Improving the NFL Viewing Experience

[SeoulSoxFan]

Random thought.

As Brady was holding the ball and the camera zooms in on the backfield, we -- as viewers -- have no idea what's going on with the coverage.

Why not take the top upper-left (if play is going from right-to-left) part of the screen and show the downfield action? Something like:

Seems like a great way to utilize the extra space. Often we only see the receivers/secondary battle when the camera whirls and follows the arc of the thrown ball.

 

[m0ckduck]

Random thought.

As Brady was holding the ball and the camera zooms in on the backfield, we -- as viewers -- have no idea what's going on with the coverage.

Why not take the top upper-left (if play is going from right-to-left) part of the screen and show the downfield action? Something like:

Seems like a great way to utilize the extra space. Often we only see the receivers/secondary battle when the camera whirls and follows the arc of the thrown ball.

This is a really interesting idea, but it's hard for humans to concentrate on two simultaneous complex events like this.

I would prefer to see networks experiment with broadcasting football more like soccer, with a zoomed-out camera treatment capturing more of the action, interspersed with occasional close-up shots. I think the current camera work in football is partly a relic from decades past, where there was less passing and a larger share of the action happened around the line of scrimmage. And partly a function of football's narrative-building, where the QB is the hero-figure protagonist. And largely, of course, the good old-fashioned if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it conservativism of a league making billions of dollars.

 

[NortheasternPJ]

25% of the screens real estate showing nothing behind Brady doesn't add much either. Zoom out a little, move the camera to the left a bit, problem solved.

 

[hitatater]

Random thought.

As Brady was holding the ball and the camera zooms in on the backfield, we -- as viewers -- have no idea what's going on with the coverage.

Why not take the top upper-left (if play is going from right-to-left) part of the screen and show the downfield action? Something like:

Seems like a great way to utilize the extra space. Often we only see the receivers/secondary battle when the camera whirls and follows the arc of the thrown ball.

Oh man, don't get me started on useless camera shots of sporting events.

But now you got me started. Right off the top of my head, here are 3 that just frost my TV-watchin' couch sittin' ass:

1) Football - upon release of a pass, camera FOLLOWS THE DAMN BALL through the air. Fuck off! Show me the receivers/coverage, or even the line finishing their blocks. Anything but a launched projectile whose path is mathematically predictable. THIS GOES DOUBLE FOR KICKED BALLS (except placekicks to the goalposts...)

2) Baseball - Homeruns. Similar rant, but THERE IS EVEN MORE TO SEE THAT I NOT A BALL - e.g. Joey Bats/Ortiz activities, defenders moving, cutoffs developing.

3) Baseball - using the over-the-pitchers-shoulder shot EVERY DAMN PITCH. Mix in 25% from behind the umpire, showing the whole field. AND KEEP THIS SHOT when the ball is hit.

I have more, but Ima gonna go kill a cat first (apologies to OJ...)

 

[Marceline]

25% of the screens real estate showing nothing behind Brady doesn't add much either. Zoom out a little, move the camera to the left a bit, problem solved.

Is standard Def broadcast still a thing? For many years, the same camera shot had to be usable for both HD and SD broadcasts where the borders would be cut off. Hence showing the qb in the middle of the screen, and in many cases the station logo and score graphics would be more centered also.

I don't honestly know if SD broadcasts still exist, but looking at the way the camera is handled, it doesn't look like anything was ever changed to account for the SD -> HD upgrade in screen space.

 

[SamK]

Love tater's avatar. A great, deceptively athletic first baseman like Boomer reminds me of another shot I miss in sports. Often we aren't shown the lead a runner is taking at first. Instead we get a closeup of the pitcher's eyes. Ooooh. Drama.

Is there any play in football where we don't want to see the 22-shot? And see it for several seconds before and after the play?? It is way too apparent through this team this year that NFL football is a game of attrition; how a player gets up after he's been hit matters to me during the game.

I'd give a game ball to the first engineer in the TV truck who figures this out; who doesn't try to create a narrative by juxtaposing supposedly emotional shots; who isn't seduced by the modern camera's ability to zoom in and keep a tear drop steady.

 

[TomTerrific]

Is standard Def broadcast still a thing? For many years, the same camera shot had to be usable for both HD and SD broadcasts where the borders would be cut off. Hence showing the qb in the middle of the screen, and in many cases the station logo and score graphics would be more centered also.

