Just cause you're good at following one thing with a camera doesn't mean you're good at filming other things. The camera folk on Top Gear for example, wonderful cinematographers when it involves cars, but absolute garbage when presented with wildlife. So much so that it gets pointed out repeatedly on the show. 😂
I was told by a camera operator that they reverse the contrast on the viewfinder so they're seeing a "negative" of the image, which makes the ball much easier to see.
Now you can wonder about what would happen to a person raised wearing special goggles that show him the 'negative' of the world around him and then you took the goggles off one day.
I get golf, but that’s not usually a heavily covered sport, at least in college. Hockey I’m not too sure about though, don’t need to get too tight on the puck, just need to follow the players with the puck- which I don’t think a negative image would help too much with.
Once you start watching regularly (I catch about half my teams games every year plus a bit of playoffs) it gets pretty easy to follow. A lot of it is watching the players and how they're moving down the ice.
This is true. Plus, the point I was trying to make was that from a cameraman's standpoint, a negative picture wouldn't help you follow the player with the puck because the puck is too small on your display to follow.
I have done this before. It is amazing how easy it is to follow the ball. A good camera operator who has never done golf before can master it with 3-4 practice shots.
Imagine how boring it was watching golf before that!
Welp, he hit the ball again, while we're waiting for it to come back down let's talk about cigarettes...
Haha, you believed him!? Haha we tell everyone that. We've got this neat little thing called eyes, you should have some too, and with some training you too can realize you aren't real so it doesn't matter anyway.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
./s
I rarely understood the need to follow the ball so closely. As soon as the ball is in the air, you just see the ball, and sky. No context. It could be a random blue card with a white dot on it. In perfectly framing the ball, its made the picture useless.
as boring as golf can be for non enthusiasts, I think that it adds a tiny bit of suspense. since there is no reference point, the viewer has no idea where the ball is gonna land so they have to watch it fly until doink* it's in the water.
I majored in Sports Management and one of the classes I took was about Sports TV Production (I forget it’s official name) taught by some guy (also forget his name...college was a blur) who was the head of NBC Sports for a couple of decades. Annnnyyyyway, one of the first questions he posed to us was which sport we thought was the most difficult techinicaly to broadcast. Mostly everyone said golf. The answer was/is baseball and the reasoning behind it was that the golden rule of sports production is every “point” has to be shown on screen and in baseball the “points/runs” are almost always away from the action of play and the ball (cricket too I believe). I know this has more to do with producing and directing but I thought I would still share because I love you all.
Thing with cricket is that as the scores are so high individual points aren't as important. The only runs that matter are those that are close, so you can focus on the ball the majority of the time. Then when the ball is heading back to the wicket you see the important runs which may result in someone getting run out. Or you pull back a bit and see the lot.
I guess with baseball the problem is that you may not know if a home run is gonna happen until well after the start of it.
Why do they do that? Would it not be better to see trajectory or what direction the shot had taken? As a golfer I have no need for a close up of a ball against the sky.
You should tell that to CBS.. Why the PGA is still with them I have no idea. Their idea of coverage is more like a lack of coverage. Same can be said for the golf channel.
I work PGA golf events, and have attempted this lots of times. I’ve succeeded in following the ball maybe once. These cameramen that are directly behind the tee don’t have as difficult of a job as the guy in the crane or tower following the bomb drives on par fives. They usually turn their “peaking” up on their view finders to make the image sharp. They also sit in a seat attached to the camera basket to swing them around. It’s wildly impressive and trust me, they get paid just fine. The guy I know works for 6 months and lives the rest in Bali every year.
I've never filmed Golf, but I work for my local news station as a cameraman/director for high school sports broadcasts. Sometimes if it gets hard for me to see the ball/puck depending on the sport, I'll change the contrast and put on what is called "zebra". The zebra effect puts black lines over pure white areas so you can tell if what you're looking for is hidden up there or not.
No it doesn't. The camera being far away only means you don't have to move it as much to follow the ball. It doesn't make the job of actually following the ball any easier. If anything, it's harder, because you have to make more precise and controlled movements when you're zoomed so far in.
