Nitromater
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Yeah I know, Crazy camera angles...
- Thread starter Percboy
- Start date
stitcherbob
Nitro Member
that stupid superimposed Papa Johns ad is going to ruin our coverage....look at the wheel on GA's car...the computer put that on there
Jimbo
Nitro Member
Wow it really is harder to determine who won that I think it has to be.
Just my opinion. Jim Hill
www.nostalgicracingdecals.com
Just my opinion. Jim Hill
www.nostalgicracingdecals.com
Luke Nieuwhof
Nitro Member
It could be something to do with rolling shutter effect digital cameras experience. I'd love to see a true high speed finish line camera included one day in the coverage, like they use in athletics or horse racing.
.
Nitro Member
That's probably exactly what it is.
For those that haven't heard of rolling shutter or aren't sure how it works check out this link. The top of the frame is scanned and recorded first while the bottom of the frame is recorded last. Even though it's a tiny amount of time difference when something is moving at 200+ mph it can make things look deceiving when you're comparing top of frame to bottom of frame.
https://petapixel.com/2017/06/30/rolling-shutter-effect-works/
Old Guy Rookie
Nitro Member
To get a little more geeky on that: https://petapixel.com/2017/04/27/canon-300mm-f1-8-yes-monster-lens-exists/
Dennis
Nitro Member
Forgive my ignorance, but is this how digital cameras generally work? That is, why can't a camera snap a picture, as opposed to a mosaic that makes up a picture? I'm sure that this type of image is generally good enough for horse racing but for racing at hundreds of MPH it seems insufficient.
I know it's "just" for TV and all but it sure does look confusing and could make people question whether the electronics should supersede the human eye, given the evidence.
I know it's "just" for TV and all but it sure does look confusing and could make people question whether the electronics should supersede the human eye, given the evidence.
Sean D, shondoo
Nitro Member
I know this subject has been discussed at length for a long time, but I can remember when the PSB deal went down at Indy between Johnson and Smith, and that camera view was so much more clear and not distorted. Am I misremembering that, or did/does ESPN use different equipment?
Either way, and I've said this before, I just can't believe this can't be rectified. I can't believe in this day and age that there's not suitable high-speed filming and/or photography that could easily put these issues to rest. Is it a cost issue or something?
Sean D
Either way, and I've said this before, I just can't believe this can't be rectified. I can't believe in this day and age that there's not suitable high-speed filming and/or photography that could easily put these issues to rest. Is it a cost issue or something?
Sean D
Dennis
Nitro Member
James, if memory serves you're a photographer, right? If not, may be this is a question for Mark Rebilas....You guys have cameras that I would deem expensive, but still not to the point that it would be prohibitive for Fox Sports and/or NHRA to purchase. If you took your camera on the fastest shutter speed, and kept it still as the cars went by, how much "blur" would there would be? I'm amazed at the details from Mark's blog posts and I can't help but think we are at the point that an "off the shelf" camera would do better than the mosaic currently used.
Of course I know that photographers are panning along with the cars but I'm just curious to see how much a perfectly still camera will pick up.
James
Nitro Member
Never tried not panning. Will give it a try in July when the circus comes to New England.
Luke Nieuwhof
Nitro Member
Photographer here. If you had enough light to shoot at 1/8000sec there would be hardly any blur.
The trickier thing however would be how you get the shutter to release exactly as the cars cross the line, I'm not aware of a motion sensor that accurate or quick.
That is why they use video stills, because you are capturing 120 or 240 frames per second potentially, whereas a still camera might only knock out 10 frames per second. However the downside to video stills is that they are subject to the rolling shutter effect, unlike true photographed stills.
The ideal solution would be something like this, which is designed for the exact purpose of capturing a photo finish: http://www.finishlynx.com/packages/motorsports-high-speed-timing-systems/