I don't honestly know if SD broadcasts still exist, but looking at the way the camera is handled, it doesn't look like anything was ever changed to account for the SD -> HD upgrade in screen space.

I would be shocked if you live in the US and don't still have a ton of SDTV signals flowing to your television over cable, FIOS, or satellite. What has changed is that the analog formats are no longer supported, but there is still a lot of digital SDTV using NTSC (in the US) being pushed around. Everyone kind of assumes it will eventually go away but I'm not aware of any timetables.

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

Is standard Def broadcast still a thing? For many years, the same camera shot had to be usable for both HD and SD broadcasts where the borders would be cut off. Hence showing the qb in the middle of the screen, and in many cases the station logo and score graphics would be more centered also.

I don't honestly know if SD broadcasts still exist, but looking at the way the camera is handled, it doesn't look like anything was ever changed to account for the SD -> HD upgrade in screen space.

Having to watch a lot of games on an old SD TV when I'm at work, they have definitely adjusted how they frame shots in a lot of instances so that SD viewers miss out. It is close ups in particular, such as replays, where the action they are discussing is not centered and often out of frame for a 4:3 screen. I've also noticed at the snap, they typically frame the line of scrimmage off center with more screen given to the defensive side so you can see all 11 defenders unless they're playing a really deep safety or two. As a result of that, on an SD screen, a QB in shotgun or the running back is often barely in if not out of frame entirely in a lot of cases.

In the producers' defense, though, it comes down to how the broadcast signal is handled. On a lot of stations nowadays, when the program is broadcast in 16:9, the SD signal switches to a letterbox format so the entire frame is visible. But not all networks/stations do that. Fox is really good for that, CBS is not, at least for my local affiliates...I'm not actually sure if it is an affiliate thing, a network thing, or a cable company thing.

 

[DJnVa]

2) Baseball - Homeruns. Similar rant, but THERE IS EVEN MORE TO SEE THAT I NOT A BALL - e.g. Joey Bats/Ortiz activities, defenders moving, cutoffs developing.

How much do defenders moving and cutoffs developing matter on homeruns?

More seriously though, I'm not sure about this one. If I see a defender moving, and I don't know what it's in relation to, what does that five me? The ball causes the action in baseball, I think we need to see that as the primary.

 

[simplyeric]

This is all probably fodder for a thread of its own.

But just to chime in:
How long before the option for varying shots is just built in to every broadcast? You want the sky cam? It's yours. All-22? Sideline? Endzone? That funky thing some stadiums do with the Matrix-style shot? Have at it. All the logos and scores and whatever would be applied to each one, but the viewer gets to choose which (or multiple).

Yes, the "Standard" broadcast will still exist, but it will be an additional subscription offer, on top of the current Sunday Ticket.

No, the NFL won't pioneer that. Some other sport will experiment with it, and small accommodations will be made over time. But, 10 years from now, do people think we'll still be stuck with the single camera angle that's presented to us?

 

[MuppetAsteriskTalk]

This is all probably fodder for a thread of its own.

But just to chime in:
How long before the option for varying shots is just built in to every broadcast? You want the sky cam? It's yours. All-22? Sideline? Endzone? That funky thing some stadiums do with the Matrix-style shot? Have at it. All the logos and scores and whatever would be applied to each one, but the viewer gets to choose which (or multiple).

Yes, the "Standard" broadcast will still exist, but it will be an additional subscription offer, on top of the current Sunday Ticket.

No, the NFL won't pioneer that. Some other sport will experiment with it, and small accommodations will be made over time. But, 10 years from now, do people think we'll still be stuck with the single camera angle that's presented to us?

Don't know if they're still doing it, but NASCAR was offering a choice of in car cameras for a while. You could watch either the standard broadcast or choose between whichever cars happened to have in car cameras for the race.

 

[h8mfy]

We offered NASCAR "in-car" for a while back in the early 2000s at Cablevision - we'd have more people on the weekly trouble call than actually subscribed, but it was pretty cool and advanced technology for its time and also includes lots of stats that you could access. We also had a variation for Knicks and Rangers games, but this was not exactly a new idea - there was a cable operator who offered a similar feed years before.

