Anyone else really hate this at the Super Bowl? It was choppy, grainy, and didn’t add anything to the game. Let’s hope EyeVision goes the way of the FoxTrax puck.
I think it came in real handy during the disputed touchdown by Lewis. Hell, could you really tell it was a TD when they were using the regular cameras? I couldn’t.
I found it more gimmicky than informative. The fact that there was a freeze frame anytime the point of view moved meant it mainly functioned as an intricative means of cutting between cameras.
I think it could be much better once they learn how and when to use it. As it was, I think they were zoomed in a little too close during most of the shots. It would work best during a play where there was a particular moment that made the play work. For example, during a running play where the runner made a really good cut, or found a small hole in the defense at just the right time, I’d freeze the footage just at the start of the decisive move, then pan around it to show it from the best angles. The camera would have to be zoomed out far enough to show all the people really involved in the play. Also, I don’t know if anybody’s quick enough to do that kind of analysis during the short time between plays. It might be best to save those shots for timeouts or the halftime analysis.
It’s got to be expensive to set that system up. Until it becomes more common, the crews won’t know how to use it to their advantage. And maybe not even then.
Re: the disputed touchdown, there was a very similar play during a Bills game earlier this season. There’s a regular old camera set up in every game that captures that exact angle just for that purpose. I think in the Superbowl, they showed the MatrixCam footage in the replays because it supposedly looked cool.
It would have been a heck of a lot cooler if when using the MatrixCam, the players appeared to be making Matrix-type moves, like running around in the air. Maybe they could work on that for next season. Personally, I will never call it EyeVision. What’s next, EarHearing? How about NoseSmelling?
I think the “Eye” in EyeVision refers to the CBS logo, not the object used to capture vision.
hee hee hee hee hee… that is too funny.
During the game, I was saying … mm-hmm, we’ve all seen the Matrix, move on, people. Move on!
Ok, I’m willing to buy that. But the fact that some people sat around in a meeting and said “hey, it’s in our logo, let’s call it EyeVision!” and then considered themselves clever is what I’m protesting.
Gotta step in here and say that I found the EyeVision to be interesting. Sort of like heroin; a little bit every now and then is real cool, but too much at once is VERY bad. (Spritle removes his tongue from his cheek.)
Consider this: it is a new, electronic gadget in the hands of men. For those of you who are missing this, recall that Christmas or Hannukah when you got the radio controlled car and you never got to play with it because dad wouldn’t relinquish the controls. It was a bit overused by the underexperienced. Given time, it may be smoothed out (use and flow).
I found it interesting when replaying wide angle shots. For instance. Collins threw an interception to the right side of the field when he had a reciever WIDE open up the middle. YeGods! What was he thinking? The little Zippy-cam shot was lined up with his line of sight for both receivers and you could tell that he had no clue that the little tight end was open, 'cause of the huge line backers in the way. They could have used two camera angles and foregone the Matrix-esque visual shift, but, hey, if you have the technology, why not show it off a little.
The Fox puck detracted from the game, this adds a bit to it. I don’t think it’ll go that route. However, I don’t need to see the yellow line across the field as the down marker! I can see the flags on the sidelines just fine!
God bless the US! Apparently all the international broadcasts had that 1st down line filled with ads - Canada got General Motors of Canada, Mexico got (I believe) a telecommunications company, and everyone else got it filled with FedEx ads. Haven’t seen a screenshot of it, but I imagine it looked like the ribbon in our new paper money (i.e.: FedEx FedEx FedEx FedEx…)
I thought it was spectacular. I love the game of football, and the way it clearly illuminated the plays developing was fantastic. I can’t wait until it’s used in all the televised games.
I agree, and would love to see it happen. But I wouldn’t count on it. It requires WAY too many cameras for everyday use. Most games only use 8 or so cameras. At the Superbowl, they can afford to go to the extreme of 40 or 50, so it’s practical to do it there. But for your October 23d Cardinals/Jaguars game, it’s just not going to be practical.