, GRAPHICS, REPORTERS) 47 SHOTS
CHEERLEADERS...................................13
CROWD AND STUPID LOOKING FRUITCAKE FANS........44
FOOTBALL PLAYER CLOSEUP'S AFTER PLAY..........101
REF CLOSEUPS...................................12
SIDELINES......................................52
TALKING TO DIGNATRIES 3MINUTES DURING PLAY......1
GAME ACTION FULL FIELD PLAYS...................47
I do not know about some of you but the narrow scope of the on-screen picture is enough to make a grown man make a post to this forum.
I wonder how many times ESPN needs to show a players mother making a complet ass out of herself running up and down the sidelines.
The Thursday night game with the NFL was much better but it did show more full field.
And those of us that were at work helping to protect the borders wish we could have been at home watching the game.
You could have skipped the day of work...and no one would have noticed...
Oh, I wish :)
Actually with all the play, replay, examine it from another angle replay, and the in case you missed it shots of the play, I think you are actually watching the equivalent of 4 games.
And yet with all that, how did I miss Tennessee stopping LSU so they only got a field goal?
Those of you with HDTV — do you notice any difference?
(Regular TV has the 4:3 aspect ratio; HDTV has 16:9)?
I dont have HDTV. The one I have hasn’t broken yet.
I have a habit of responding to just one post when I mean the general audience....anyone out there have HDTV?
Got one about 6 months ago, still amazed at the picture quality. Simply awesome. I will tell you it sucks with an analog source though.
I was wondering about the view of the field — do you get a larger view of the field, or is it about the same?
Good question. I haven’t noticed anything different but I haven’t looked at it from that perspective. I think I would have a hard time telling you one way or the other even if I did look for it. I seriously doubt that if it is different that it would be much different.
It’s the light-weight cameras and too many of them.
When cameras were heavy and expensive they did a better job of showing the actual game play.
I get claustrophobia now days because I’m forced to look up peoples noses when I just want to see the field.
Penalties and fights are part of the game.
The producers probably think that showing so much crowd stupidity and sideline shots add reality to the game.
Instead with all the cameras capturing every detail, we still miss oodles and gob's of game action.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.