I think that as more TV goes to IP delivery this sort of thing will be common, and much easier to do.

Edit was to finish the thought.

 

[SeoulSoxFan]

Split out as a new thread. I'd love to hear your ideas about how to improve the NFL viewing experience overall, as well as camera angles/PiP/etc.

 

[Blue Monkey]

One thing I've noticed particularly on the SNF broadcast is the unnecessary closeups. Many times when players are entering or leaving the field after a change of possession is that the camera zooms in way to close on the players (especially qbs). I mean I don't mind the occasional closeup but you don't need to zoom in so freaking close so you can see food particles hanging off Fitzalicious' beard. Its distracting/hard on the eyes and seems to actually degrade the HD quality (at least on my end). Maybe I'm just lame and getting old. NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!!

 

[mostman]

To me a simple change is with the overlays. I like the idea above about allowing us to select them. As we move into "app" distribution of content we will probably start seeing this be common. The interactive inputs available to a standard television viewer just don't allow for this. You have to play to the least common denominator.

If changing overlays were an option, I would basically turn everything off except a tiny score box and a tiny clock box. MNF is terrible. The overlay takes up about 10 percent of the screen. I hate it.

 

[One Leg at a Time]

I would love to control the overlay. Even if it was only a couple of different options.

I have less of an opinion about the 'standard' broadcasts, though; unless the Pats are on, we tend to watch RedZone. I enjoy it although my wife complains because she has a hard time following the transitions.

 

[Mugsy's Jock]

These suggestions all strike me as stuff the internet was invented for. The basic broadcast coverage should probably remain more or less as is... but verified/authenticated viewers should have access to stream a range of alternative camera angles, including prospectively combining those angles a la SSF's example above.

That said, it would provide more targets for thieving targets to haul in (aka "steal") unauthorized streams, to which I'm strongly opposed. I remain one of very few Dudley Do-Rights at SoSH on that topic.

Edit: Making alternative camera angles and self-production a pay-only option sounds like a modest revenue-generator, at low cost, so long as network commercial breaks could be protected and measured and monetized.

 

[mostman]

I would love to control the overlay. Even if it was only a couple of different options.

I have less of an opinion about the 'standard' broadcasts, though; unless the Pats are on, we tend to watch RedZone. I enjoy it although my wife complains because she has a hard time following the transitions.

My wife said, "Did they change uniforms?" Then I made the mistake of saying, "Yes, and the field too." So, it could be worse.

 

[ragnarok725]

NBCSports's Sunday night online stream had multiple cameras you could choose from for a while, but I think it's gone away in the last year or two, can't quite remember when. Seems like analytics probably told them they weren't getting used much.

 

[ObstructedView]

One thing I've noticed particularly on the SNF broadcast is the unnecessary closeups. Many times when players are entering or leaving the field after a change of possession is that the camera zooms in way to close on the players (especially qbs). I mean I don't mind the occasional closeup but you don't need to zoom in so freaking close so you can see food particles hanging off Fitzalicious' beard. Its distracting/hard on the eyes and seems to actually degrade the HD quality (at least on my end). Maybe I'm just lame and getting old. NOW GET OFF MY LAWN!!

This is just one manifestation of the way that these national prime-time games are produced. It's all about advancing pre-determined narratives and enhancing the sense of human drama. You see it a lot in baseball with gratuitous close-ups of angst-ridden fans and the like, but I guess it's more understandable/forgiveable in that context since there's a lot more "dead" time to fill between pitches. With football there is always so much going on between snaps (as long as it's not a timeout) that there's no excuse for the wasted close-ups.

It doesn't help that TV commentary in football tends to focus on storylines and obvious outcomes rather than Xs and Os; I can't tell you how many times I've said or thought during an NFL broadcast: "It'll be interesting to see and hear after the game how they were adjusting formations and substitutinig." Watching a game on TV has many advantages (different replay angles, rule interpretation, etc.), but in some ways it's like trying to watch through a periscope.

 

[DanoooME]

What's disappointing is that NFL Network broadcasts the same tired way as the established networks. Why they wouldn't take the opportunity to try something different is beyond me, especially in those situations where they are simulcasting the games with CBS. I would love to see them take the opportunity to broadcast the game from, let's say, the all-22 camera position and utilizing some of the other suggestions in this thread. Give the fans of the game an opportunity to see something different and decide if they like it.

