Referee POV camera

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=4lxXU-5rbPo

Thoughts? I quite like the idea

Just another stick to beat them with, IMO.

Griff wrote:Just another stick to beat them with, IMO.

not at all, we get to see the action from a ref's eye line so we can see the decision based on the ref perspective.

It isn't that great when you watch it, because it is situated on the referee it isn't very stable at all, so it is erratic.

Also, you actually see less because it doesn't have a very wide lense.

You do have to hand it to the Aussies when it comes to Sports and television they lead the World, in developing the product.

I was also amazed that we had two and a half minutes of a game in Brisbane and there was no swearing.

nathan wrote:

Griff wrote:Just another stick to beat them with, IMO.

not at all, we get to see the action from a ref's eye line so we can see the decision based on the ref perspective.

But it will also show what the ref misses, that which should be in his line of sight, and thus is just another opportunity for fans to criticise the ref. They get criticised enough without a million viewers looking at what they're looking at too.

I like it and think it a good idea.

Just because it is at eye level it doesn't mean that it is where the ref is looking

aucklandlaurie wrote:
You do have to hand it to the Aussies when it comes to Sports and television they lead the World, in developing the product.

I was also amazed that we had two and a half minutes of a game in Brisbane and there was no swearing.

The RFU used it for a Sky televised Newcastle match back in December and have been trialing it for the season.

They nicked the idea from HBO who had a camera in the bow tie of a referee for an Amir Khan bout.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/dec/19/sky-refcam-newcastle-falcons-match

Actually HBO stole the idea from our cricket umpire 'hat-cam' and batsman's 'helmet-cam' which was used well before the recent Amir Khan fight.

Laurie's right - all the major advances in sports/film technology have originated from Australia. Just look at what the Frazier lens has done for Hollywood and the work of people like Sir David Attenborough in recent years.

It's been a quantum leap which has impacted our lives in ways you may not realise. Hi-definition, massive depth of field 'security' cams on every high street, in shops, on motorways* and in airports are a great examples of this great leap forward in camera technology. Brilliant but scary stuff!

* they can pick up your licence plates from several hundred metres in a snow-blizzard. It doesn't matter how fast (or slow) you're going... there's no escape these days.

I was also thinking of how Channel 9 Wide World of sports technicians used to put those cameras into the V8s at Bathurst, in cricket stumps, and in batsmens helmets back in the nineties.

Linebreaker wrote:Actually HBO stole the idea from our cricket umpire 'hat-cam' and batsman's 'helmet-cam' which was used well before the recent Amir Khan fight.

Laurie's right - all the major advances in sports/film technology have originated from Australia. Just look at what the Frazier lens has done for Hollywood and the work of people like Sir David Attenborough in recent years.

It's been a quantum leap which has impacted our lives in ways you may not realise. Hi-definition, massive depth of field 'security' cams on every high street, in shops, on motorways* and in airports are a great examples of this great leap forward in camera technology. Brilliant but scary stuff!

* they can pick up your licence plates from several hundred metres in a snow-blizzard. It doesn't matter how fast (or slow) you're going... there's no escape these days.

All! That's some claim!

I was stating where the RFU claimed they got their inspiration from for the first use in rugby. Similar uses of mini-cams came long before. In terms of an official's point of view for instance, the BBC put a camera in a boxing referee's button hole back in 2001 for Audley Harrison's first professional outing.

And in these sort of regards I would argue that the American led developments in CCD were the most critical, allowing the sort of miniature cameras that enabled the BBC to bring us the first stumpcam in 1991.

The BBC’s Resources Unit has brought us many similar sporting firsts over the years, and that is continuing since it was taken over by the British company SIS, who along with another British company, Camera Corps, are world leaders in their field having between themselves developed a huge amount of the innovative technology/techniques used to capture sporting events, particularly for the winter and summer olympics, including: remote 360 degree panning and tracking cameras as used in rugby and athletics/gymnastics, underwater tracking cameras for swimming, plunging cameras for diving, remotely controlled immersible cameras attached to boats for sailing competitions, sand embeded cameras with their own lens blowers for baseball to capture slides, pop-up ice cameras for bobsleigh/luge, the smallest HD cameras ever invented and ones that can take an absolute pounding (physically and conditions wise), mounted in/onto archery targets, ice hockey nets (motorised), skiboots, bobsleighs, slalom poles, etc...

