On board bike cameras

Macaloon

RichN95 wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

Even if this footage is only edited into the previous day highlights it will be worth it.

That bit I agree with. Always have done. It's cheap and easy. And TV coverage does need to be more inventive.

It's the convoluted and expensive schemes that people are dreaming up because they want the footage now, not later, that I object to. It's just not practical or affordable unless you start selling the rights to the likes of Sky instead of Eurosport.

Plus if you put this stuff in highlights shows or the preamble to the next stage, you'll get people people tuning in for it.

A moto with an iPhone and the disk from a rider's camera in lieu of direct bike-moto transmission? Broadcasters could experiment with this tomorrow.

It's a hobby-horse of mine because of the missed opportunity to promote the sport. Media are saturated with mediocre images. Unique remarkable footage is incredibly valuable. At the current rate of innovation, Google will be ready with their autonomous rider, able to surf the peloton at will, and equipped with all sorts of sensors, before we get reliable split-screen comparisons on TTs.

RichN95.

Macaloon wrote:

A moto with an iPhone and the disk from a rider's camera in lieu of direct bike-moto transmission? Broadcasters could experiment with this tomorrow.

How's the reception for iPhones in the middle of nowhere? It's crap in Cardiff. I wouldn't fancy the download times on 1G. And then you're asking riders to play around with fiddly disks while they're racing. (If I was a racer I'd keep dropping it out of principle).

Yesterday the Tour of California - the home of the entertainment industry and information technology - was struggling to get pictures from moto 1. Maybe they should experiment with the basics first before the gimmicks.

Unique remarkable footage is usually a result of many takes and careful editing. And it gets boring after the third viewing.

Macaloon

RichN95 wrote:

Macaloon wrote:

A moto with an iPhone and the disk from a rider's camera in lieu of direct bike-moto transmission? Broadcasters could experiment with this tomorrow.

How's the reception for iPhones in the middle of nowhere? It's crap in Cardiff. I wouldn't fancy the download times on 1G. And then you're asking riders to play around with fiddly disks while they're racing. (If I was a racer I'd keep dropping it out of principle).

Yesterday the Tour of California - the home of the entertainment industry and information technology - was struggling to get pictures from moto 1. Maybe they should experiment with the basics first before the gimmicks.

Neutral service could have wee fishing nets to catch the disks. And comparing most of France to the Californian desert where they practiced lunar exploration is a stretch. I'd imagine a satellite phone or two could resolve reception problems for the rare mtn stages at ski resorts with no cell coverage.

Meanwhile, experiment where coverage is abundant. Get a bike manufacture to sponsor the coverage: "let's take a look at Cav's intermediate sprint on the Trek LiveCam"

As for the last point about lengthy editing, the ROI on the small fraction of total footage that would justify this treatment is so high that it's another reason to collect the raw footage.

FIFA's adoption of goal-line technology looks rash by comparison.

hammerite

Rich - I'm not sure Maca is suggesting uploading the videos over mobile. Currently you can view a Go Pro using an iPhone, iPad or similar. Other cameras just require you to use a web browser and an IP address to access the image on the phone/tablet/laptop. I'm assuming that a moto rides nearby picking up the images and saving them to disk. These are then transferred to somewhere so they can be accessed by the host broadcaster.

Whilst the technology might not be quite there right now, I don't think it's too far off. Things can change very quickly. However, I think most of us have been expecting performance telemetry available on screen..... still not available in many races (was it Tour of California where they did show HR last year?)

hammerite

Macaloon wrote:

I'd imagine a satellite phone or two could resolve reception problems for the rare mtn stages at ski resorts with no cell coverage.

I've been to a fair few ski resorts in France, Italy and Austria and never had an issue with mobile coverage. I got a better mobile signal 8 years ago in the middle of a national park the size of Belgium and Netherlands in Kenya than I get at home today!

Macaloon

hammerite wrote:

Rich - I'm not sure Maca is suggesting uploading the videos over mobile.

I'm afraid he was

You could obviously only squirt a small file, say last 2 mins, but this is only in lieu of getting some moto-helicopter bandwidth. I think this piece is trivial, but it doesn't exist yet, so we'll start with what does.

RichN95.

Look let's be honest here. An on-board camera is only of long term interest in two situations - sprint finishes and crashes - and they will both be better with good editing with several angles available.

Comparing one rider and another descending is great. Once. Possibly twice. But not three times. If you want that sort of footage, there's plenty on YouTube. And intermediate sprints are usually dull from any angle. I'd rather watch someone commute in London.

It's the same with telemetry. It's really exciting right up until the moment you realise that you actually don't give a toss what Lars Boom's heart rate is (which is after about two minutes).