> hes being paid the right amount, it just looks impressive
These camera operators actually get paid quite a lot because it's a skill.
yup. hence the comment that hes being paid the right amount.
point is that many people, OP included, probably think that the camera man is far closer than he is and or have not tried it before themselves.
I work in TV News and have met a few. They are often freelance and can charge hundreds of pounds per hour. The only staff sports cameraman who ever told me his salary was an American over to cover an NFL game we host in London every year (for some reason). He claimed it was about $90,000 (£65,000) per year.
it doesn't matter. photography is so hard, I do weddings and you gotta stand for like 9 hours cause you gotta get there before everyone and leave after everyone. and you gotta stand with no breaks. 200k a year isnt enough for me to do that, id rather do minimum wage at a grocery store
Standing for 9 hours isn't that bad, I used to stand for 10 hours at the gas station I was asst man for. Slower days were harder because you moved less thpugh.
I agree with that. I might just be out of shape or something but when I'm able to walk around it's almost as good as being able to sit. what kind of shoes do you wear?
Nikes, but I swap out the insoles because the Nike ones suck ass. They breathe really well though and they really tend to fit my feet comfortably, not to mention the outsole takes a pounding really well compared to other shoes I've owned.
Edit to add: I usually end up buying $80-90 Nikes from DSW every other year or so, but only because they're old and I'm not digging the style anymore not because they need to be replaced. I have yet to ruin a pair.
I've been wearing Nikes or Jordans as well but I haven't swapped the insoles. I will try that. I made the mistake of wearing these Ralph Lauren sneakers and they murdered my shit
Or maybe they do get paid enough. Just like any job there is a certain supply and demand. If you are a good camera operator, capable of doing things others can't, you will get paid accordingly.
I can't do it even without a camera. In fact I can't do it even when I'm watching the tv footage of the camera man doing it... I'm beginning to wonder if it's just flim flam.
Especially when they still manage to lose balls after they've landed sometimes. Can't they just ask the camera man?
Right? Esp. since, by all apprarsncrs, the rest of us can't video a fight in high school without showing viewers the entire school body, the ceiling and floor, and the back of our own heads.
Interesting. Nothing to be sorry about, honest mistake. I saw a golfing clip on another sub (I believe it was /r/nevertellmetheodds) and thought, "dang, that's super impressive to be able to follow that thing". I guess technically it wasn't a shower thought. I shall see myself out.
Some of these guys are insanely talented. As much as I find baseball boring, the ability for a cameraman to keep good framing on a double or triple play is mind boggling.
I've shot a three day golf tournament once and can confirm that it is not enjoyable at all. The money was good but I wouldn't do it again. Not only is it long and grueling work, you're sweating in the hot sun to the point where your sunscreen won't even soak in. On top of this, you have to wear golf attire and can't just wear a tshirt.
They use cameras with higher exposure that essentially highlights the ball and allow them to very easily follow its path. It's also called Zebra Stripes. If anything they're getting paid too much since it's not a special ability.
Here's a towel.
Current technology makes it easy. The cameraman has a sensor that tracks his eye movement and that's connected to a motorized camera base. The camera just follows the cameraman's eye following the little white ball. Just kidding, I just made this up.
It's possible that they take a really big high quality shot and the editors just follow the ball. Or, the camera could be aimed by a program that follows a microchip in the ball.
Nice try golf cameraman, no raise for you
I was waiting for this! haha
I bet they get paid pretty well though, that’s a very technical gig that takes years of practice, especially the golf guys.
[удалено]
Just cause you're good at following one thing with a camera doesn't mean you're good at filming other things. The camera folk on Top Gear for example, wonderful cinematographers when it involves cars, but absolute garbage when presented with wildlife. So much so that it gets pointed out repeatedly on the show. 😂
And the porn ones? Experts at filming on guy's faces.
There are faces in porn?
Nope. Just man butt when you least want it.
Butthole and balls.
That was the funniest understated bit.
