Disc Golf Coverage REinvented - FLYBOY video

[Dave242]

I think you guys are talking about 2 different goals. The posters and most commentators are talking about a cool next step in the evolution of DG video coverage....and being enthusiastic about it. You WhiteyBear, are correctly commenting on what it will take to get perfect coverage of DG. I think you are talking with good realism, but it seems to be pouring some cold water on the enthusiasm (I can tell that is not your aim).

This is pretty exciting in the evolution of DG coverage IMO. With wireless technology advances (4G LTE upload speeds and costs), it will not be long before we will be able to beam HD feeds from the course to a studio and then produce online real-time coverage that is lightyears ahead of where things are today. If part of that is using this helicopter technology, that is really really cool!

[New013]

I still disagree with what he's saying despite your attempt to reconcile our differences, I think the copter can get better coverage than a guy with a camera. A guy with a camera is head height so you're going to get the profile shot of the disc, it's not as aesthetically pleasing and it's harder to see the farther the disc gets away.

With the copter you're above the disc and can get a lot more lateral movement than a guy with a camera can. You're going to get a better shot of the disc flying, not to mention you can get way more angles on a fairway with a copter than you can with a guy and a camera.

Crane cams? How is that logistically possible to set up on 18 holes with the budget of current film crews?

A blimp? how is that better than a copter? The copter can actually fly in semi wooded areas, a blimp can't see crap in the woods. A copter gets multiple angles a blimp gets one angle.

He's saying the copter can't get legit coverage of the disc well if you watch that first video I think that proves everything about what he's saying wrong. Trying to push the way ball golf is filmed on to disc golf is dumb, it's two completely different animals.

[prerube]

God i wish Kelly would pop up to prove whiteybear wrong. This system is going to repace a lot of other video taping systems in a variety of sports and nonsport applications.

[Menacewarf]

He could be busy actually working on this

[WhiteyBear]

Originally Posted by New013

I still disagree with what he's saying despite your attempt to reconcile our differences, I think the copter can get better coverage than a guy with a camera. A guy with a camera is head height so you're going to get the profile shot of the disc, it's not as aesthetically pleasing and it's harder to see the farther the disc gets away.

What coverage? Up close? Zoom in? Spin around and follow? You really want that spinning machine THAT close to you when you play?

With the copter you're above the disc and can get a lot more lateral movement than a guy with a camera can. You're going to get a better shot of the disc flying, not to mention you can get way more angles on a fairway with a copter than you can with a guy and a camera.

you're mis-reading me, there are far more ways to get shots that just a standing guy. You are right, the helicam is far superior to add that layer of depth and drama than just a guy standing there. Again, see point above.

Crane cams? How is that logistically possible to set up on 18 holes with the budget of current film crews?

Average cost of heli, avg cost of renting a boom life for a day, look it up. You'd be surprised. The answer is simple, just get both, they both add their own advantages.

A blimp? how is that better than a copter? The copter can actually fly in semi wooded areas, a blimp can't see crap in the woods. A copter gets multiple angles a blimp gets one angle.

You are really wanting to fly a heli even in a semi-wooded area? Boom lifts and basic handhelds are a better option here, and strategically placed cams on trees.

He's saying the copter can't get legit coverage of the disc well if you watch that first video I think that proves everything about what he's saying wrong. Trying to push the way ball golf is filmed on to disc golf is dumb, it's two completely different animals.

This is just being misconstrued, that's all. Not here to bicker with your points, just stating that the heli cam won't replace every camera out there, and it can't. There are much better ways, and YES, disc golf can learn a lot by golf video production, nfl production, and other sports. I'm not attacking you, and I'm not saying this venture sucks in any way. It's a really cool angle, just not the final word in video production.

[New013]

I don't think you've seen these copters in action... they are extremely controllable and can be set to cruise at certain heights. My guess is they can be flown through moderate woods in a very controllable manner.

With a boom you'll have to be stationary behind the players because if it's on or near the fairway it's hitable. You can move a copter out of the way far easier than a guy up the fairway with a boom.

[Dave242]

Noise is a big hurdle that needs to be overcome if the camera is to be anywhere near the competitors. With that hurdle overcome, there are a ton of scenarios where I could see it doing an amazing job at bringing coverage to the next level.

[prerube]

Originally Posted by Menacewarf

He could be busy actually working on this

It is operational and has been used, just not advertised publically.

[Royal Hill]

To this point there's been very little "sports" coverage that uses moving camera positions as the workhorse.

The cable cams used in NFL are used very little when it comes to actual on screen produced time during the live event. (very low percentage) The shot tracker in PGA events is used, like once or twice a broadcast. Helicopter shots do come in perhaps even more frequently than the shot tracker... for the hole overviews. (great application - though more are using CG flyovers to save cost)

All of them are cool, and they are especially cool 'cause they are different from the standard. I like them, and I appreciate a different point of view - it enhances the overall even if only sprinkled in.

The one place where I've seen a more substantial use of alternative technique has been with some mountain based racing - like downhill xtreme ski cross, or downhill Mountain bike Xgames type stuff. Cable cameras following the downhill actions. It helps that its gravity driven, and doesn't require noisy engines. There is the loud zipline sound that comes through on air.

I think Dave has a point about the continuing "age of the wireless revolution" having a big impact on feasibility.

I think good jobs can be done with a two camera crew, with some static ones in prime drama spots.
Good commentary linking and throwing back and forth and a decent product comes out.

Sprinkle in some 'copter stuff once in a while without overdoing it, even if just pre-recorded flyovers (or more), and it'd be perfect.

[Mattallica]

Originally Posted by Dave242

Noise is a big hurdle that needs to be overcome if the camera is to be anywhere near the competitors. With that hurdle overcome, there are a ton of scenarios where I could see it doing an amazing job at bringing coverage to the next level.

he filmed my card while we were putting on damn it, the thing was about 20 feet above us and was a minor disturbance