albionfan37
Well-known member
A is dreadful and one of the reasons I dislike going behind the goal u don’t really get a depth of the ball or patterns of play. If u could get that from side on that would be better
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
[Football] A or B?
- Thread starter kuzushi
- Start date
Do you enjoy having depth perception?
The OP my not be right but he's a visionary. And I subscribe to visionariness. I'm now intrigued.
- Thread starter
- #64
In your previous post you were saying that you didn't need to see, and now you're worried about depth perception?
Is there a problem with the depth perception in this picture?
Looking at that, it looks to me that the penalty area is about a third of the way from the goal-line to the halfway line, which is about right, isn't it?
I've had to use the clips available, which are in fact intended for showing as replays and not tailored for watching a whole game.
Were what I'm proposing to be adopted, they would set it at an appropriate height. With zoom lenses, cameras can zoom in as necessary so that players appear no smaller than they do when viewed from the side of the pitch.
Any depth perception issues that there may be are going to have an effect wherever you put the camera. They would be as much of a problem with the camera at the side as they would be behind the goal, but I think any such problems can be surmounted by using the correct height in both cases.
The main differences between the two vantage points are the ones I've mentioned (being able to see more of the pitch, to see the goalposts, which are, er, the whole goal of football, more of the players at any time, a less weird angle). These differences stem from two things:
1. the rectangular shape of the pitch,
2. the location of the goal posts at the ends and not the sides of the pitch.
Here's a screenshot of my post on the other thread where I show that Son is no smaller when viewed from a camera located behind the goal than he is when viewed from one from the side of the pitch, so the size/stick-man argument is not valid. Notice that, apart from being the same size, in one shot you can see things (goalposts, players), and in the other shot you can't. Which is fine if like Sid you are not bothered about seeing things
Not sure how you get that from my reply. Why did you bother asking if you are just going to criticise the opinions given?
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 16,031
That's not a word I would use to describe them, H
HastingsSeagull
Well-known member
Shirley behind the team you support is the answer (if not side on/from above)
Tom Hark Preston Park
Will Post For Cash
- Jul 6, 2003
- 72,321
Clearly OP has got A B in his bonnet
Perfidious Albion
Well-known member
The answer is, it all depends.
For open play a side view is better. That’s why the manager sits on the side and the club charges a higher price . The cheap seats and visiting supporters are up the ends.
When a goal is scored or a penalty is argued about, a replay from behind can be good. So a variety of camera angles is needed ..... as they do now.
For open play a side view is better. That’s why the manager sits on the side and the club charges a higher price . The cheap seats and visiting supporters are up the ends.
When a goal is scored or a penalty is argued about, a replay from behind can be good. So a variety of camera angles is needed ..... as they do now.
Jesus wept!!! If the cameras zoom in then you're not seeing everything!! In your pictures above, what else other than the goal is he shooting at? I don't need to see the goal to know it's there. Also, I very much doubt the first picture is the one during the run of play on TV but more likely a replay (or possibly even a cropped image just to try and prove a point!!)In your previous post you were saying that you didn't need to see, and now you're worried about depth perception?
Is there a problem with the depth perception in this picture?
Looking at that, it looks to me that the penalty area is about a third of the way from the goal-line to the halfway line, which is about right, isn't it?
View attachment 162007
I've had to use the clips available, which are in fact intended for showing as replays and not tailored for watching a whole game.
Were what I'm proposing to be adopted, they would set it at an appropriate height. With zoom lenses, cameras can zoom in as necessary so that players appear no smaller than they do when viewed from the side of the pitch.
Any depth perception issues that there may be are going to have an effect wherever you put the camera. They would be as much of a problem with the camera at the side as they would be behind the goal, but I think any such problems can be surmounted by using the correct height in both cases.
The main differences between the two vantage points are the ones I've mentioned (being able to see more of the pitch, to see the goalposts, which are, er, the whole goal of football, more of the players at any time, a less weird angle). These differences stem from two things:
1. the rectangular shape of the pitch,
2. the location of the goal posts at the ends and not the sides of the pitch.