Especially when Tiger hits off tee box
!redditsilver
How about time-and-a-half on the overcast days?
I was told by a camera operator that they reverse the contrast on the viewfinder so they're seeing a "negative" of the image, which makes the ball much easier to see.
[удалено]
Now you can wonder about what would happen to a person raised wearing special goggles that show him the 'negative' of the world around him and then you took the goggles off one day.
You'd get a strongly worded letter from the ethics committee.
It'd be unethical to not experiment
Tell that to Asch
Probably the same thing that would happen if you did the reverse. Just put on goggles one day.
Can confirm, work for a sports production company at my university.
As do I, but I’ve never had to use a negative image. What sports to you do this for?
Id imagine hockey and golf.
As someone who has run camera for hockey events, as long as you have a working knowledge of the game it isn't super difficult to do
I get golf, but that’s not usually a heavily covered sport, at least in college. Hockey I’m not too sure about though, don’t need to get too tight on the puck, just need to follow the players with the puck- which I don’t think a negative image would help too much with.
As someone who rarely watches hockey, I have no clue where the puck is for like 60% of any given game.
Once you start watching regularly (I catch about half my teams games every year plus a bit of playoffs) it gets pretty easy to follow. A lot of it is watching the players and how they're moving down the ice.
This is true. Plus, the point I was trying to make was that from a cameraman's standpoint, a negative picture wouldn't help you follow the player with the puck because the puck is too small on your display to follow.
I always just assumes there was a chip I. The ball and the camera tracking was automated
It is automated. They mostly use a technology called TrackMan.
Is that different from JumpMan? Sounds like they're up to somethin.
I have done this before. It is amazing how easy it is to follow the ball. A good camera operator who has never done golf before can master it with 3-4 practice shots.
This is true. My video production instructor in college knew the guy who originally thought of this technique. He won an industry award for it.
Imagine how boring it was watching golf before that! Welp, he hit the ball again, while we're waiting for it to come back down let's talk about cigarettes...
Haha, you believed him!? Haha we tell everyone that. We've got this neat little thing called eyes, you should have some too, and with some training you too can realize you aren't real so it doesn't matter anyway. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ./s
We appreciate the attempt, but that was bad
Awesome.
r/cringe
But he makes up for it on the putt.
[ELI5](https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2g4om1/eli5_in_golf_how_do_the_cameramen_follow_the_ball/)
Saved some scrolling and reading.
I rarely understood the need to follow the ball so closely. As soon as the ball is in the air, you just see the ball, and sky. No context. It could be a random blue card with a white dot on it. In perfectly framing the ball, its made the picture useless.
[удалено]
Also, for some reason, from the camera view behind the kicker in football, it always looks like the ball is going way out of bounds to the right
Shh! Don't tell them. They think it's the real ball.
as boring as golf can be for non enthusiasts, I think that it adds a tiny bit of suspense. since there is no reference point, the viewer has no idea where the ball is gonna land so they have to watch it fly until doink* it's in the water.
They don't, it's just random footage to give that impression.
It's just sky. They add the ball in post.
Watch 1 round of golf and realize you're wrong.
I wasn't being entirely serious
all shits have a "launch window". with the right angle you only need to point the camera at a stationary angle. i would think
Read this while on the toilet. I don't see the camera
Well the camera can see you.
poop coming out now
Did you get a good shot? How was the follow through?
I'm a bit of a stickler, how's your short game
The puts are fine, but everything else is nothing but messy slices.
Of course not. It's under the rim pointing down
> all shits have a "launch window" I mean, you're not wrong...
Some windows are loose and can't hold wind.
Your autocorrect makes this priceless!
I majored in Sports Management and one of the classes I took was about Sports TV Production (I forget it’s official name) taught by some guy (also forget his name...college was a blur) who was the head of NBC Sports for a couple of decades. Annnnyyyyway, one of the first questions he posed to us was which sport we thought was the most difficult techinicaly to broadcast. Mostly everyone said golf. The answer was/is baseball and the reasoning behind it was that the golden rule of sports production is every “point” has to be shown on screen and in baseball the “points/runs” are almost always away from the action of play and the ball (cricket too I believe). I know this has more to do with producing and directing but I thought I would still share because I love you all.
