Fighting Erstads at the B1G Tournament - Championship Game vs. Ohio State

[GBRFAN]

18 hours ago, knapplc said:

He was safe.

 

 

Problem is the first basemen foot is blocking the view of the mid foot hitting the bag for a safe call and the umpires watching review are focusing on the last thing to touch the bag which was the moving toes...

[Landlord]

49 minutes ago, GBRFAN said:

Problem is the first basemen foot is blocking the view of the mid foot hitting the bag for a safe call and the umpires watching review are focusing on the last thing to touch the bag which was the moving toes...

 

 

You can't actually visually see the foot making contact with the bag there, you can only use intuition to safely assume it. 

[SouthLincoln Husker]

2 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

So every team has the exact same opportunity to prepare and practice?  And teams can't get better as the season goes on?

 

We averaged 7 runs per game in the tournament.  In the first four games we averaged 8.5.  That would seem to be when there's hardware on the line.  I'm pretty sure you have to win previous games to get to the title game.

Hum, the more reps you get the better you should get.  There should be coaching every game to help a player get better.  Have you ever played the game?  I played & coached and I agree that where dumb questions. 

 

[Enhance]

20 hours ago, Mavric said:

I don't really expect this in baseball but this  reminded me of volleyball.  Can we not afford high-speed cameras with our $50M+ B1G dollars so you can actually see these things clearly?

 

15 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

@Enhance might be able to speak more to this than me, as I don't have a ton of knowledge about the broadcast side as much as film production side, but I believe the biggest hang up with this is data transfer speeds. For the kind of frame rate and resolution fidelity that you imagine when you think of solving this problem, you're talking several gigabytes of data per second, per camera, all having to feed into a central hub and record to drives, and then also have the cpu power to have clean playback of all of them at the same time. I'm sure it's possible but that kind of package with the cameras, cables or wireless receivers, data hubs, hard drives, cpu horsepower would be extremely expensive (and that's for one single loadout) and I imagine not very cost effective.

You did a pretty good job highlighting the issue(s). It's a fairly all-encompassing challenge including the cost of the hardware just to manage the system, the extreme costs of the cameras capable of shooting at that many FPS, and the ROI of it all. Is the B1G baseball tournament in Omaha worth it? No. Neither is Husker volleyball.

 

I remember reading an article only a few years ago that talked about how a MNF broadcast by ESPN had only six high frame rate cameras at the time out of the 40-50 or so that they used in a game. Six. And those are probably 16 of the most important sporting nights every year in this country. Perhaps that has changed a bit since then but it's still a remarkable expenditure to support that kind of production.

 

Plus, I'm fairly certain the universities do not manage the hardware, cameras, cables, wiring, etc. I think the likes of BTN/ESPN/Fox do. They would probably have to upgrade everything at every stadium/venue if that's what they wanted to do, and I assume that cost is not justifiable at this point in time. Some of those high frame rate cameras cost a couple hundred thousand dollars per.

[GBRFAN]

3 hours ago, Landlord said:

 

 

You can't actually visually see the foot making contact with the bag there, you can only use intuition to safely assume it. 

 

you are a wise man/women - that is what "blocking the view" means. We have all run and stepped on a base bag or something similar and felt which part of our foot hits first and what part hits last.

 

[Mavric]

1 hour ago, Enhance said:

You did a pretty good job highlighting the issue(s). It's a fairly all-encompassing challenge including the cost of the hardware just to manage the system, the extreme costs of the cameras capable of shooting at that many FPS, and the ROI of it all. Is the B1G baseball tournament in Omaha worth it? No. Neither is Husker volleyball.

 

I remember reading an article only a few years ago that talked about how a MNF broadcast by ESPN had only six high frame rate cameras at the time out of the 40-50 or so that they used in a game. Six. And those are probably 16 of the most important sporting nights every year in this country. Perhaps that has changed a bit since then but it's still a remarkable expenditure to support that kind of production.

 

Plus, I'm fairly certain the universities do not manage the hardware, cameras, cables, wiring, etc. I think the likes of BTN/ESPN/Fox do. They would probably have to upgrade everything at every stadium/venue if that's what they wanted to do, and I assume that cost is not justifiable at this point in time. Some of those high frame rate cameras cost a couple hundred thousand dollars per.

 

Baseball I can understand a bit more because you could be looking for a view from any one of the many cameras out there.

 

But volleyball is different.  The main one you need is the one at the top of the net.  It would be used several times each match for however many home matches there are each year.  It can't be that much of an expense to avoid spending three minutes discussing if the announcers think it might have touched one finger from the grainy images we get to see.

[Mavric]

19 hours ago, knapplc said:

The kicker is, they have HiDef cameras for the in-game replay. This is just some dude taking a snapshot of his TV or streaming feed.

 

That's so clearly safe I can't imagine how you don't overturn that call. Crazy pants.

 

I guess I don't think think is the case.  See @Enhance's post above.

 

And surely in volleyball they don't have two cameras at the top of the net - one for the TV and a separate one for the reviews.

 

I know in NFL games they always talk about the TV showing the same camera angles that the review officials get to see.

[Enhance]

4 hours ago, Mavric said:

It can't be that much of an expense to avoid spending three minutes discussing if the announcers think it might have touched one finger from the grainy images we get to see.

