Re: Camera placement = excitement
Thanks Rollo. The 1975 coverage is a perfect example. This is the exact moment I fell in love with tennis and had the camera been both static and placed high in the stands, as it is on basically every match telecast today, I do not think I would be a tennis fan. I donít understand how no one else seems to get this. The Australian open beginning in 1988 seems to have started this awful way of filming a match and now it is completely given protocol. I donít get it at all, and it seems like such a simple fix. Is it something to do with larger high definition televisions? I know Europe got better high def much earlier than the US, but it still doesnít make sense to me. The camera is now universally so high above the court that itís difficult to tell which player is which. And itís always static, never a jump cut during a point...thatís literally unheard of.
But I swear if just one network (the Tennis Channel!?) could experiment with the Ďradicalí coverage techniques of the 1970s to early 80s there is a chance people might become interested in tennis again. I mean regular sports fans that only know Roger and Serena.
The coverage of that time period was dynamic with close ups and a camera positioned to actually let you see the flight, speed and spins of the ball. Right now the camera is positioned so far away itís hard to discern any of that, let alone the players faces and emotions during a point.
Who can I contact to try to make this point. No one here seems to understand besides you, but to me itís immediately obvious and so much preferable.