tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 19 Jan 2009 06:17:35
From:
Subject: Widescreen TV doesn't really do much for Tennis
There's now just a bunch of superfluous space on either side of the
court that shows up. They're still using the same "cheap seat" angle
behind the server to show all points. Maybe they should try
positioning the camera on the side of the court, about where the net
is. That's what they do for football when they put it on the 50 yard
line. Has any tournament tried this?




 
Date: 21 Jan 2009 12:42:23
From: DavidW
Subject: Re: Widescreen TV doesn't really do much for Tennis
bjmet1@aol.com wrote:
> There's now just a bunch of superfluous space on either side of the
> court that shows up.

Yep. I use widescreen for everything except tennis. (I expand tennis to fill
the screen at 4:3.) All widescreen does is make the important part of the
screen smaller.





 
Date: 20 Jan 2009 10:15:31
From:
Subject: Re: Widescreen TV doesn't really do much for Tennis
On Jan 20, 1:04=A0am, "chrome" <chr...@nospam.invalid > wrote:
> <nemanja.dundjero...@discreet.com> wrote...
> > Aw, you sound cranky because you haven't had your juicebox yet.
>
> Always lots of reasons to be cranky, aren't there. =A0Like people who pos=
t to
> usenet and can't take any comments against them and then start worthless =
ad
> hominem attacks.

Buddy, you were the one who started this by implying that my
preference in camera angles could only stem from ignorance about the
sport. And I did say that ordinarily I wouldn't get into discussions
with someone so obviously misinformed, with such a giant axe to grind,
but I decided I would do it for your edification. I really could not
give a shit if you disagree, but perhaps you might learn to be a
little more polite when making your arguments.

As for tennis, I'm rated 5.0. If you feel like you can beat me, I'd
welcome a challenge anytime. Judging by your comments, you're
considerably older than me, so my guess is that you'd have a difficult
time keeping up with me.

Nemanja


 
Date: 19 Jan 2009 21:10:42
From:
Subject: Re: Widescreen TV doesn't really do much for Tennis
On Jan 19, 10:38=A0pm, "chrome" <chr...@nospam.invalid > wrote:
> <nemanja.dundjero...@discreet.com> wrote...
> > Huh? What you're describing is the "expensive seat" angle, as the
> > cheap seats tend to be on either side of the court. Seats behind the
> > court are the best because you get a good sense of what's going on in
> > the point.
>
> > What I really detest are the low-angle shots directly behind a player.
>
> You sound like someone who has never really played tennis. =A0The lower t=
he
> angle the better because you get a better sense of THE SPIN and THE HEIGH=
TS
> OF THE BALLS and what's really going on with the point with those lower
> angle shots.
>
> Also, the angle they usually use distorts the speed of the ball: =A0that'=
s
> camera pretty far away and fairly high with a zoom lens. =A0It makes it a=
ppear
> slower than it is.
>
> I agree with the op that they should use widescreen to show a CLOSER at t=
he
> net angle. =A0To bring the home viewer into the match, instead of having =
the
> zoom lens from far away that gives you this remote sense. =A0That's somet=
hing
> people haven't seen and it would be an amazing new view of the sport for =
the
> home viewer. =A0I prefer that view, though some don't like the neck back =
and
> forth thing. =A0Lower angle and at the net. =A0Unless you've got a really=
huge
> TV though, the neck is probably not a factor.
>
> Another great thing about the net angle is that you get the same quality
> view of both players. =A0No "one player in the horizon" thing.
>
> But for those like you who really don't apparently know much about the ga=
me,
> the ultimate angle used to be done in the 60's - a nearly overhead angle.
>
> Looked like pong. =A0It was horrendous. =A0You would have loved it. =A0Ve=
ry easy
> to follow. =A0 And almost worthless for appreciating the action.
>
> The angle they use today is a lesser evil version of the "pong" angle. =
=A0It's
> still pretty bad. =A0Widescreen makes it no longer a requirement to use t=
his
> stupid angle.

Aw, you sound cranky because you haven't had your juicebox yet.

It's not normally my MO to argue with dipshits like you, but for your
benefit, I'll try and clarify the reasons for my preference for the
higher angle, using small words that you can understand: because I
prefer to focus on point construction and tactics, rather than on
stroke mechanics. While it can be entertaining enough to see some of
those things during replays, I wouldn't ever want to watch an entire
match from the "low behind the player" angle, and neither, I would
wager, would most people, which is why networks use it sparingly
(except in some cases).

