Key for bringing badminton to the big stage: cooler camera angles?

**thumpsky** · 04-10-2012, 02:03 AM

look at how Poker is more relevant than Hockey is the US market right now, despite the latter having a plethora of colorful characters who make Aggasi look like a choir boy.

Why is that?

Because the commentators educate the audience about the ins and outs of the game.

**thunder.tw** · 04-10-2012, 04:29 AM

Originally Posted by thumpsky

look at how Poker is more relevant than Hockey is the US market right now, despite the latter having a plethora of colorful characters who make Aggasi look like a choir boy.

Having character doesn't have to mean having disruptive or undesirable attitudes.

Why is that?

Because your premise(s) and logic are faulty;

1. The commentators in Badminton have provided insight into the game Ms. Clark for one has done a good job of this in broadcasts I've watched. There is no lack of insight.

2. Trying to say that the televised poker players are bereft of character is laughably naive. Phil Hellmuth? Mike 'the mouth'? Daniel Neugranue? Geeze, do you even watch televised poker?

3. You're contention hinges on the premise that poker is not a stimulating activity on it's own. This is patently false. There needs to be some entertainment value in the activity itself.

Because the commentators educate the audience about the ins and outs of the game.

That's idiotic, the contention that Poker owes its popularity over hockey to the commentary is a flimsy argument. Also making this argument implicitly argues that there is a lack of such commentary in hockey. This is laughable and completely destroys your argument.

As to why poker should be more relevant in the US market I'm going to guess that more people in the US have played poker at some time in their life than have actually laced up for a game of hockey. Too obvious for you?

Just watch a post match player interview in Hockey, Tennis, or even Poker and then watch one of any badminton player.

***Cheung*** · 04-10-2012, 06:18 AM

Originally Posted by justinwyyau

Respectfully disagree your disagreement

It really depends when and where and what camera angle is used. I can see benefits of zoomed close ups/slow-mos during breaks, replays or highlights but definitely not definitely not during when a point is being played.

When a point is being played, a full court coverage view is required; it is all about field of view (similar to what Fidget said above). Same as to how other sports are doing this too; basketball, football, etc. When a point is being played, it switches out to the full court view.

What would be cool though is perhaps one day when TV sets are big enough, we can fit multiple big enough view options on one single TV, i.e. have a full court coverage view + others. Even a first person view like this http://youtu.be/lZA-57h64kE or a GoPro cam (although it would be have to shrink in size considerably) would be good.

Either way, from my view (lol), in summary:
- point being played: full court coverage
- replay/highlights: all the fancy smancy views you could ever want

Justin

How many times have you actually seen the horizontal camera view live on TV?

I am not proposing that it be used continuously, but used judiciously through the course of a match.

Forgive me for saying but the traditional camera angle is too restrictive. The higher the angle, the less appreciation of speed and the game to the layman. We do need a bit more variety throughout a televised match.

**thunder.tw** · 04-10-2012, 09:23 AM

Originally Posted by thumpsky

knowing how the game is played > WWE style gimmickery

I missed this. The 'gimmickery' I was referring to was things such a telestrators with commentators scribbling lines and circles every where and the inclusion of flashy graphics and such. I'm not sure what you mean by 'WWE style gimmickery', I don't watch WWE but, I'd be surprised if the WWE uses such devices.

The BWF channel on Youtube provides fairly informative commentary. Gill Clark does a reasonable job giving viewers a primer on some of the finer point of the game and guest commentators such as Morden Frost have provided fairly informative insight.

**justinwyyau** · 04-10-2012, 09:57 AM

Originally Posted by Cheung

How many times have you actually seen the horizontal camera view live on TV?

I am not proposing that it be used continuously, but used judiciously through the course of a match.

Forgive me for saying but the traditional camera angle is too restrictive. The higher the angle, the less appreciation of speed and the game to the layman. We do need a bit more variety throughout a televised match.

Only seen the horizontal view from the sides in replays over net shots and what not. Yes, it offers a different view point and offers a sense of appreciation of speed and space, but the view point is still restricted and you still lose out from the horizontal front to back view (if you know what I mean)

We are all entitled to our own views and I still stand by my views for my own viewing pleasure based on preference. Hopefully one day, we will have a multitude of viewing options for the masses but as of now, I'm happy with my traditional camera angle

Justin

**thunder.tw** · 04-10-2012, 10:08 AM

Originally Posted by justinwyyau

Only seen the horizontal view from the sides in replays over net shots and what not. Yes, it offers a different view point and offers a sense of appreciation of speed and space, but the view point is still restricted and you still lose out from the horizontal front to back view (if you know what I mean)

We are all entitled to our own views and I still stand by my views for my own viewing pleasure based on preference. Hopefully one day, we will have a multitude of viewing options for the masses but as of now, I'm happy with my traditional camera angle

Justin

I agree with you on this however, I'd like to see the viewing angles described by Cheung a little more often. Especially for shorter rallies were the complete rally could be shown while waiting for the next point to begin or, during towel breaks.

Either way, I don't think that this would address in any way the difficulty badminton has in breaking in to the North American market. I think there are more fundamental issues at play, which I've already mentioned in this thread.

**thumpsky** · 04-10-2012, 11:45 AM

also need to incorporate a view at the player level because to a layman the birdie often looks like it's floating when it is in fact dropping due to the high camera angle.

**Jonster** · 04-10-2012, 12:04 PM

I want to see the an eye-level or 'horizontal' view because as a player, you can get an idea of the depth and changes of height the shuttle is played at. A bird's eye view makes it harder to notice this.

If there was a change in camera angle it would allow you to better see the technique of the player.

I am not sure this would bring it anymore forward to the world sport stage.

**thumpsky** · 04-10-2012, 01:07 PM

Originally Posted by Jonster

I want to see the an eye-level or 'horizontal' view because as a player, you can get an idea of the depth and changes of height the shuttle is played at. A bird's eye view makes it harder to notice this.

If there was a change in camera angle it would allow you to better see the technique of the player.

I am not sure this would bring it anymore forward to the world sport stage.

it could only help the cause.

it helps the viewer appreciate the game more.

**demolidor** · 04-12-2012, 09:51 AM

**madbad** · 04-12-2012, 09:54 AM

Originally Posted by demolidor

This is as close to sea sick as I get

**demolidor** · 04-12-2012, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by madbad

This is as close to sea sick as I get

I must be cured then! Used to hate fps games because of it but watching this vid had no clue it was very much alike and no problem watching it (or maybe it's the 12inch screen