Then of course you've also got the British company that developed Hawk-Eye, as used in cricket, tennis and now football.

aucklandlaurie wrote: I was also thinking of how Channel 9 Wide World of sports technicians used to put those cameras into the V8s at Bathurst, in cricket stumps, and in batsmens helmets back in the nineties.

That's right. Those V8 cameras have been in use for quite some time now.

markb - I should have said 'most', not all.

Nice copy & paste there.
So SIS and Camera Corps buys all of our technology is basically what you are saying, right?
There's a big difference between creating - and paying big money for a licence to use or owning the technology, you know.
Just ask Nikon and Paramount Pictures.

Griff wrote:

nathan wrote:

Griff wrote:Just another stick to beat them with, IMO.

not at all, we get to see the action from a ref's eye line so we can see the decision based on the ref perspective.

But it will also show what the ref misses, that which should be in his line of sight, and thus is just another opportunity for fans to criticise the ref. They get criticised enough without a million viewers looking at what they're looking at too.

There is a base assumption that just because something is in vision the brain should see it. It doesnt always work like that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

People will miss things right infront of them if their brain is occupied elsewhere. Most American sports use multiple referees with very specific duties who focus on a much narrower range than those of European sports, its maybe something we should learn from.

We could train Labradors to sit at various angles around the field and then project dry dog biscuit holographs at the correct elevations I suppose, Pete.

"Steady.... sit... who's a good boy then?"

No, I'm saying the things I listed were devised by in-house engineers of either the BBC migrated unit, SIS or Camera Corps. If you think otherwise I'd be interested to hear which Australian organisation claim they came up with them first. If you can't find that out and still doubt that other countries have engineers who are working on such innovations, do a web search for Paul McNeil who has headed up the R&D led units at the BBC & SIS discussing some of the projects.

Linebreaker wrote:We could train Labradors to sit at various angles around the field and then project dry dog biscuit holographs at the correct elevations I suppose, Pete.

"Steady.... sit... who's a good boy then?"

Maybe we should train labradors to scrummage legally if they are so easily trained "couch touch set .... good boy"

So a Championship of Technological Development? And a Ranking system of who did what first?

Yeah!!!! I'd love that game!!!!

Oh we're talking about whether we like the idea of a RefCam or not? Sorry, I took it up all wrong.

markb wrote:No, I'm saying the things I listed were devised by in-house engineers of either the BBC migrated unit, SIS or Camera Corps. If you think otherwise I'd be interested to hear which Australian organisation claim they came up with them first. If you can't find that out and still doubt that other countries have engineers who are working on such innovations, do a web search for Paul McNeil who has headed up the R&D led units at the BBC & SIS discussing some of the projects.

You're getting too technical for yourself now mate. What do you think of Frazier's inventions? Pretty unique aren't they?

Kind of off topic but whatever happened to 'post cam'? Haven't seen that since 2006 or so?

There wasn't a whole lot of box office interest for that one GLove.

It lacked drama and was shady in the picture quality performance. A few seconds of mist and a fuzzy white pole in the distance doesn't really cut it in the CG world

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

Griff wrote:

nathan wrote:

Griff wrote:Just another stick to beat them with, IMO.

not at all, we get to see the action from a ref's eye line so we can see the decision based on the ref perspective.

But it will also show what the ref misses, that which should be in his line of sight, and thus is just another opportunity for fans to criticise the ref. They get criticised enough without a million viewers looking at what they're looking at too.

There is a base assumption that just because something is in vision the brain should see it. It doesnt always work like that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJG698U2Mvo

People will miss things right infront of them if their brain is occupied elsewhere. Most American sports use multiple referees with very specific duties who focus on a much narrower range than those of European sports, its maybe something we should learn from.

Peter, that's my whole point. The referee cannot see all things at once. The ref cam will show number of things that the ref could be looking at. Millions of fans will pick up on different things. The ref will get it in the neck for the things he could/should have picked up but was focusing on something else. That's why it's bad for refs IMO. They'll get stick for not picking everything up, and we'll be able to see it on our screens. Bad idea.