Live coverage of Sprint Finishes: Head-on camera or Helicam shot?

[Logic-is-your-friend]

That's why you look at the wheels...

And how would that help?

 

[tobydawq]

And how would that help?

The one who is the furthest down in the picture belongs to the bike in front... And the one who hits the line first is the winner.

 

[Sciatic]

The one who is the furthest down in the picture belongs to the bike in front... And the one who hits the line first is the winner.

If it’s close I am content to wait for them to tell me who won. I like seeing the sense of live action from the head on shot, but I suppose it’s also what I’m used to Today the aerial was way too high up (or they didn’t use zoom lens properly).

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

The one who is the furthest down in the picture belongs to the bike in front... And the one who hits the line first is the winner.

Down?

For you it's clear who wins here:

 

[QueenStagiaire]

Down?

For you it's clear who wins here:

I don‘t think Toby usually watches sprint finishes through the lense of a finish line photographer.

 

[zlev11]

i prefer the street level live shot of the line. if i cant tell who won idc, we'll find out. usually you can. it's better than the helicopter which is like watching ants crawl across the screen.

 

[tobydawq]

Down?

For you it's clear who wins here:

Lol, when is the finish ever filmed from this perspective and not from a camera mounted quite high behind the line?

 

[tobydawq]

Same problem applies. In real-time with multiple riders crossing the finish line over the entire width of the road, it is almost impossible to get a clear view of who won, unless it's not a close call.

If it's really close, I obviously cannot tell, but if it's more than 15 centimetres, I think it's quite easy.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Heli shots are not necessarily done with a tight framing: that can be improved.
Head-on shots necessarily involve foreshortening and 2-D perspective: it will take enormous technological advances before that is improved.

And it might just be me, but I can't identify riders by looking at their wheels.

 

[AmRacer]

And it might just be me, but I can't identify riders by looking at their wheels.

It can be a bit tricky when riders have switched bike or wheel due to mechanicals.

 

[tobydawq]

Heli shots are not necessarily done with a tight framing: that can be improved.
Head-on shots necessarily involve foreshortening and 2-D perspective: it will take enormous technological advances before that is improved.

And it might just be me, but I can't identify riders by looking at their wheels.

I don't know why this has to become some sort of mockery of me. I have no problems identifying riders and see who is in front from a head-on shot (with a raised camera). The commentators don't seem to have that either.

The heli shot takes all suspense and tension out of it and there is no way to say when the finish line arrives.

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

No mockery intended.

I don't find tension based on poor information to be desirable suspense. If it is genuinely that close, it will be so on the heli-shot: if it is obvious to the riders who has won, but not to the viewers, then the viewers are being poorly served.

As to indicating where the finish line is, "Heli shots are not necessarily done with a tight framing: that can be improved."

 

[Samamba]

Overhead heli cam just doesn't feel like live action to me, I don't feel "in the moment" whenever they do it. Probably because of a different background sound, not seeing the fans, I don't know. And I'm with Toby on the head on shots, absolute no problem with identifying riders or seeing who's first, unless it's really close and riders don't really know themselves who won. Yeah sure in those instances a heli view often gives a better view who wins, but I don't really mind seeing that 30 seconds later. I usually just rewind and pause on the finish line to be sure if it's super close honestly.

You also wouldn't even realize a crash happens outside the top 20 of the peloton if you just show a zoomed in heli view (have to zoom in otherwise you can't see).

Down?

For you it's clear who wins here:

Obviously not the angle being used normally and you know that too.

 

[Bolder]

I just look for whoever raises their hands and claims the win. Works most of the time!

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

I just look for whoever raises their hands and claims the win. Works most of the time!

We've been here before: Live coverage of Sprint Finishes: Head-on camera or Helicam shot? was a 2020 thread (apparently triggered by TdF stage 1 finish).

Shall I merge? (I will count frowns versus thumbs up in a few hours) Might enable this to discussion without it interrupting the chat about today's stage.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

If it's really close, I obviously cannot tell, but if it's more than 15 centimetres, I think it's quite easy.

In a slomo replay perhaps or when they are side to side. How about when one is on one side of the road and the other one is on the opposite side of the road, while the road is a bit slanted/off camber or has tracks made into the concrete by years of trucks passing by and one rider is literally 30cm higher than the other? Not so much.

 

[Netserk]

State of the art coverage goes back and forth between motorbike, helicopter and stationary cameras.