To be honest, I don't think the bean counters value volleyball that much as a whole and/or don't see enough of a reason to change anything. My assumption is the value just isn't there. Could they afford it? Probably. But, until volleyball matters more and drives more revenue (from a broadcast perspective) then I don't think one could justify the cost.

[Landlord]

4 hours ago, Mavric said:

But volleyball is different.  The main one you need is the one at the top of the net.  It would be used several times each match for however many home matches there are each year.  It can't be that much of an expense to avoid spending three minutes discussing if the announcers think it might have touched one finger from the grainy images we get to see.

 

 

That'd likely be a several hundred thousand dollar investment per broadcast team for the conference, for a non-revenue generating sport. How many different crews does BTN have?

[rdwoodpecker]

On 5/26/2019 at 6:32 PM, Pasadena Husker said:

Gomes needs to work with a good hitting coach this summer.  Has been good in the field and in relief, but every time he comes to the plate I cringe.  dude can't hit his weight. 

 

 

Thoughts I shared at the game with the wife. He is a good enough ball player to get some hits.

Whole team has had trouble hitting this season, not sure anyone who is a regular is hitting above .300.

Lots of work for the batting coach in the off-season.

Crowd was unbelievable today!!!!!! 

[Mavric]

40 minutes ago, Landlord said:

That'd likely be a several hundred thousand dollar investment per broadcast team for the conference, for a non-revenue generating sport. How many different crews does BTN have?

 

There is no way it would cost anywhere near that much.

[Landlord]

2 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

There is no way it would cost anywhere near that much.

 

 

A single Sony HDC-4800 is $200,000. That's a 4K broadcast camera that shoots 480 frames per second (they used a few of these for the most recent SuperBowl). Let's say you don't need 4K and 480fps is a bit overkill; fair enough. A Sony HDC-3300 is 1080p and shoots 180 frames per second. That camera is discontinued but still costs $96,000. Now keep in mind those are just for the camera bodies, lenses aren't included. Flagship broadcast lenses like the Canon UHD DIGISUPER 86 also cost $200,000.  The cheap ones that you'd need for what you're asking are probably $50,000 minimum.

 

You also need a switchboard. Sony's "affordable" midrange switcher is $95,000.

 

 

[Mavric]

6 hours ago, Landlord said:

A single Sony HDC-4800 is $200,000. That's a 4K broadcast camera that shoots 480 frames per second (they used a few of these for the most recent SuperBowl). Let's say you don't need 4K and 480fps is a bit overkill; fair enough. A Sony HDC-3300 is 1080p and shoots 180 frames per second. That camera is discontinued but still costs $96,000. Now keep in mind those are just for the camera bodies, lenses aren't included. Flagship broadcast lenses like the Canon UHD DIGISUPER 86 also cost $200,000.  The cheap ones that you'd need for what you're asking are probably $50,000 minimum.

 

You also need a switchboard. Sony's "affordable" midrange switcher is $95,000.

 

The system I use to time track meets shoots 250 fps.  That's nearly 10 times faster than standard broadcast speeds (which is what it looks like they use for these replays) and is plenty fast enough to create a clear still image of sprinters in motion.  You can buy the entire system for $5,000.  The camera is smaller than my fist and would easily mount on the net support.

 

I don't know exactly what quality and frame rate would be needed to get a really nice picture.  But I'm pretty confident that there would be options available for well less than what you are talking about.  

[Enhance]

16 minutes ago, Mavric said:

I don't know exactly what quality and frame rate would be needed to get a really nice picture.  But I'm pretty confident that there would be options available for well less than what you are talking about.  

I see what you're getting at now. You're talking about the camera that provides LOS for the top of the net.  I misunderstood (or unintentionally ignored) your 'top of the net' remark earlier. I think I read that and was thinking of a different angle.

 

I don't know what cameras they're using there. I did a quick Google search and found the below photo. It almost looks like some kind of DSLR even though I don't think that's what it is. Upgrading those cameras to what you're talking about would still be a fairly pricy expenditure I would imagine, because it would have to be able to interface with the switchboard and meet all of the other requirements for a sports broadcast production, but it probably wouldn't be hundred of thousands of dollars. Perhaps of tens of thousands. But, that would still be for just one crew. You'd likely still have to upgrade multiple, and there might be some additional technical items to update.

 

My blind assumption is it just boils down to the broadcast companies believing what they have serves the purpose they need it to, and they don't see much reason to upgrade at this point in time.

 

 

[bugeater17]

1 minute ago, Enhance said:

I see what you're getting at now. You're talking about the camera that provides LOS for the top of the net.  I misunderstood (or unintentionally ignored) your 'top of the net' remark earlier. I think I read that and was thinking of a different angle.

 

I don't know what cameras they're using there. I did a quick Google search and found the below photo. It almost looks like some kind of DSLR even though I don't think that's what it is. Upgrading those cameras to what you're talking about would still be a fairly pricy expenditure I would imagine, because it would have to be able to interface with the switchboard and meet all of the other requirements for a sports broadcast production, but it probably wouldn't be hundred of thousands of dollars. Perhaps of tens of thousands. But, that would still be for just one crew. You'd have to upgrade multiple.

 

My blind assumption is it just boils down to the broadcast companies believing what they have serves the purpose they need it to, and they don't see much reason to upgrade at this point in time.

 

Don't they have the type of high def cameras for BIG football broadcasts? Why couldn't BIG use the same equipment? Perhaps i'm missing something or don't fully understand the need for different equipment between football and baseball broadcasts.