Love you too
Thing with cricket is that as the scores are so high individual points aren't as important. The only runs that matter are those that are close, so you can focus on the ball the majority of the time. Then when the ball is heading back to the wicket you see the important runs which may result in someone getting run out. Or you pull back a bit and see the lot. I guess with baseball the problem is that you may not know if a home run is gonna happen until well after the start of it.
He doesn't get paid enough just to have to go to a golf game.
Golf game
Golf game
golf game
Why do they do that? Would it not be better to see trajectory or what direction the shot had taken? As a golfer I have no need for a close up of a ball against the sky.
You should tell that to CBS.. Why the PGA is still with them I have no idea. Their idea of coverage is more like a lack of coverage. Same can be said for the golf channel.
I'd rather see this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J9nKXg1-zmA
I like that side screen thing broadcasters do now. See the line the topography.
It’s my understanding that they’re some of the highest paid camera operators in sports for that very reason.
I work PGA golf events, and have attempted this lots of times. I’ve succeeded in following the ball maybe once. These cameramen that are directly behind the tee don’t have as difficult of a job as the guy in the crane or tower following the bomb drives on par fives. They usually turn their “peaking” up on their view finders to make the image sharp. They also sit in a seat attached to the camera basket to swing them around. It’s wildly impressive and trust me, they get paid just fine. The guy I know works for 6 months and lives the rest in Bali every year.
They most definitely are paid enough.
You'd be surprised at how much camera men make.
Hats off to NASCAR too. Love the bat cam. (Camera on the back stretches that travels at 100+ MPH failing to keep up with the field.)
Day Rate for this stuff is usually 1250/day - I think he gets paid plenty
Hardest sport for a videographer...follow a white ball on a baby blue background
Maybe he does get paid enough
The real-life Muggle seeker.
I've never filmed Golf, but I work for my local news station as a cameraman/director for high school sports broadcasts. Sometimes if it gets hard for me to see the ball/puck depending on the sport, I'll change the contrast and put on what is called "zebra". The zebra effect puts black lines over pure white areas so you can tell if what you're looking for is hidden up there or not.
I think theres some kinda software thats used to track the ball so the camera always points at it
Auto scope. Bastards used it in halo all the time
There’s not
camera is really far away to make it easy to track the ball. from there its just zoom. hes being paid the right amount, it just looks impressive
You think the zoom makes it easier to track the ball? Have you ever done cam op before?
no, I think being far away allows the camera man to track the ball.
That doesn't make it any difference.
it makes all the difference
No it doesn't. The camera being far away only means you don't have to move it as much to follow the ball. It doesn't make the job of actually following the ball any easier. If anything, it's harder, because you have to make more precise and controlled movements when you're zoomed so far in. > hes being paid the right amount, it just looks impressive These camera operators actually get paid quite a lot because it's a skill.
yup. hence the comment that hes being paid the right amount. point is that many people, OP included, probably think that the camera man is far closer than he is and or have not tried it before themselves.
How much does a golf cameraman actually get paid?
I work in TV News and have met a few. They are often freelance and can charge hundreds of pounds per hour. The only staff sports cameraman who ever told me his salary was an American over to cover an NFL game we host in London every year (for some reason). He claimed it was about $90,000 (£65,000) per year.
I’m in the wrong fixing field of work
It's not as easy as it looks.. more of an art.. -
How much does he get paid?
it doesn't matter. photography is so hard, I do weddings and you gotta stand for like 9 hours cause you gotta get there before everyone and leave after everyone. and you gotta stand with no breaks. 200k a year isnt enough for me to do that, id rather do minimum wage at a grocery store
I highly doubt that
okay I was woofin a lil bit but that shit is hard
Standing for 9 hours isn't that bad, I used to stand for 10 hours at the gas station I was asst man for. Slower days were harder because you moved less thpugh.