This is more or less the same rationale that leads me, when I go see
tennis live, to buy tickets for seats located directly behind the
court, rather than beside it, and a little bit higher up, so that I
can get a good view of the *entire* court from my seat.

Nemanja


  
Date: 20 Jan 2009 06:04:55
From: chrome
Subject: Re: Widescreen TV doesn't really do much for Tennis
<nemanja.dundjerovic@discreet.com > wrote...
> Aw, you sound cranky because you haven't had your juicebox yet.
>

Always lots of reasons to be cranky, aren't there. Like people who post to
usenet and can't take any comments against them and then start worthless ad
hominem attacks.

> It's not normally my MO to argue with dipshits like you, but for your

Oh.

> benefit, I'll try and clarify the reasons for my preference for the

Ok.

> higher angle, using small words that you can understand: because I

Thanks.

> prefer to focus on point construction and tactics, rather than on
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
GEE YOU'RE SMART!

> stroke mechanics. While it can be entertaining enough to see some of
> those things during replays, I wouldn't ever want to watch an entire
> match from the "low behind the player" angle, and neither, I would
> wager, would most people, which is why networks use it sparingly
> (except in some cases).
>

Yes, well you'd love the 1969 pong-style coverage - isn't that all I said?

> This is more or less the same rationale that leads me, when I go see
> tennis live, to buy tickets for seats located directly behind the
> court, rather than beside it, and a little bit higher up, so that I
> can get a good view of the *entire* court from my seat.

Yeah, you're right, wouldn't want those lousy courtside seats.

Newsflash: *all* the seats are higher up than the court, and you can see the
entire court from pretty much any seat in the stadium.

So this choice apparently makes you feel cozy though, perhaps like you're
watching at the same angle they've been showing on 4:3 TV for 30 years and
eating your Cheetos at home.

Point construction is also about varying heights of the ball. Cf. Roger
Federer-Rafael Nadal.



 
Date: 19 Jan 2009 14:55:32
From:
Subject: Re: Widescreen TV doesn't really do much for Tennis
In article
<c45f7850-42fa-4048-9e1a-7e77bc1c616d@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com >,
bjmet1@aol.com () wrote:

>
> There's now just a bunch of superfluous space on either side of the
> court that shows up. They're still using the same "cheap seat" angle
> behind the server to show all points. Maybe they should try
> positioning the camera on the side of the court, about where the net
> is. That's what they do for football when they put it on the 50 yard
> line. Has any tournament tried this?

Disagree: I vastly prefer widescreen, especially but not only for doubles.
Especially with the spins players are using to take each other way off the
court, I like that the camera doesn't have to swing around to keep them in
frame.

wg


  
Date: 20 Jan 2009 03:38:49
From: chrome
Subject: Re: Widescreen TV doesn't really do much for Tennis
<wendyg@cix.compulink.co.uk > wrote...
> In article
> <c45f7850-42fa-4048-9e1a-7e77bc1c616d@p2g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> bjmet1@aol.com () wrote:
>
>>
>> There's now just a bunch of superfluous space on either side of the
>> court that shows up. They're still using the same "cheap seat" angle
>> behind the server to show all points. Maybe they should try
>> positioning the camera on the side of the court, about where the net
>> is. That's what they do for football when they put it on the 50 yard
>> line. Has any tournament tried this?
>
> Disagree: I vastly prefer widescreen, especially but not only for doubles.
> Especially with the spins players are using to take each other way off the
> court, I like that the camera doesn't have to swing around to keep them in
> frame.

It does still move some I think, but yes, another good point. Not to
mention with widescreen you can usually see the serve clock all the time
(and in the big matches there always is one). I love seeing the speed of
every serve and every FAULT as well, because it tells you something about
what the server was *trying* to do even if they missed.

I agree with the original poster though that they should use widescreen to
get a net view. This would enable the home viewer for the first time ever
to get an equally good view of both players, instead of the "one player in
the horizon" bit that we always get today. The negative of course of this
is not being able to see the angles, and that's a pretty big negative, so
you'd have to lift the angle a fair bit to compensate for that. I think
lifting it a bit would give you a great view.

But if the angle problem turns out to be too hard to overcome, widescreen
may better enable nice lower angles.