 

[Devizier]

Is standard Def broadcast still a thing? For many years, the same camera shot had to be usable for both HD and SD broadcasts where the borders would be cut off. Hence showing the qb in the middle of the screen, and in many cases the station logo and score graphics would be more centered also.

I don't honestly know if SD broadcasts still exist, but looking at the way the camera is handled, it doesn't look like anything was ever changed to account for the SD -> HD upgrade in screen space.

SD is definitely still a thing. You still see old sets out here in western PA. One thing to consider about people using antiquated technology is that they won't be skipping commercials. Of course, those same people tend to be elderly and poor so they're not exactly your target demo.

 

[joe dokes]

At this point, just about the only advantage to being at the game has over TV is that you get to see the whole play and/or look at whatever you choose to. You know if the WR has slipped past the DB maybe before the QB does (if he does). Or maybe you want to take a play "off" and just watch the DB hand-fighting with the WR.

Seems like it's only a matter of time before TV catches up on this "advantage" with an easier "be your own director" approach similar to the former NBC stream. Or at least options available on sub-channels.

In 25 years each player will have a camera flush-mounted on their person and the viewer will be able to dial up any player on their TV. Or better yet, the Brady-cam (he will still be playing in 25 years, right?) will stream directly to your own VR headset at home.

 

[ernieshore]

This is admittedly a pet peeve of mine with all TV sports, but the permanent ticker/scroll needs to be killed. Just about everyone has a smartphone and we don't need to see the same headlines every 3 minutes. Direct the audience to your app and make the viewing experience even more interactive. Some of the non Sunday-afternoon broadcasts have got better at this and ratings don't seem to be suffering.

 

[Spelunker]

SD is definitely still a thing. You still see old sets out here in western PA. One thing to consider about people using antiquated technology is that they won't be skipping commercials. Of course, those same people tend to be elderly and poor so they're not exactly your target demo.

Heck, it's enough of a thing that Comcast still uses it a pretense to add HD channels as an upsell package to their base offering.

 

[Matt Young's Control]

There are a significant number of interesting possibilities for broadcast audio. We learn close to nothing from Buck, Gruden, Michaels and their ilk. A few other possibilities:
1) Choose your announcers, with several options available. Keep the vanilla/terrible guys they have now, or switch over to hardcore analysts talking schemes, adjustments, formations, mechanics. This would allow both the average fan and the serious fan to follow along.
2) Stadium sound only, no announcers. Injury status and other updates can be provided on the ticker or pop-ups.
3) 100% mic'ed up. Stick a microphone on the MLB's and QB's, let the audio run throughout the game. Would be fascinating to hear the adjustments, the trash talking. There are a number of issues that might make this impossible (highly offensive smack-talk, proprietary audible/adjustments being called out) but I would pay a hell of a lot for this option.

 

[Devizier]

There are a significant number of interesting possibilities for broadcast audio. We learn close to nothing from Buck, Gruden, Michaels and their ilk. A few other possibilities:
1) Choose your announcers, with several options available. Keep the vanilla/terrible guys they have now, or switch over to hardcore analysts talking schemes, adjustments, formations, mechanics. This would allow both the average fan and the serious fan to follow along.
2) Stadium sound only, no announcers. Injury status and other updates can be provided on the ticker or pop-ups.
3) 100% mic'ed up. Stick a microphone on the MLB's and QB's, let the audio run throughout the game. Would be fascinating to hear the adjustments, the trash talking. There are a number of issues that might make this impossible (highly offensive smack-talk, proprietary audible/adjustments being called out) but I would pay a hell of a lot for this option.

I like this idea, with some modifications. Namely, dropping the deep analysis broadcast. Not enough broad interest and it would be too difficult to do well on the fly. If given the option, I would probably just go stadium sound and nothing else. I typically watch the games on mute, so it wouldn't be a dramatically different experience.

