I think they do a good job on the overall production. They are really good with all the fancy replays and production elements. My one complaint is the camera angle issue. They keep trying to make it special but like you said there's no need to jazz up game action. People just want to see what is going on.
I'm beginning to think it's just a generational thing; the game has changed a lot in a short amount of time.
How do I reply to these well thought out, well composed educated posts.......... Broadcasting LIVE action sports is a tricky business. A LOT goes into showing you guys the action. Now covering soccer, golf or baseball is COMPLETELY different. Those sports are very slow and you have time to set shots and other content up. Basketball is probably one of the fastest to work along with Volleyball or LaCrosse or arena football, but who watches those? That said, I believe Sly mentioned above that there are over 200 trips up and down the court on average during a game and you guys are bitching about a handful of mistakes. Albeit they were key plays, shit happens. If it makes you feel better (I'm sure it won't) but of my basically 12 cameras I had access to last night, only ONE was focussed on Davis during that steal. Every other camera was focussed on what we call a HERO shot of whoever had just made a key play or whoever the MIKES are speaking of. You see mistakes when we cover the Ducks football games quite a bit actually. There speed and type of play fakes out our camera guys all the time. Now this Yuyza person on here. Bro I gave you my man's Twitter handle out of respect to you to maybe vent some frustrations or maybe pass along some ideas. But you coming on here putting my people on blast about an industry you know nothing about is a tad ridiculous. Jeff Curtin is our Director of Broadcasting along with being our director of the actual broadcast. This dude knows his shit. For you to call us the "Worst in the business", really? I don't see threads on here after the 5-10 times a game over the past 12 years I've found that one frame of the ball going off the other teams finger, or a toe on the line that gave the other team a 2 instead of a 3. Or when everybody on twitter is all screaming because they don't know why Dame is limping and I fly back an hour of game action and analyze 12 different camera angles to find where he hurt his arm WHILE THE GOD DAMN GAME IS STILL BEING PLAYED! So then everybody can tweet about it when they see our replays as if they have that INSIDE info. I can actually think of 3 games that our replays from those angles have actually won us a game. And we have been acknowledged about this from the President and head coach. At the league meetings in New York, every year Blazers Broadcasting is singled out as leading the league in not only interesting ways to get sponsored elements on air (See: Wear in the World, where now about 5 or 6 other teams have straight up ripped that idea off and use now themselves) but also creating graphic packages that nobody can touch. Everywhere we go around the NBA other teams media and or broadcasts teams give us props. BB is pretty damn respected in the broadcast community. As a reminder we have also won an Emmy for our "Worst" broadcast in the league. We beat out quite a few quality broadcasts for this honor. Mariners/Seahawks/Timbers/Pac12 and others. That may not ring true or not hold much credibility with some on here, but in my industry, that literally is the gold standard. I never thought about this before I got into this industry, but what a lot of people don't realize or know is that the only reason to broadcast games in the first place is to get our sponsors..... Wells Fargo..... for example message on the air. WITHOUT the sponsors money, we wouldn't be on the air. So the fact that we can get all that promotional info out, please them, AND get a ball game on the air is amazing if you ask me. Now you can take this "rant" how you want, obviously because you are critiquing ME and MY team, but I think if you look at the 75 games or so we've played and multiply that by the 200 trips a game, I believe we are covering the game quite nicely. I'm biased because I'm part of this, but I think it would be interesting to set a camera up and analyze EVERY move YOU make at work. Breaking down how you pump the gas or wash the windshield. Or how well and fast you change the hotdogs on that thing that rolls them around. Grandma used to tell me when you are pointing a finger at somebody, look down and there are 3 pointing right back at you. Now I think the proper way to handle your critiques and frustrations of all your expert eyes of Broadcast Television would be to have a sticky thread at the top where you guys can voice your opinion in a polite professional matter. You clowns coming on here blasting everybody and everything about Blazer Broadcasting isn't helping. My man Jeff reads this forum on the regular, and I can promise you if you critiques hold merit he'll see 'em. Whatever you think of me, read what I posted and really think about it. And one last thing...... I've said this before......do me a favor and mix in some other teams broadcasts and I think you'll see ours in a different light.
I will pass it up the ladder, but maybe we could work something out and have some guys every now and then sit in the truck during a broadcast and not just get a tour, but put the headsets on and see all that it takes to get the game broadcast. Might change the perspective. We aren't sitting on a couch with a beer picking camera angles. No promises, but we might be able to work out something.
First off, Thank you HCP for even providing this response. It was very detailed and informative, and I enjoyed reading about a lot of the stuff that goes on and doesn't get picked up by the average viewer. I definitely don't think the average viewer appreciates a lot of the effort that goes on behind the scenes for many parts of the broadcast (like Wear in the World). With that said, the one complaint that spawned this thread (and what a lot of people here agree with) is the issue of switching cameras during live plays. The baseline and overhead cams aren't good at picking up plays, especially when the camera switches to them halfway during live action. I think the average viewer is more than happy watching the standard camera when play is happening.
Hey HCP, I like the Crank It Up on Fox Nascar races. Anyway to try something like that for a couple of plays each game? Have the Mikes take a couple of plays off and we just listen to Stotts on the sideline and the players themselves. I remember the first time I sat courtside how much the players talk during the game.
Can you say that again? I couldn't hear you over the sound of your leaf blower... Seriously, though, HCP, you guys do a phenomenal job. Keep up the good work. And tell Curtin that if he keeps cutting to alternative cameras during live action, I'm gonna call my buddy Paul Allen and have him put the Little General in charge...
Thank you HCP for your post; I'll take it under advisement. I guess I'd suggest only this up the ladder: No fancy angles in the fourth quarter if the game is close. The game is dramatic enough, and I'd like to see as much of it as possible without thinking about the angle at which I'm looking at things. I liken it to music production, mixing, and mastering (which I have done professionally): if the music is dramatic, improvisational, and detailed -- hard bop jazz like Miles Davis in the 60s -- the mix almost needs to be the opposite: consistent, transparent, and unobtrusive. the instruments are the stars, the music is what people want to hear, because the music is interesting. Boring music needs active production to make it pop and sparkle. Interesting music doesn't. I don't have a problem with the replays; this is about in-game action, and camerawork that gets in the way of itself sometimes.
I think it was Fox that used to do what I called the "turn three zoom cam" and it drove me nuts. Every single lap, they'd cut from camera to camera, following a particular car, and every time the car hit turn three, the camera would be super wide and then zoom in tight on the car. It was an interesting effect and made for some pretty cool highlight shots, but it got really fucking old after a couple hundred laps...
Actually, this video right here might be the best explanation of my philosophy on camerawork: I take to heart the section of static shots and wide angles. The fight is interesting, and the audience gets to see more of it than in an American film.
Interesting that there is such a backlash to that low "handheld" camera angle with the action coming at you. I see that is how a bunch of you guys feel. I can tell you that all directors do this. TNT/ESPN/ABC Even in football when there is a long bomb in the corner or a breakaway run, they go to that camera. I kinda like it, feeling that it makes you feel you are there. You guys just feel you are missing something when they go to that or the "slam cam"?
I don't like it when TNT/ESPN/ABC does it either! I hate handheld/baseline cameras for more than reaction shots. They usually don't have a good angle on the action. It looks dramatic, and probably made Patrick Ewing backing down yet another stiff look interesting, but the game doesn't play that way now.