Here's a screenshot of my post on the other thread where I show that Son is no smaller when viewed from a camera located behind the goal than he is when viewed from one from the side of the pitch, so the size/stick-man argument is not valid. Notice that, apart from being the same size, in one shot you can see things (goalposts, players), and in the other shot you can't. Which is fine if like Sid you are not bothered about seeing things
View attachment 162009
My recommendation is B and surgical removal of the irritating music.
The issue with following the attacking play, what happens when a team loses possession. Or possession is lost 3 times in quick succession?
Sea sickness. That's what.
Greg Bobkin
Silver Seagull
- May 22, 2012
- 16,031
I C what you did there.
- Thread starter
- #73
It's funny because I was addressing Sid, not you, but you both said exactly the same thing: you don't need to see the goalposts 'cause you know where they are
That's why I advocate watching it lengthwise, because I personally like to see what's going on.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #74
I cropped the image just to show that the size of the players is the same (someone had said that the players appear smaller in my version: they don't).
Here they are, as GIFs, full-screen with no cropping. You'll notice that there's not really any difference in the size of the players.
In your version, do you know what the goalie is doing as Son is making his run? No, because you don't see him until Son gets level with the 'D'.
I can tell you, because I can see everything in my version.
When Son reaches the half-way line, the goalie is on the edge of his penalty area, and he starts back-peddling. In fact I've known exactly where the goalie has been since Son was still deep in his own half. By the time Son reaches the 18-yard line, the goalie is on the edge of his six-yard box. In your version you don't see any of this. He's already on his six-yard line when he appears in view. You have no idea of the fact that he's been frantically back-peddling to prepare for Son's arrival.
Edit: I think this is what people might be failing to realise. At the stadium, you can see where the goalie is, regardless of where you are seated, because you can turn your head any time you feel like it, and you have peripheral vision. When watching on TV you have neither peripheral vision nor the ability to glance around. You have literally only what appears on the rectangle of your TV screen, and nothing else, hence it is preferable I'd have thought to have as much information about what's going on available on the screen. I like to be able to see things such as where the goalie is, what runs players are making off the ball, and whether there is someone approaching rapidly to make a goal-saving tackle. In your version, you'll see the player when he receives the ball, but you will often have missed the run he has made to get there. Likewise, someone will suddenly pop up to make a goal-saving last second tackle, and you won't know where he has sprung from.
Edit: Edit:
If you look at the second GIF above, you'll see that the camera does zoom in as Son's run progresses, so you do gradually see less of the pitch, but at that stage all the necessary context has already been set, and the camera can pull back again if needed anyway. It goes from us being able to see both penalty areas at the start, to being able to see the centre circle and one of the penalty areas, to eventually no longer seeing the centre circle. The point is that all of these options exist within the scope of the same camera angle, within the scope of one shot. There's no way you could see both penalty areas simultaneously from the side of the pitch, or even the centre circle and one of the penalty areas. There is a trade-off between how much of the pitch you can see at any one time and how close in you are going to zoom in, and if it's done appropriately it can work very well.
Jesus wept is the shortest verse in the Bible, but do you know why he wept?
Last edited:
Because, despite the splendid view offered by his elevation, he was lying when he said he could see Peter's house?
- Thread starter
- #76
No, it was 'cause his friend Lazarus had died.
Bible Gateway passage: John 11 - New International Version - UK
The death of Lazarus - Now a man named Lazarus was ill. He was from Bethany, the village of Mary and her sister Martha. (This Mary, whose brother Lazarus now lay ill, was the same one who poured perfume on the Lord and wiped his feet with her hair.) So the sisters sent word to Jesus, ‘Lord, the...
He was reading this thread?
- Thread starter
- #78
No, it was because Lazarus had died (read John chapter 11)
BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.
Read, hear, and study Scripture at the world's most-visited Christian website. Grow your faith with devotionals, Bible reading plans, and mobile apps.
Religion and me don't get on so I'l pass on that.No, it was because Lazarus had died (read John chapter 11)
BibleGateway.com: A searchable online Bible in over 150 versions and 50 languages.
Read, hear, and study Scripture at the world's most-visited Christian website. Grow your faith with devotionals, Bible reading plans, and mobile apps.www.biblegateway.com
- Thread starter
- #80