Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

typodupeerror

• #### Re: (Score:2)

There's a Metallica DVD that uses the angle feature on a couple songs, you can choose which band member to watch instead of the director making the call.
• #### I've seen this demonstrated 15 years ago. (Score:4, Insightful)

on Monday August 12, 2013 @02:35AM (#44539805) Homepage

The application was a video conferencing system. The omnidirectional camera had the exact same arrangement of mirrors and black baffles between them. It was placed in the middle of a conference table and the display was steered automatically by a microphone array that determined the direction of the speaker. This way you always got a nice framing of the speaker's head. It was essential for getting any kind of usable picture in a conference with multiple people back when bandwidth was limited and video compression was crappy. It would still be very useful today but I haven't seen this anywhere.

• #### Re:I've seen this demonstrated 15 years ago. (Score:4, Informative)

on Monday August 12, 2013 @02:49AM (#44539831)

Microsoft's Roundtable does this too. Those have been available for at least seven years.

• #### Re: (Score:1)

by Anonymous Coward

I'd love to see what that would do at an Italian round table with everyone talking to everyone... more and more emotional... with more and more hand gestures... A screaming room of madness. ;)

Poor thing 'd probably go up in flames by the time the main dish gets served.

• #### Finally!!! (Score:3, Funny)

<{on.enilno} {ta} {deknuj}> on Monday August 12, 2013 @02:42AM (#44539823) Journal

Does this mean I can finally get to see what is just outside the frame when they show the naked actress from neck-up or with something conveniently positioned just in front of the "important bits"?

• #### Re: (Score:2)

You might see that she isn't actually naked!

• #### Yeah, right... (Score:2)

99 out of 100 sports fans will screw up. The guys who scan 10 feeds and pick the best one will do better almost every singly time. That's why they get picked out of a couple of thousand wannabe's to do the job.

Mostly, they're better than Joe Sixpack though that isn't a tune that plays well in a country that believes everybody's opinion is just as good as everybody else's.

• #### Re:Yeah, right... (Score:4, Informative)

on Monday August 12, 2013 @04:23AM (#44540069) Homepage

I don't think the word "better" really applies, because not everyone is interested in the same thing. Some people want to see the game and nothing but the game. Other people want to look at the crowd. Others want to replay over and over controversial or exciting moments. Some people want to watch one player specifically, while others would prefer a much wider angle so as to be able to see the pattern of play developing. Some people like to see the facial expressions of the players.

It's not a competition and there is not one "best" way. If there is a choice of ten views of the game, there will be some people who like each and every one.

• #### Re: (Score:2)

You're certainly right about some fans...maybe even most fans. I still think, though, that a lot of them will be disappointed after a few weeks of looking at exactly what they thought they wanted.

• #### TV deliberately sabotages viewing angles (Score:1)

I'm fairly sure TV coverage deliberately sabotages viewing angles to maximize the draw of live attendance. TV screens have increased, resolution continues to increase, yet views of action are no wider than when the picture on over-the-air coverage could barely be distinguishable from snow. Take hockey on US TV for example. The way the coverage is presented, the action is essentially random. Shots are never wide enough to see long passes or the maneuvering of either the recipients of the passes or the de
• #### Re: (Score:3)

I'm fairly sure TV coverage deliberately sabotages viewing angles to maximize the draw of live attendance.

Although I can see the logic behind this I think it is highly unlikely. TV channels pay teams huge amounts of money to show their matches and it is the TV channels that film the event. They have no motivation to make physically being there more attractive. If teams were filming and distributing matches themselves then maybe that could be happening.

• #### Re: (Score:1)

Here's the proof it is known what are the angles best for knowledgeable fans to see the game. They just don't want to show them for live events. This example is for the NFL [nfl.com]. Ask oneself, for any sport, hockey, soccer, baseball, are the angles one sees on broadcast television the ones the coaches analyze when they look at film? Of course not.
• #### Re: (Score:2)

If that's your proof then I'm even more confident it isn't some cunning conspiracy. Firstly the link you sent is to a site selling the ability to watch from 'coaches film' perspective which proves that they aren't restricting access to it to get people into the ground. Secondly you can't get 'coaches film' perspectives by sitting in the ground. Thirdly, just because coaches prefer a certain perspective doesn't mean that the typical TV viewer does; one has a job based on understanding the nuances of what is
• #### Never attribute malice (Score:2)

... where incompetence will serve as well.

And in this case, that may even be a bit harsh. Filming these things perfectly is not exactly easy.

• #### Where have I seen this before? (Score:2)

Oh yes, I know...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_RoundTable [wikipedia.org]

I've got a couple of these things at the office. It works okay I guess. It detects where the sound is coming from and angles the view in that direction.

• #### 360 deg: Pah, not good enough/ (Score:3)

on Monday August 12, 2013 @03:24AM (#44539909)
I need a camera with $4\pi\mbox{steradian}$ solid angle viewing
• #### Seems like a pretty stupid idea (Score:2)

10 camera shots requires 10x the bandwidth to broadcast. But in reality they'd probably just take a hatchet to the bitrate or the horizontal resolution so the quality would be awful regardless of the camera you chose. So allowing viewers to choose the shot would be a stupid and futile gimmick.

It's more likely that this device would help broadcasters than viewers. They'd throw one of these cameras up on a cable above a stadium, running it back and forth and it would be the director who chose the most inter

• #### Re: (Score:2)

"It's more likely that this device would help broadcasters than viewers. They'd throw one of these cameras up on a cable above a stadium, running it back and forth and it would be the director who chose the most interesting angle from the 10 offered."

And that would be quite unlikely. Broadcasters would have to meet broadcast standards with their feed sources and that would limit the angle of view this device could provide. Maybe a facility may invest in some of these but they would be a gimmick-cam for br

• #### Re: (Score:2)

It's not unlikely. This sort of setup is quite common for major sporting events already, e.g the London olympics had cameras strung on cables and running over the stadiums as do many major sporting events. Commercial systems like Skycam are used already. The major difference in this particular camera is that a director has a 360 degree field of vision from the 10 views which are combined in software. I assume several of cameras could also be stuck on poles at advantageous points around the stadium. I don't
• #### Solution in search of a problem (Score:1)

> Most sports fans will have been frustrated with...shot
> selection at one time or another, but a new panoramic
> camera would put such decisions in the viewer’s hands

ensuring frustration with shot selection most of the time.

• #### A fight for the remote (Score:2)

Yeah, and for those not watching alone this is going to drive everyone else totally crazy. You're watching the action, when the doofus with the remote decides he wants to see what's happening on the sideline.

I predict a new wave of TV related domestic violence.

• #### Right, "Sports". (Score:1)

It's for sports.
• #### 360 degrees only? (Score:2)

Do those persons know we live in a 3D world?
• #### Riot pls! (Score:1)

So Baseball has this technology in real life, but Riot can't rotate the purple side 180 degrees in LoL?
• #### The teams don't want you to have this (Score:2)

The big reason this will never hit my TV screen is that the teams don't want us to understand what really went on during the plays [slashdot.org]. This technology may get used, and may become available to the teams who played in the game, but the teams will actively block access to the general public. There are already many cameras on the field that give easier-to-understand views than we see on TV, and we never see footage from those, either.

On a side note, I've been around long enough to realize that the editors can't

#### Related LinksTop of the: day, week, month.

You're using a keyboard! How quaint!

Working...