TVG's 'under the rail' Del Mar camera shot.

[Stillriledup]

This random camera shot from the backstretch, underneath the rail, of random horses legs is not something that needs to be shown every race. If you've seen one of these shots, you've seen them all.

You're taking 2 or 3 seconds away from a unique event (the race) to show a camera shot of something that's extremely similar in nature to every other time they've shown this angle.

If a football player is running for a TD on television, would you be happy if they zoomed in on his shoe when he was running and the only thing you saw was a random shoe moving up and down very quickly?

Why do we accept this type of camera work in horse racing, what are they trying to prove by taking the camera off the actual race and showing something like random horses legs?

[Spiderman]

My pet peeve about camera work is when the winner opens several lengths through the stretch, the camera does not pan to the race for place. Exacta pools are larger than win pools.

[Shelby]

I LOVE that camera shot! I think it really shows the power of the horses!

It's not like it lasts that long.

[Fingal]

It's like their flipping of the camera angles rather than just showing the track feed, it's TVG's attempt to impart their own stamp on the broadcast.

[toussaud]

I LOVE that camera shot! I think it really shows the power of the horses!

It's not like it lasts that long.
me too! i like shots like that, than just the standard pan shot

as long as they show the pan in the stretch i'm good with some creativeness in the rest of the race.

[Valuist]

I've never understood the need for the low level shot. When the networks try to cover racing, they always overcomplicate the matter by having way too many camera cuts. And when someone brings it up on here, or any of the other popular forums, some idiot always says its to cater to newbies.

Here's a question: how does unnecessary camera cuts appeal to newbies? I would think of all people, newcomers would want one pan shot to make it easier to follow the field, or "their" horse. New bettors tend to make simpler wagers, involving one horse. Nothing more annoying than losing track of "your" horse because of a needless camera cut.

[Stillriledup]

I've never understood the need for the low level shot. When the networks try to cover racing, they always overcomplicate the matter by having way too many camera cuts. And when someone brings it up on here, or any of the other popular forums, some idiot always says its to cater to newbies.

Here's a question: how does unnecessary camera cuts appeal to newbies? I would think of all people, newcomers would want one pan shot to make it easier to follow the field, or "their" horse. New bettors tend to make simpler wagers, involving one horse. Nothing more annoying than losing track of "your" horse because of a needless camera cut.

I think they think that showing a shot like that is 'cutting edge'. If they really wanted to be cutting edge, they would show their races in HD. For some unknown reason, TVG is a non HD channel. THATS cutting edge.

I wouldnt mind the low level angle if you can actually use that angle in some sort of way that is beneficial to your handicapping or racewatching. It accomplishes neither. Its not a functional camera angle, it really serves no other than for fans to say "hmm, interesting perspective"

But, that 'interesting perspective' the novelty wears off pretty quickly, sort of like the blue puck in the NHL. It was interesting at first, but than the fans were like "ok, enough blue pucks' and they went out and got HD instead.

[Fingal]

Last year Bejarano had an accident that happened right by that camera where after he fell he got up for a couple steps then went down again. There's always a chance to see a breakdown as long as there's even a track feed, but sometimes it's what they don't show that's better. Suppose there was a breakdown right by that camera ? Seeing a horse laying on the track struggling to get up is no good. Or as Todd Schrupp would say, it's No Bueno.

[Valuist]

I think the split screen may work at some tracks but its awful at others. I especially don't like it at Churchill. With the split screen it seems like the horses are 2 miles away at the top of the stretch. I've also noticed it at Arlington.

[nearco]

I LOVE that camera shot! I think it really shows the power of the horses!

It's not like it lasts that long.

We have a winner.
Camera shots like that are not done for the hardcore capper. They are done for to make racing more exciting and appealing to the average Joe. It works.
Check out the camera work for big races overseas, plenty of examples on Youtube. They get you right in the action.
Now, one could make the argument that they should be confined to the big races and bot used for average everyday fare.

[nearco]

I've never understood the need for the low level shot. When the networks try to cover racing, they always overcomplicate the matter by having way too many camera cuts. And when someone brings it up on here, or any of the other popular forums, some idiot always says its to cater to newbies.

Here's a question: how does unnecessary camera cuts appeal to newbies? I would think of all people, newcomers would want one pan shot to make it easier to follow the field, or "their" horse. New bettors tend to make simpler wagers, involving one horse. Nothing more annoying than losing track of "your" horse because of a needless camera cut.