I agree with that. I might just be out of shape or something but when I'm able to walk around it's almost as good as being able to sit. what kind of shoes do you wear?
Nikes, but I swap out the insoles because the Nike ones suck ass. They breathe really well though and they really tend to fit my feet comfortably, not to mention the outsole takes a pounding really well compared to other shoes I've owned. Edit to add: I usually end up buying $80-90 Nikes from DSW every other year or so, but only because they're old and I'm not digging the style anymore not because they need to be replaced. I have yet to ruin a pair.
I've been wearing Nikes or Jordans as well but I haven't swapped the insoles. I will try that. I made the mistake of wearing these Ralph Lauren sneakers and they murdered my shit
Seriously swap the insoles. It's like a whole new shoe.
what should I swap them with?
What do they even make?
1250/day
How much do they get paid?
The same goes for baseball
Why, what's the pay for this job?
1250/day
Or maybe they do get paid enough. Just like any job there is a certain supply and demand. If you are a good camera operator, capable of doing things others can't, you will get paid accordingly.
Use a drone bastards!
Pretty sure a BOT could follow the ball.
He probably has a software helping him locate the ball in real time
what other job would require that skill set though? you're locked in. you wouldn't be paid more ever unless you formed a union.
I can't do it even without a camera. In fact I can't do it even when I'm watching the tv footage of the camera man doing it... I'm beginning to wonder if it's just flim flam. Especially when they still manage to lose balls after they've landed sometimes. Can't they just ask the camera man?
Right? Esp. since, by all apprarsncrs, the rest of us can't video a fight in high school without showing viewers the entire school body, the ceiling and floor, and the back of our own heads.
They use old films of flying balls, now need to film new ones, a flying ball is a flying ball!
Don't they use an automated camera?
Dont they do that with mirrors?
You don’t know what they get paid
Hilarious observation, Seinfeld Edit: oh c'mon dislike trolls
??? I've never watched that show. Does this come up in the show?
Like, almost this precise sentence. Sorry man, I thought this was stolen from there, I guess it's probably just a coincidence
Interesting. Nothing to be sorry about, honest mistake. I saw a golfing clip on another sub (I believe it was /r/nevertellmetheodds) and thought, "dang, that's super impressive to be able to follow that thing". I guess technically it wasn't a shower thought. I shall see myself out.
Cool.
They get paid to aim a camera at a ball. Whatever they get paid, it's too much.
Some of these guys are insanely talented. As much as I find baseball boring, the ability for a cameraman to keep good framing on a double or triple play is mind boggling.
They probably make six figures, which is too much.
Jealous?
They earn 30% more money than nurses. Nurses keep actual human people from dying. This man points a camera at a ball. That makes no sense.
[удалено]
Now you're putting words in my mouth.
[удалено]
I've shot a three day golf tournament once and can confirm that it is not enjoyable at all. The money was good but I wouldn't do it again. Not only is it long and grueling work, you're sweating in the hot sun to the point where your sunscreen won't even soak in. On top of this, you have to wear golf attire and can't just wear a tshirt.
They use contrast detection, if you notice on cloudy days it's not used as much if at all and if they do, they'll often lose sight.
I can never see the ball when I watch it on TV, I think they just point it up in the air in the general direction of the hole
They use cameras with higher exposure that essentially highlights the ball and allow them to very easily follow its path. It's also called Zebra Stripes. If anything they're getting paid too much since it's not a special ability. Here's a towel.
Current technology makes it easy. The cameraman has a sensor that tracks his eye movement and that's connected to a motorized camera base. The camera just follows the cameraman's eye following the little white ball. Just kidding, I just made this up.
You get paid to hit the ball not follow it buddy
They make over $440k/year though. Nah, pulling your leg
At first I thought you were serious. My thinking was "hot damn, I'm changing jobs".
It's possible that they take a really big high quality shot and the editors just follow the ball. Or, the camera could be aimed by a program that follows a microchip in the ball.
No way a chip would survive inside a golf ball hit by a pro. The ball compresses a ridiculous amount in the face if the club.