 

[ernieshore]

ESPN tried some of these with their broadcast of the college football national championship. I love idea of the multiple audio options. I wish I could be out-of-market and sync up the Pats radio broadcast to the TV feed.

http://espn.go.com/blog/ncfnation/post/_/id/107410/12-ways-to-watch-the-cfp-national-championship-megacast

 

[Bowhemian]

There are a significant number of interesting possibilities for broadcast audio. We learn close to nothing from Buck, Gruden, Michaels and their ilk. A few other possibilities:

3) 100% mic'ed up. Stick a microphone on the MLB's and QB's, let the audio run throughout the game. Would be fascinating to hear the adjustments, the trash talking. There are a number of issues that might make this impossible (highly offensive smack-talk, proprietary audible/adjustments being called out) but I would pay a hell of a lot for this option.

I would be all over this. I love the mic'd up segments that they do show.

 

[SocrManiac]

NBC has been absolutely killing it with their Premier League coverage. At least one game per day has a tactical camera that would be roughly equivalent to the NFL's All 22. It uses stadium microphones instead of the commentary as well. It's a fantastic viewing experience.

If you're watching on their app they also offer it as picture in picture. You can choose either broadcast as the main with the other taking up a quarter of the screen. This can be useful for the close ups and replays.

 

[Tony C]

Random thought.

As Brady was holding the ball and the camera zooms in on the backfield, we -- as viewers -- have no idea what's going on with the coverage.

Why not take the top upper-left (if play is going from right-to-left) part of the screen and show the downfield action? Something like:

Seems like a great way to utilize the extra space. Often we only see the receivers/secondary battle when the camera whirls and follows the arc of the thrown ball.

I want to give some love to this original idea but start by giving some love to the current format. Yeah, sucks not to see the all-22. But can anyone on this forum deny that NFL games make for gripping TV? Sure, viewer as director choosing among shots sounds cool, but as noted no evidence it'd really be used. Bottom-line: huge viewership and for good reason: it's great TV. Being closer makes the action more vivid, something that is lost in an all-22.

SSF's idea is the best of both worlds -- keep a bit of a tight shot (which I think should be even tighter) and then an insert of the secondary so can track receiver-DB match-ups would be ideal. I think that's far better than the current system and the other options being discussed here.

 

[mulluysavage]

Many of these ideas would definitely make watching football better. But what drives/impedes innovation is: does it make it more profitable? The question becomes: what are the markets for these innovations? What is the cost to develop and implement? Does it make you more money? I would guess that 90 +% of football viewers want to watch what exists now versus say an all-22. They don't follow football as technically as users of this board. Can you make a product that you can charge enough to a small percentage to make it worthwhile? This is linked to the NFL's legal status and market share, they don't have anything to speak of in terms of competition, profits are humongous, if it ain't broke, why fix it?

 

[Al Zarilla]

Oh, man, to me, one of the best aspects of being at the stadium is watching the receivers fan out down the field while the QB goes back to pass. This you don't see at all until a replay is shown. If TV coverage could find a way... Actually, with really big TV screens nowadays, why not pull back the coverage to more of a big picture view that shows the QB going back and the receivers heading downfield?

 

[Dollar]

I'd like to see how a perspective like this would work in real life.

You get to see it sometimes with those crazy remote-controlled cameras on replays, but I've never seen a real-life football game shown on TV with a camera angle like this (maybe the XFL did it, but I don't remember much of that).

I'm not totally sure I'd want to change the camera angle to this, but it could be cool to try it out.

 

[jercra]

NM. No idea what happened there but the board ate my post. Mods, please delete.

 

[rmaher]

I'd like to see how a perspective like this would work in real life.

I'm not totally sure I'd want to change the camera angle to this, but it could be cool to try it out.

I bet that would be awesome. The difficulty would be always having a camera ready from that location. If the NFL can't afford goal line cameras (they can) then they can't afford mobile overhead cameras (they can).

 

[Marceline]

I bet that would be awesome. The difficulty would be always having a camera ready from that location. If the NFL can't afford goal line cameras (they can) then they can't afford mobile overhead cameras (they can).

Why would the NFL pay for TV network cameras?

 

[AB in DC]

Prime-time games usually have a camera on the wire for shots like that. It's a great view, but sometimes it's a little too shaky to watch.

 

[Tony C]

Weren't there two shots using that view during the Pats-Bills game? From behind, maybe a bit lower/tighter. It was okay.

 

[JoeyBelle]

Why not have second TV channel devoted to an alternate viewing angle? You would need two TVs but those are getting less expensive every year. And the NFL could surely monetize that as a subscription. People have multiple monitors at their desk jobs, why not in their man caves for watching sports?