The only thing certain for me though is that I'm sick of the high up, far
away camera with a zoom lens treatment that we get today and that is clearly
based on the 4:3 television set. That view pretty much stinks. Very hard
to see height of the ball, for instance, a key thing in many points.
Actually even moreso with players like Nadal out there who use height
extensively, so the high zoom lens angle is even worse today than say 15
years ago.

I was watching an American football game recently and the photography of the
action was extraordinary, how they bring you down into the field. Tennis
needs that and to use this technology for something, not just more clearly
seeing the crappy 4:3 version of the game.



 
Date: 19 Jan 2009 20:30:46
From: Hg
Subject: Re: Widescreen TV doesn't really do much for Tennis
On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 11:26:06 -0800, nemanja.dundjerovic wrote:

> On Jan 19, 9:17 am, bjm...@aol.com wrote:
>> There's now just a bunch of superfluous space on either side of the
>> court that shows up. They're still using the same "cheap seat" angle
>> behind the server to show all points. Maybe they should try positioning
>> the camera on the side of the court, about where the net is. That's
>> what they do for football when they put it on the 50 yard line. Has any
>> tournament tried this?
>
> Huh? What you're describing is the "expensive seat" angle, as the cheap
> seats tend to be on either side of the court. Seats behind the court are
> the best because you get a good sense of what's going on in the point.

True. The Royal Box/VIP seats are always behind the court, so they can
hardly be described as cheap.


>
> What I really detest are the low-angle shots directly behind a player.
> It's totally impossible to get any sense of what's going on, but for
> whatever reason, some directors *love* this.
>
> Nemanja

As long as those type of shots are not overused, I like them from time to
time. The low angle shots are the closest view to being in the shoes of
the players as it's possible to get today.

Funny, just had a thought. To make it even better maybe the TV broadcasters
should strap on a tiny head mounted camera to each player and show that
view occasionally. Kinda like Formula 1 with the TV cameras mounted to
some(all?) of the race cars.


--
,/ \,
((___,---"""""---,___))
`-----)~ ~(-----`
'( \ / )'


 
Date: 19 Jan 2009 11:26:06
From:
Subject: Re: Widescreen TV doesn't really do much for Tennis
On Jan 19, 9:17=A0am, bjm...@aol.com wrote:
> There's now just a bunch of superfluous space on either side of the
> court that shows up. They're still using the same "cheap seat" angle
> behind the server to show all points. Maybe they should try
> positioning the camera on the side of the court, about where the net
> is. That's what they do for football when they put it on the 50 yard
> line. Has any tournament tried this?

Huh? What you're describing is the "expensive seat" angle, as the
cheap seats tend to be on either side of the court. Seats behind the
court are the best because you get a good sense of what's going on in
the point.

What I really detest are the low-angle shots directly behind a player.
It's totally impossible to get any sense of what's going on, but for
whatever reason, some directors *love* this.

Nemanja


  
Date: 20 Jan 2009 03:38:47
From: chrome
Subject: Re: Widescreen TV doesn't really do much for Tennis
<nemanja.dundjerovic@discreet.com > wrote...
> Huh? What you're describing is the "expensive seat" angle, as the
> cheap seats tend to be on either side of the court. Seats behind the
> court are the best because you get a good sense of what's going on in
> the point.
>
> What I really detest are the low-angle shots directly behind a player.

You sound like someone who has never really played tennis. The lower the
angle the better because you get a better sense of THE SPIN and THE HEIGHTS
OF THE BALLS and what's really going on with the point with those lower
angle shots.

Also, the angle they usually use distorts the speed of the ball: that's
camera pretty far away and fairly high with a zoom lens. It makes it appear
slower than it is.

I agree with the op that they should use widescreen to show a CLOSER at the
net angle. To bring the home viewer into the match, instead of having the
zoom lens from far away that gives you this remote sense. That's something
people haven't seen and it would be an amazing new view of the sport for the
home viewer. I prefer that view, though some don't like the neck back and
forth thing. Lower angle and at the net. Unless you've got a really huge
TV though, the neck is probably not a factor.

Another great thing about the net angle is that you get the same quality
view of both players. No "one player in the horizon" thing.

But for those like you who really don't apparently know much about the game,
the ultimate angle used to be done in the 60's - a nearly overhead angle.

Looked like pong. It was horrendous. You would have loved it. Very easy
to follow. And almost worthless for appreciating the action.

The angle they use today is a lesser evil version of the "pong" angle. It's
still pretty bad. Widescreen makes it no longer a requirement to use this
stupid angle.