If you look at the sidelines during an NFL game, you will often see a couple of people shooting with Arri SRIIIs. Don’t get me wrong; I love film. But why are they shooting of film instead of HD video? (Rather, ‘in addition to’ HD video.) ISTM that the higher frame rate of video might be useful. Super-16 has great resolution, and I can see it being used to make HD DVDs. But is super-16’s resolution still better than the videos professional teams can afford?
Just a guess, but the NFL team films need to be pretty good at capturing fast action. Digital cameras (other than expensive ones) are not good at that. Also, when showing it, they need to be able to slow the film down while still retaining the quality. Film does that. Another advantage of digital cameras is the ability to see the results right away. That’s of no importance to NFL game films; unlike a portrait shot, they can’t film the play over again to get a better shot. And being immediately available isn’t important; teams don’t review the films until a couple days later. Film can be developed in plenty of time, at a pretty low cost.
And, regarding cost, the NFL teams already own lots of film cameras; to switch to video they would have to buy new, expensive digital cameras.
SO I expect it’s mostly a matter of cost. Switching would have a lot of startup costs, for little discernible benefits.
Second link is a must for those seeking an answer:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/26/60II/main595946.shtml
Interesting. Basically an artistic decision, coupled with tradition. I’m cool with that.
Interesting. The word “digital” is not found in either article. The second article says that film is superior to videotape, which I can understand, but it doesn’t give insight to why they have not switched to digital. If a team like the Redskins can sign a deal to pay a player like Albert Haynesworth over $14M a year, I think they can afford new cameras.
What technology do the broadcasts use? They have instant slo-mo replay so they must have high-speed digital, unless they are still using tape.
Long term storage might be a concern. Right now, film is still better than digital.
If that were the only reason, they can transfer video to film. But playback equipment for film isn’t going to have as long a life as video, so that’s a consideration.
I think the reasons are more “We’ve always done it that way and it works.”
I think it will change. Video is getting cheaper, film more expensive (at least relatively if not absolutely). Video has numerous advantages in transport, editing, exposure, storage space, and compatibility with modern equipment at TV stations and the Internet. Hi speed video cameras now outperform film in function and quality and they will continue to improve.
I think the picture (no pun intended) will be quite different 5 years from now.
Quite possibly so. According to the Wikipedia entry on NFL Films, they even have their own in-house film-processing lab. The company’s still run by Steve Sabol, son of founder Ed Sabol (and Steve’s been with the company since the 1960s).
Much higher quality than your typical digital video camera. Also much more expensive, and bigger & bulkier – have you seen photos of the broadcast cameras alongside a football field?
They make digital prints of screen grabs within a few seconds after each play. Coaches look at cut-up video at half time. Speed is of the essence.
NFL teams switched from film to video in 1986, and they went to digital in 1995. They typically use two sets of camera, one on the sidelines and the other high in the endzones.
The film cameras on the sidelines are all from NFL Films.
Two relevant links:
http://www.nfl.com/news/story?confirm=true&id=09000d5d80c3eb01
https://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/27/sports/football/27quality.html?_r=1
The ubiquitous camera crews round the field (on the sidelines, back of end zone, laying on their backs near tunnels for that artistic shot, etc) and shooting on film – at even the most mundane NFL game that you spot time and time again – are from NFL Films, and not the teams.
Cause it looks better than video.
I love NFL films and the work they do.
The tradition of talking about “game films” extends into college football, and persists even when video is used.
'Cause if you tell football players to “watch the tape” after the game, they’re gonna be staring at rolls of Ace bandages and stuff, waiting for something to happen. And if you say “watch the video,” they’re gonna flip the channel to hip-hop.
Or, maybe spending more than $14 million a year on just one player has broken their budget.
Yup. I was listening to the Packers’ pre-game show on WTMJ radio yesterday, and heard an interview with Packer cornerback Tramon Williams. He repeatedly talked about how much “film study” he did, though it’s all undoubtedly actually digital video.