Finishes and crashes - that's all it's really good for.

RichN95.

Delete

Macaloon

RichN95 wrote:

Look let's be honest here.

This topic needs its own number: no need for a threepeat.

Crampeur

Cameras in evidence again today at the TOC. Jonathan Clarke of UHC has one of the Shimano cameras clipped on the underside of his bars.

Anonymous

I think I also saw a tweet by jens voigt about whether he should wear a camera or not

rick_chasey

Cycling coverage is stone age compared to most.

Principally because the logistics of a moving broadcast/action scene are more complex than arena based sport.

Doesn't mean they shouldn't try and make the coverage better.

a) more sky sports style analysis. Especially during slow days. No-one's going to mind putting the breakaway action in the corner of the screen while a man with a tv who looks like he's in minority report goes through some analysis - a breakdown of the previous day's sprint, highlighting little tit bits, etc etc - going through the final run in in detail with images and diagrams etc. Look at head to head graphics - when sprinters do better and worse. Look at what position they are with a 1km to go and see how that impacts their finish position etc etc.

b) on board cameras area obviously exciting. The riders' view of various different incidents and events will always be interesting.

c) think you lot are missing the biggest value of the lot for onboard cameras - the mics that go with it .


Which, similarly, will be the reason that we won't see live broadcasts from onboards. But the logistics of uploading information from a small onboard camera when the bike is at the finish shouldn't be difficult. Setting up wifi/broadband at the finish isn't rocket science. They do it for the journos already.

You line them up in the post-race analysis, and you have them at the top of the previous program - even as part of the wooshy analysis.

hammerite

I like the idea of the in race analysis Rick. Simon Hughes used to do a great job during cricket matches, in fact the analysis generally during cricket matches is really very good. Difficulty is that most cycling coverage seems to be done on a shoe string and reliant on host broadcasters.

Brian Smith just commented about live on board video and said that either riders would need to start minding their language or someone would need to be prepared with the bleeper!

rick_chasey

hammerite wrote:

I like the idea of the in race analysis Rick. Simon Hughes used to do a great job during cricket matches, in fact the analysis generally during cricket matches is really very good. Difficulty is that most cycling coverage seems to be done on a shoe string and reliant on host broadcasters.

Brian Smith just commented about live on board video and said that either riders would need to start minding their language or someone would need to be prepared with the bleeper!

Exactly.

But hearing, for example, what Cancellara and Boonen are saying to each other with 40km to go in Flanders would be GOLD DUST, mega for fans, nightmare for team managers.

tailwindhome

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cycling coverage is stone age compared to most.

Principally because the logistics of a moving broadcast/action scene are more complex than arena based sport.

Also it's a bit like cricket in that nothing can happen for hours/days. Unless you're unemployed, unemployable, in IT or can work from home, who's got the time to watch live? I'm really missing the 1 hour ITV summary of the days action in the Giro, yeah I can Sky+ and skip through but then you lose any rhythm.

Take the ITV format and enhance it with Rick's suggestions and you've got a winner. Someone page Cosmo.

Rick Chasey wrote:

think you lot are missing the biggest value of the lot for onboard cameras - the mics that go with it .

Amazes me they can get enough breath to shout anything.....

rick_chasey

TailWindHome wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

think you lot are missing the biggest value of the lot for onboard cameras - the mics that go with it .

Amazes me they can get enough breath to shout anything.....

Don't mean the sprints. Mean the deals people are cutting all the time

thomthom

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cycling coverage is stone age compared to most.

Principally because the logistics of a moving broadcast/action scene are more complex than arena based sport.

Doesn't mean they shouldn't try and make the coverage better.

a) more sky sports style analysis. Especially during slow days. No-one's going to mind putting the breakaway action in the corner of the screen while a man with a tv who looks like he's in minority report goes through some analysis - a breakdown of the previous day's sprint, highlighting little tit bits, etc etc - going through the final run in in detail with images and diagrams etc. Look at head to head graphics - when sprinters do better and worse. Look at what position they are with a 1km to go and see how that impacts their finish position etc etc.

We've had this for years during the Tour and also in the Giro/Vuelta the last 2 or 3 yearss. ½-1 hour pre and post every stage.

rick_chasey

ThomThom wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Cycling coverage is stone age compared to most.

Principally because the logistics of a moving broadcast/action scene are more complex than arena based sport.