From what point exactly is it that people want to see only one angle?

Spoiler: Tour de France 2023 stage 3: Last km

The only thing wrong was the stationary shots where you couldn't see the front, the last one perhaps because the flag obscured the view.

 

[Berniece]

State of the art coverage goes back and forth between motorbike, helicopter and stationary cameras.

From what point exactly is it that people want to see only one angle?

Spoiler: Tour de France 2023 stage 3: Last km

The only thing wrong was the stationary shots where you couldn't see the front, the last one perhaps because the flag obscured the view.

This is indeed well done with the tools they have, but that doesn’t mean there isn’t a better solution with other products. Not sure which but the more wealthy race organizers (ASO, Flanders Classics) should experiment with this.

 

[tobydawq]

In a slomo replay perhaps or when they are side to side. How about when one is on one side of the road and the other one is on the opposite side of the road, while the road is a bit slanted/off camber or has tracks made into the concrete by years of trucks passing by and one rider is literally 30cm higher than the other? Not so much.

What races do you watch where this happens frequently??

 

[RedheadDane]

As I pointed out in the Romandie thread, why not both, at the same time? And then add a few more angles for extra clarity.
Or confusion... depending on how you look at it.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Every time they switch to another camera angle, your brain needs a moment to reorient the scene. With a lot of these fixed camera's often you only get a few seconds before they switch to the next view.
A helishot gives a clear idea of who is in front and by how much, but it is bad at offering an overview of what is happening behind (a crash, for instance) or when a rider comes out of the slipstream from behind with greater speed.
The camera behind the line gives a very poor depth perception, and riders who are literally meters behind, may look like they are neck and neck with riders ahead of them. As riders get closer, the angle improves obviously, but for the most part of the sprint, you are left guessing.

All of these problems can be solved by using 1 drone to film the last kilometer. You can have the drone move ahead and in front of the riders, filming down in something of a 45 degree angle. No swapping camera's, no narrow view of only the first two rows of riders, while still providing an adequate top-down view so you can actually see who is where and ahead/behind by how much.

 

[Valv.Piti]

Its a sprint finish after all - so who cares? I can't remember I have watched a single pure bunch sprint since Tour de France last year, and I intend to keep it that way until this summer.

 

[Logic-is-your-friend]

Its a sprint finish after all - so who cares? I can't remember I have watched a single pure bunch sprint since Tour de France last year, and I intend to keep it that way until this summer.

I'm not a fan of sprint stages either, but the one thing that is actually interesting about them, the actual sprint, i would like to be able to see what is happening. If we are supposed to be kept guessing until the riders have crossed the line, then we could just as well not watch and read the results afterwards.

 

[Valv.Piti]

I'm not a fan of sprint stages either, but the one thing that is actually interesting about them, the actual sprint, i would like to be able to see what is happening. If we are supposed to be kept guessing until the riders have crossed the line, then we could just as well not watch and read the results afterwards.

Sure, but generally speaking, a race organizer like ASO usually has that stuff sorted out, so it really don't bother me. I have gotten too old and resposible to watch flat stages these stages for better or worse. Well, not that I really do that much productive with that time at hand anyways, but

 

[Armchair Cyclist]

Athletics only has side on in stadium. In marathon, cross-country, fell-running and combination sports that end with a run (modern pentathlon, triathlon, duathlon) the finish is almost invariably head on. A lot of motorsport on road courses and street circuits is head on for the finish, only oval track racing where the whole course can be picked up from one vantage point are they side on (so similar to athletics in that regard). Snowsports invariably do head-on for the finish, whether that be endurance-based like cross-country, NoCo and biathlon, or speed-based like alpine, ski cross or snowboard cross. Sliding sports have a head-on finish at most venues. The only wintersport 'race' discipline that is invariably side-on is speed-skating. And when you come to think of it, track cycling has a side on camera, no?

In general, we can see a theme developing here. Arena-based sports with a fixed course which can be surrounded on all sides have side-on cameras - oval-track disciplines or swimming, which entails going back and forth along the same course in parallel. Velodromes, athletics tracks, speed skating tracks, oval-track motor racing. Whereas point-to-point racing or more complex circuit racing (except motorsport rovals, where they use the cameras from the oval) tends to favour the front-on method.

I am sure (as I can be) three years on that I meant track running. Cross country and marathons rarely have the type of close finish whereby foreshortening and 2D effects are significant.