Not for the first time B Sky B have got my goat.
The ‘new’ low camera angle at White Hart Lane is a disaster. But what I want to put before you today, ladies and gentlemen of the jury is that whilst the debate of personal taste in relation to TV camera positioning is a valid and fascinating one the underlying issue here is the picking of your pocket.
I support the motion to restore the original camera angle that was high, haughty, chic and proud. It scanned nobly across The Lane and was instantly recognizable.
The angle could have only been changed for two possible reasons. The first, which Sky are attempting to field at fans, is the issue of occasional obstructions from caused by stand supporting pillars. This is wonderfully considerate from an organization who’s standards of customer care would usually be more at home in The Stasi.
The second reason which Sky are reticent about is that the lower angle paves the way for 3D. 3D is a dead duck of course. But if media executives can get you to don a pair of disgustingly uncomfortable and cheap glasses and pump 240 volts into the duck’s corpse it does twitch a bit.
The 3D system requires that there is ‘less steep’ view of the subject matter in order to provide opportunity for perspective. So the lower you go, the greater contrast you are afforded and your 3D experience is enhanced.
And the third reason that Sky are unlikely to ever even acknowledge is that the in-stadia digital media becomes a more of a barrage rather than the perhaps occasionally subliminal effect it used to have.
But having tempted you with three reasons to get angry. Here’s the knockout punch. And it’s wonderfully simple.
Seat prices in football stadiums work to, if you like, an industry standard in the manner they are generated. Dependent upon where you sit in White Hart Lane – in order to replicate the old TV angle – it could could cost you up to £80 to get that view. The new angle is probably equivalent to a seat perhaps valued more around the £43 mark.
So why pay a premium seat price for a lesser seat view? Why would you do that?
We are of course hostage to these bums. But if you want to trim Sky’s margins opposed to throw the bubbelah out with the bathwater then one trick is to switch suppliers. You won’t change the angle, but you’ll be putting less in Rupe’s pocket for the privilege.
Alternatively you can sign this HERE let’em know it stinks and you’re not got gonna take it anymore.
January 13, 2012 at 10:26 am
January 13, 2012 at 10:27 am
January 13, 2012 at 10:32 am
January 13, 2012 at 12:44 pm
stu spur dooper says:
January 13, 2012 at 10:33 am
nobby nobbs says:
January 13, 2012 at 10:39 am
Funny. I was watching the Everton game with my son across the world, and I told him that the bloody camera angle is irritating me to no end. What happened to that wonderfully high up angle that allowed us to appreciate those long and insufferably high cross field passes to Crouch, and, for those long enough in the tooth, to remember route 1 as practised by: wimbledon (of unblessed memory), leeds, arsenal (yes gorgeous george and his hump the ball army) and, of course, Jacky Charlton and his republic of ireland world cup route 1.
first by the way
It has changed I don’t Fukin like it. It makes the game a whole lot less enjoyable & shits me no end :angry: :angry: :angry:
I watched the Spurs Cheatski game in 3D last year to see what it was all about. Hated it instantly. Watched the 2nd half in another room in the pub without the stupid glasses.
Have you noticed how they do the post match interviews with the camera behind the interviewer as well? Pathetic. They’re trying desperately to squeeze angles out of the coverage to show off the pointless technology.
Advertising banners and sponsorships also benefit from this close up footage i guess. To be honest i did always feel our cameras were a little too high however you get a far better understanding of formation and shape from the high angles – hence why computer games like pro evo and fifa always default to these angles
Take your own camera !!