Doesn't mean they shouldn't try and make the coverage better.

a) more sky sports style analysis. Especially during slow days. No-one's going to mind putting the breakaway action in the corner of the screen while a man with a tv who looks like he's in minority report goes through some analysis - a breakdown of the previous day's sprint, highlighting little tit bits, etc etc - going through the final run in in detail with images and diagrams etc. Look at head to head graphics - when sprinters do better and worse. Look at what position they are with a 1km to go and see how that impacts their finish position etc etc.

We've had this for years during the Tour and also in the Giro/Vuelta the last 2 or 3 yearss. ½-1 hour pre and post every stage.

Really? all I see is a bunch of men either in a studio or by the road talking about stuff and showing us stuff we already saw. Ja big whoop.

thomthom

Not during the stage it has to be said. But pre and post.

Prime586

RichN95 wrote:

DeadCalm wrote:

I'm not saying it could happen tomorrow but to rubbish it as an idea is frankly contrary and lacking in imagination. In 1948 there were probably Luddites arguing that live tv coverage was impractical for very similar reasons.

Start small, put cameras and transmitters on a few bikes and dummies on the rest to ensure fairness. Pick up the footage as and when the 'live' bikes are near a receiver. Editors can go to town on the footage if there is anything worth showing. Refine the process. Before long Macaloon's scenario is common place.

First of all these cameras/transmitters. How big are they? The main ones they use in F1 are about the size of a bottle of wine ad weigh similar. They also use five or six cameras per car. The smaller ones are also too big for a bike. There are really small ones but their range is terrible. You'll be needing integrated GPS too.
Then there what you just call 'a receiver'. For the autobus that's the minimum of an extra helicopter, probably an extra plane too, and more satellite bandwidth.
And then what are you left with a comparison of descending between the leaders and the autobus about half an hour after the leaders have passed through and the leaders aren't pushing it that hard anyway which you can only show if there's a substantial lull in proceedings.
Massive outlay for something that you will be bored of in a few days. Everything is possible (drones will be the real game changers), but it costs. Are you willing to pay?

Or you could do it well on a small budget with some Go-Pros and the riders' co-operation but not have it broadcast ready for a couple of hours.

I have to agree with Rich here - now everyone and his dog has 3G phones with 'HD' video capability, the idea of having multiple onboard cameras transmitting live broadcast-quality video that the TV director can cut between on the fly in the peleton sounds simple, but it's a massive technical challenge. In sports that use live onboard camera technology like F1 and the WRC, there is a massive amount of infrastructure behind the scenes to get it to work.

In F1, it is made much easier by the fact that all the action happens within the circuit, so they can have multiple microwave receivers positioned around the circuit picking up the feeds from the onboard cameras and feeding them back to the TV trucks (some of which is permanently installed at the tracks, and all the broadcast infrastructure is owned and the coverage produced by Bernie's company on behalf of the teams). As Rich says, the cameras are not light, and they rely on the car's electrical system for power. Even this system only has the bandwidth to handle the feeds from 9 active cameras across all the cars simultaneously.

In rallying, for live onboards they use a similar system as is used in cycling, with helicopters acting as relays for the broadcasts from the cars back to an orbiting satellite uplink aircraft. This is very expensive, which is why live stage broadcasts featuring onboard pictures are still rare. Most of the onboard pictures in the day's highlights shows are either from GoPros, or their more expensive broadcast-quality equivalents where the pictures have been collected/downloaded from the cars at the end of a stage to be edited into the programme.

When this last came up (in the 'Alonso' thread last year) I went off and did some research to see what was available in the live onboard camera market that could be used for cycling. The 'Jockey Cam' digital microwave link cameras used for live onboards in horse racing weigh about half a kilo. For horse racing, only a small battery is required for the short-range, short duration transmissions (it only needs to run for 15 minutes, and they are followed round the track by a 4x4 to act as the uplink relay). For cycling it's going to need to be transmitting for a 5-hour race or stage - even if it's only relaying to a local moto or car rather than to a helicopter it's still going to need a lot of power (say 700mW x 5 hours = 3500mAh, same size as an RC car battery which even for Li-Ion is about 400grams on it's own without the weight of the camera or transmitter). You could integrate the power feed for the camera into to the electronic shift supply, but then if the camera uses too much power you might end up with no gears.

Also as Rick says, the uplink path is other problem. In some bike races now they still have trouble keeping the uplinks from the Moto cameras going (which is nothing to do with remote location like the ToC yesterday - no terrestrial receivers are used, it all goes via airborne relays). Trying to keep the extra feeds from onboards going as well (which will be transmitting at lower power levels than the Motos) is going to mean at least adding receiver/multiplexer gear onto the Motos or an upgrade to the receiver/multiplex gear in the uplink aircraft, or even have to put up extra relay aircraft up to handle it, plus extra satellite bandwidth to carry it back to the OB production vehicle. It's all extra infrastructure that will have to be paid for by the race organiser or host broadcaster. If there was a single organisation that ran all the races (as is the case in F1), it might be more feasible as the same infrastructure could be used, but no one organiser or broadcaster is going to be able to afford it (especially when the GTs in particular are mostly broadcast free-to-air, and they won't get a return on the investment though people watching via dodgy streams either).

