F1technical.net

I agree track-side videos always sounds soooooo much better. A good enough level that most people can live with ?? !! ??

So how do we get this across to FOM to fix it ??

wuzak wrote:

strad wrote:

That said, I still think producers do a terrible job covering races.

I don't know about all the rest but with that I totally agree.
I don't think they like or understand racing actually.

Agreed.

When a driver is setting up to attempt a pass they will cut to pictures of the pit crew, usually sitting, or to a significant other or to a supposed celebrity.

Or, worst of all, to Christian Horner's jiggling foot (they used to do it with Brawn's banana too).

This sh*t messes me up everytime they do it. Happened a few times during the japanese gp just this weekend.

Andres125sx wrote:Sorry Ben, but this is solved as easily as using external mics, wich is standard for any producer, even the small ones.

No ---. How else could one record ambient sounds if not with external microphones? (What do you think you're hearing now?)

The point is that there's nothing really wrong with the audio feed. Its quality, or lack thereof, is just a reflection of the limitations imposed by the need to present something that sounds coherent.

If they opened up the recording monopoly, a broadcaster would quickly emerge that could convey a decent finished "product" from each race weekend. The youtube videos of grass roots events are far superior to what we see from FOM.

mrluke wrote:If they opened up the recording monopoly, a broadcaster would quickly emerge that could convey a decent finished "product" from each race weekend. The youtube videos of grass roots events are far superior to what we see from FOM.

Ben is right,

The main thing is that there´s two guys commentating the race. You need to clearly hear their voices at all times and so the engine sound will play second fiddle.

I´ve said it before but if you watch a broadcast with "natural sound" (no commentating) it´s ten times better and you hear what the engines actually sound like.

bhall II wrote:

Andres125sx wrote:Sorry Ben, but this is solved as easily as using external mics, wich is standard for any producer, even the small ones.

No ---. How else could one record ambient sounds if not with external microphones? (What do you think you're hearing now?)

So what were you refering to with this?

bhall II wrote:Sound design for motorsport broadcasting is a challenge, because it would be disorienting for viewers if the audio feed changed as frequently and abruptly as the camera angles directors use when tracking (following) cars around a circuit.

You first said sound changes with camera angles changes (wich can only happen when using on-camera mics), but then assert they obviously use exgternal mics...

Correct.

A couple of months ago one of the commentators made a comment about it and referred to an "amplifier" being tested with very "positive" results.

I would like to know how this is going and if anybody has any new information on this important subject.

Has sidepod height and been changed for next year? Can they be made lower and wider thus reducing COG? There is an extra 20cm in width available next year, is it not?

Juzh wrote:Has sidepod height and been changed for next year? Can they be made lower and wider thus reducing COG? There is an extra 20cm in width available next year, is it not?

I believe there are no changes in that area. Even if there was tendecy toward, that would serious hurt the object to "made cars 4 sec faster" and bigger Gs in corners. Beacuse we could loose substatianl amont of downforce with diffuzer. Small sidepod undercut will became problem. Even cooling would be mess up. Personally RB6 sidepod and coke bottle rear is sexy. Also in my opinion one of nicest trends in current formula. Lets keep that way.

During 2017 tyre test in AbuDhabi, will all teams be allowed to use mule cars (2017 wings)?

Camera placement is simply terrible, looks like they´re still using camera placement of three decades back, when cameras didn´t have any zoom and they had to be placed next to the track. Today that is absurd but they keep doing it

.
Not true.
The problem came with using fewer cameras with ultra long lenses where they cover a mile long straight with one camera from a crane 200feet up and 200 feet back from the track.
When shooting from that far away with an ultra long lens you lose all sense of speed.

strad wrote:When shooting from that far away with an ultra long lens you lose all sense of speed.

I don't think that's true at all. The sense of speed is lost because they match the zoom speed to the car velocity keeping the cars a constant size in the frame. From front on that is what destroys sense of speed

strad wrote:

Camera placement is simply terrible, looks like they´re still using camera placement of three decades back, when cameras didn´t have any zoom and they had to be placed next to the track. Today that is absurd but they keep doing it

.
Not true.
The problem came with using fewer cameras with ultra long lenses where they cover a mile long straight with one camera from a crane 200feet up and 200 feet back from the track.
When shooting from that far away with an ultra long lens you lose all sense of speed.

As cold fussion said, not true, well true if you were thinking about front cameras, but I was thinking about the opposite, cameras at a side of the track/straight, at some distance, and with zoom. That´s what provide real speed feeling, and the only way to notice slopes on the camera.

With cameras next to the track they´re forced to record what is far from them, so they actually work as front cameras, and that indeed kills any speed feeling. That same camera positioned 30-40m far from the track, and the point of view changes drasticallly and speed feeling becomes a lot more similar to what we experience when live on track

This is getting pretty OT, don't see what engine sound, or broadcast technology has to do with 2017 aero??