 

[8slim]

Others have touched on it but the biggest reason there isn't more innovation in game presentation is that in the times there have been different feeds/angles/audio available the viewer largely ignores them. There is significant cost to presenting the game in multiple ways and unless that leads to a quantifiable increase in ratings there just isn't a compelling business justification for doing it. Networks that have are usually doing it as a way to show how "innovative" they can be (e.g. Turner's home team broadcasts of the Final 4) but it's not something that makes much sense to do at scale.

That being said, I do think that a generation of kids raised on Xbox and PS4 will become TV directors that eschew some of the traditional ways of shooting games. But that's a decade-plus away from happening.

 

[singaporesoxfan]

Many of these ideas would definitely make watching football better. But what drives/impedes innovation is: does it make it more profitable? The question becomes: what are the markets for these innovations? What is the cost to develop and implement? Does it make you more money? I would guess that 90 +% of football viewers want to watch what exists now versus say an all-22. They don't follow football as technically as users of this board. Can you make a product that you can charge enough to a small percentage to make it worthwhile? This is linked to the NFL's legal status and market share, they don't have anything to speak of in terms of competition, profits are humongous, if it ain't broke, why fix it?

On the other hand, consumers of any product often don't know what features they want until they experience it. Did I really feel like I wanted a yellow line on screen to tell me what the first down target is? And yet now that's integral to my viewing experience.

Also, you may be right in that it's too expensive for the potential benefit, but I don't buy that the NFL stands still just because profits are humongous. The NFL broadcasts already try to do some things differently to improve the viewing experience, such as putting in RFIDs to do player tracking, so there's reason to think that they might want to innovate in other ways.

Edit: brain fart on description of the yellow line.

 

[SamK]

I thought the broadcast of the ND-Stanford game last night was just about perfect. (other than the final score--I root for Assumption College's own Brian Kelly)
Mostly 22-player shots just before and during plays. Perhaps there are fewer resources/engineers for big college games than for big NFL games, so they default to this simpler, more informative style?

 

[BannedbyNYYFans.com]

SamK, I was coming here to post the same thing. Fox shows that wide screen, higher than normal angle sometimes during college programming. Its definitely the best view I've seen. I don't know why its not used more often. Here is a youtube clip with the highlights shot from that angle along with screenshots.


Edit - Because of the size of the post, I spoilered the pics.

Spoiler

 

[SamK]

Thanks for those examples, Banned. I forgot that even in that telecast there was the occasional close up of ball in the air. But how great is it to watch a whole play develop. The Stanford reverse is a nice example, but I especially like watching a whole secondary respond to an offense.
I come back to this thread after an excellent win over KC. On to the AFC championship game. But, the bigger the game, the more cameras and technology available. These engineers and producers love their technology. Like your uncle in the eighties who, upon getting his first video camera with a zoom feature couldn't stop zooming and now the family video history seems to tell the story of a stomach churning carnival ride. Or maybe that's just my family history?
Given all these choices, it becomes more and more likely they make the wrong one.
It doesn't help that a lot of these same people do stuff like NASCAR. There they have to create a narrative out of nearly nothing. Which reminds me that in bigger games there are also bigger, so less football minded, audiences. So the pressure to "tell a story" instead of show a football game may also be greater.
I thought the following was instructive (sorry about my poor (lack of ) embedding skills):
http://www.theverge.com/2013/11/25/5141600/any-given-sunday-the-chaos-and-spectacle-of-nfl-on-fox

Their ability to technically do stuff is outstripping their ability to make good choices. How do fighter pilots fix this problem?

Edited for clarity and gratitude.

 

[staz]

Great thread. Wondering if the advent of 4K broadcast would present an opportunity for screen makers to develop technology for the viewer to pan/tilt/zoom in real-time?

All it would take is to maintain an elevated wide angle 22-shot in 4K, and allow the viewer to control what fills his screen. Even zooming in so that that small green 720p box in the above diagram fills the screen would still provide decent resolution. You could keep it wide to watch pass routes/coverage develop, or zoom all the way in on the QB or kicker/holder - or anywhere in-between. I mean, this functionality has been part of recorded video editing software for more than a decade. Does this kind of 'editing' on a live feed at say 30fps really demand more processing power than is commonplace today?