I think the current experiment will develop into having onboard footage that can be downloaded post-race and edited into the evening highlights package, or as a fill-in during the early part of the following day's live broadcast in the near future (and is probably what the teams and riders will be most comfortable with for now).

Lanterne_Rogue

Ignoring the technical challenges, I don't think live onboard footage would greatly enhance cycling coverage - it's shorn of context, obscures the development of the race, and is a total headache to actually watch. Post-race, in context and with a decent commentary to explain what you're looking at, however... As just one example, seeing a descent from the perspective of Nibali would be hair-raising, but wouldn't show you if it was actually achieving anything.

It's noticeable that F1 tends to use the on-board footage either in review - after something exciting happened, and only in a dull moment - or as a chance for the viewer to watch a continuous shot for a minute or so instead of the usual quick cuts between shots at each corner- "Let's ride on-board with..." In cycling, chase motorbikes ensure that longer shots are easy to come by (static ones conveying the actual pace, on the other hand...) and there's simply not the same need to give the poor viewer a rest.

Crampeur

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1FaxG2 ... e=youtu.be Another, less exciting video from Belkin.

slowbike

underlayunderlay wrote:

Ignoring the technical challenges, I don't think live onboard footage would greatly enhance cycling coverage - it's shorn of context, obscures the development of the race, and is a total headache to actually watch. Post-race, in context and with a decent commentary to explain what you're looking at, however... As just one example, seeing a descent from the perspective of Nibali would be hair-raising, but wouldn't show you if it was actually achieving anything.

I disagree - I think it would enhance it - either live or in the highlights show - show content with an overview map & markers or just other footage gives you the context and shows what these riders actually achieve.

I bet most people who watch a grand tour sit there and think "that's not fast" ... being able to view it from the bike gives a greater depth and understanding of what they're doing. Footage from MOTOs is ok - but they're striving to get into the action without getting in the way - far better to get some footage from within the action without impacting on the riders at all.

I'm sure with Di2 and GPS systems it'll be possible to show all the telemetry from the bike (probably the rider too) which would be interesting in certain circumstances - like in the ToC TT when Wiggo cruised past another rider labouring - being able to see that with the stats (post race) would provide an insight as to just how good/bad TTing can be for some riders.

slowbike

Crampeur wrote:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1FaxG2EiVg&feature=youtu.be Another, less exciting video from Belkin.

Interesting the way the group moves and how he was squeezed out at the end of that clip ....

markhewitt1978

Slowbike wrote:

I bet most people who watch a grand tour sit there and think "that's not fast" ...

Every time I've seen a cycle race without fail I'm thinking "wow that's fast", "It's not possible to go that fast on a bike", "They're not bicycles, they can't be!", "I can't ride at half that speed" etc etc.

slowbike

markhewitt1978 wrote:

Slowbike wrote:

I bet most people who watch a grand tour sit there and think "that's not fast" ...

Every time I've seen a cycle race without fail I'm thinking "wow that's fast", "It's not possible to go that fast on a bike", "They're not bicycles, they can't be!", "I can't ride at half that speed" etc etc.

Boy you must be slow!
I can ride at 25mph (for a short while) on the flat - I can't climb, but then gradients always look flatter on TV and you don't get a feeling of the duration.

Sorry - but 25mph just doesn't look fast - nor does it look fast when they're climbing. The sprints do look lively but I don't feel you get the full impact of the speed - which I did from the onboard camera shot linked above.

Pross

Even live they look slow except in a bunch sprint.

johnboy183

I don't know if this adds to the discussion for everyone...

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=1WPT0mAUA ... fj&index=2

Edit: and this


https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ufgbLNBCxH4

Lanterne_Rogue

I think the one with Jens clinches it for me - the pictures are great in review, but if you cut to them live you'd just end up with a headache from trying to work out what the hell was happening.

davidof

If you look at the model aeroplane/drone world the technical challenges are solved. You can fit a camera to a model plane that is gimbal mounted and stabilized and streams HD video to a base station. A setup weighing around 500 grammes including battery and costing well under $1000. So I guess the TV cos will not have any trouble with their resources. Whether riders want to lug an extra 500 g. is another question, not up hills I guess.