Personally i felt that the main camera used in the WC was way too high.it could hardly bring out the speed of the game and KILLED all the enjoyment.in btw rallies they shifted to a lower camera[about the shoulder height of the closer player] and the difference was too obvious.the rallies were so fast and exciting.they should have used something like that throughout the game or the camera angles like the ones used for the WC.camera angles are so important.for a person who hardly knows a thing about Badminton,give bad camera angles for the telecast and he will feel that the game is much slower.but give really good angles[like in AE],he will completlely enjoy himself and have the time of his life.It's really a SKY and EARTH difference. WHY do they have to use so bad camera angles for the WC were over 140 countries would be watching the sport? this was the WC,so u expect everything to be better than compared to any other tournament but instead of being better the camera angles were much worst than the AE spoiling all the fun i was really unhappy with this. How was your experience?
shame on the americans for being crap hosts...more people watched the matches on tv than they did live in person, so they should have made an effort to ensure everything was perfect. shame on them.
Dude! Cut down on US bashing!!! I'm American and there is nothing for us to be ashame of. You should be ashame of yourself. This was the first time in the US so there are always room for improvement. But I don't think the US can ever do anything right for U S haters like yourself. My advice to you is don't watch it.
There's no shame involved in US providing bad camara angles for they noobs are hosting badminton. The bashing is unnecessary but the angles certainly could be better.
I believe they were using the Ponds' main camera, not from other tv stations. Yes, it was not the best angle IMO, either. In a few of the matches, I was actually sitting next to the area where the main camera was stationed and it wasn't a pleasant sight either, at least coming from me watching the matches. Yes, the view was too high and "straight" for a professional badminton tournament. But since the Pond is used mainly for different sporting events, ie. hockey and basketball, i guess that's the only choice they've got. I'm sure the organizer and people involved are aware of it..
Being a little generalistic there aren't ya? Just because he's bashing the U.S. for not providing better camera angles doesn't necessarily mean he's a U.S. hater. You're being quite stereotypical yourself. Anyway, I think they were using the normal basketball/hockey camera angle for the main portion of the game. That probably explains the height. But I did like the switching between camera angles, I found it very clean and smooth. The only thing needed changing was that the camera needed to be closer and also needed to center the court instead of being off to the side.
Firstly,i dont think USA can be blamed too much here.this is the first time they are having the WC and there are bound to be mistakes.But having said that,Badminton is an International Sport and this was the WC.So how can you have such mistakes?ATLEAST this is something the IBF can do..Just regulate the TV crew on where exactly to place the cameras[is that a difficult thing to do?]. Next thing i know the IBF is changing all the rules saying 'Not many channels are coming forward to telecast IBF events so CHANGES are NECESSARY' Give proper angles and you will probably have 10 times the TV audience u got.If you can enetertain the TV audience why wont TV channels and Sponsors come forward?But give bad camera angles then the exact opposite,i dont know how many would watch the sport[probably only those who know about it]....IT'S THAT MUCH OF A DIFFERENCE. I agree with Trance that the Camera should have been at the centre of the court and not close to one of the sidelines.also,it should have been much lower ;just that would have made viewing so many more enjoyable.the overhead camera and the other camera angles were the only consolation.But the MAIN camera is the most Important.And this time they got it all wrong. IS there ANYONE who liked this kind of telecast more than the AE?
Yep the off-centre camera angle was not the smartest thing. But I liked the camera behind the court at least it gave more of a sense of the actual speed
IMO the whole coverage was a bit of a shambles. not oonly was the main camera angle not suitable for badminton, they kept switching between cameras in the middle of ralllies. Also, the sound was out of sync with the picture at times
Even in many a six star tournament or even 7 star i have noted that something is always missing in the telecast.even when the camera angles are good the shuttle sound is missing. And now i am beginning to believe that the AE people are the ONLY ones on the Planet who give perfect broadcast for the Sport.Of course even they have a lot to improve...but atleast they make viewing so enjoyable,that's what counts. And now come to think of it,the telecast quality for the WC 2003 was much better and i think it has all got to do with the fact that it was held in England and so done by the same crew.
I agree about the poor broadcasting production of the WC. Main camera too distant, and way too high. It may have been a necessity due to the layout of the (huge) arena, or it may have been due to lack of knowledge about how to present this sport. However, I quite liked the slightly off-center placement of the camera, it slightly made up for the flat image, but not enough. The roof mounted camera, giving the top view, was pretty pointless too IMHO. All in all, a very bleak and disappointing production. The All England and Danish Open productions are still the best...
Is the blame with the US organisers? I thought the IBF should have known better and had more input to make sure the TV coverage was of an acceptable standard. I was rather embarassed at the fact that friends who were watching it with me who were new to badminton couldn't tell what was going on AT ALL! The players were so tiny on court and only someone who plays the game would be able to work out what's going on with the rally. Not a good advert for the sport. All England coverage is pretty amazing, you can see the amazing speed and power and hear the shuttle being hit crisply. But it's because they use mobile cameras which are placed specifically for the badminton tournaments at the NIA. These aren't permanent cameras. They place the main cameras in the aisles at the exact level to give the best views of the rallies. Why couldn't the US WC organisers have placed cameras low down in the the stadium to give a better and closer angle? Also, did anyone else notice that the cameramen didn't seem to be able to follow some rallies? From the low-down end of court angle, there were a few points where the camera followed the player one way as the shuttle went off screen in the opposite direction. This end view camera was also placed too much in the centre of the court, so it couldn't even cover the whole court. There was always a big chunk not on camera and the cameraman had to swivel quickly from side to side during the rally. Only a few (lucky) thousand saw the WC at the stadium, many millions will have seen it on TV. I hate to think of all the people who saw badminton for the first time who, based on that coverage, will decide that it's the last time they watch badminton.
Pity is n't it?I would rather like no coverage at all ...atleast it does not disgrace the sport.Aldready i hear some of my friends talking 'Badminton is not a spectator sport......in real life it's ok to see the matches...but not good to see it on TV' WTF! Whatever were the great Punch Gunalan and co. doing?For the next WC they will probably have cameras as high as the roof coz it's in Madrid I think we REALLY REALLY need to write to the IBF and tell them that the Camera angles sucked for the WC.
I liked the roof mounted camera. As a badminton player myself this camera shows the movements of the player very clearly. Their footwork becomes veery easy to analyse with this camera
in a perfect world, the organisers would have looked at previous tournaments and taken the good and bad points into consideration, such as mobile camera crews etc etc. obvisously if it was a perfect world, the IBF people might actually watch badminton on tv (well, i guess they mighti already) and so would themselves be able to point out the importance of camera angles to the organisers and broadcasters. It wasn't the first ever badminton tournament held in the history of mankind...surely learning from previous occasions is a logical thing to do
Yes, it was shocking coverage, you' would think the ibf would have some influence over the tv rights and production, even to a fan you couldn't appreciate the subtleties of the play with the poor angle