No they don't want to see a Pan shot. That's the most boring goddam camera angle in the world. Fine if you are a ardent punter who wants to read the 'whole' field. Boring as all sh1t to Joe Doe sitting at home watching. It just looks like a bunch of horses going around in a circle. It's bad enough that every dam track looks almost exactly the same and they run in exactly the same direction, over a small window of distances. Close up camera work like this example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghUY0k4YX1k) , makes racing exciting .

[nearco]

The moving camera that NBC used at the 2000 Breeders Cup was pretty dam awesome. Felt like you were galloping down the stretch with Tiznow and Giant's Causeway. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRnirUnNJFg

[toussaud]

The moving camera that NBC used at the 2000 Breeders Cup was pretty dam awesome. Felt like you were galloping down the stretch with Tiznow and Giant's Causeway. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rRnirUnNJFg that war chant race is my fav bc race of all time.

i think they were TOO close though in retrospect.

i agree with the poster above, the frankel race on youtube is about the best of both worlds.

dubai does it really well as well.

[Valuist]

No they don't want to see a Pan shot. That's the most boring goddam camera angle in the world. Fine if you are a ardent punter who wants to read the 'whole' field. Boring as all sh1t to Joe Doe sitting at home watching. It just looks like a bunch of horses going around in a circle. It's bad enough that every dam track looks almost exactly the same and they run in exactly the same direction, over a small window of distances. Close up camera work like this example (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ghUY0k4YX1k) , makes racing exciting .

Boring? What's boring is not being able to find your horse or horses. We might as well just hang out at Equibase and wait for them to put up the chart. The average bettor doesn't give a damn about camera angles; they want to see if they have a shot at making money. Everything else is useless fluff.

[toussaud]

Boring? What's boring is not being able to find your horse or horses. We might as well just hang out at Equibase and wait for them to put up the chart. The average bettor doesn't give a damn about camera angles; they want to see if they have a shot at making money. Everything else is useless fluff.
i would not agree with that statement. That's just me.

When I have access to it, and i am playing Del Mar, I will 10 out of 10 times watch TVG over the track feed because of the different camera angles. it's just different from the every day ho hum pan shot. Not better or worse so much as it's just something you don't see everyday.

[nearco]

Boring? What's boring is not being able to find your horse or horses. We might as well just hang out at Equibase and wait for them to put up the chart. The average bettor doesn't give a damn about camera angles; they want to see if they have a shot at making money. Everything else is useless fluff.

Try reading what I wrote. Those camera angles don't exist for you or 99% of the people who post on this forum. They are to appeal to a wider audience. And do indeed work.

In an ideal world you would have the best of both worlds, which is what you get in UK and Ireland... The 'network' channels, BBC, CH4 etc show racing with all the up close camera work, low angle shots and are catering to people that watch racing as a sport. The racing channels, ATR and RUK (equivalent of TVG and HRTV) show panned out camera work and cater to the dude that's betting on Betfair all day long.

[spiketoo]

It'll always be amateur hour at TVG. How about showing the times for the splits and actually leaving them on the screen? Football shows you the time until the play starts. Basketball shows you how much time until the play ends. Baseball shows you how fast a pitch is (yawn).

I mean, how important can split times be? Its not like anyone uses them in their handicapping or anything.

Thread hijack concluded.

[Valuist]

Try reading what I wrote. Those camera angles don't exist for you or 99% of the people who post on this forum. They are to appeal to a wider audience. And do indeed work.

In an ideal world you would have the best of both worlds, which is what you get in UK and Ireland... The 'network' channels, BBC, CH4 etc show racing with all the up close camera work, low angle shots and are catering to people that watch racing as a sport. The racing channels, ATR and RUK (equivalent of TVG and HRTV) show panned out camera work and cater to the dude that's betting on Betfair all day long.

You never mentioned WHY these camera cuts make for greater excitement. I cannot imagine a newbie saying, "it was really exciting when I'd find my horse in the race then 2 seconds later I had no idea where anyone was." I LIKE the overhead blimp shots they use on Derby day and a few other days. I also actually liked that moving camera during the 2000 Breeders Cup. That single shot made the viewer feel like they were right in the middle of the finish. But to cut to a head on shot while the field is on the backstretch? To cut to a low level shot on the backstretch? Those are pointless, unnecessary shots, as are 98% of the camera cuts.