After all the comments from the poor visibility and camera direction?? Do we think the company is going to up grade the cameras and the operator It was real amateurish to be wiping lens and why should water get on it in first place. Should be like TV cameras that are shrouded I think the idea and commentators are good, just needs picture problems fixing
One of the biggest problems is the utter bodge job that was done on the gantry the other season. Complete and utter waste of time that was clearly done on the cheap and inexplicably managed to make the thing even more of an eyesore whilst not even attempting to improve the quality for the fans
Whatever the reason the quality of picture in the second half was shocking. Plus the commentary was slightly out of sync with the action. Nevertheless it was nice to get to see us play live.
You're not going to get Sky quality coverage unfortunately for the price you pay - although quality wasn't great yesterday.
I've often wondered would we get more media coverage if we had better facilities? If I had to choose who was getting extended highlights on TV and I could choose between a club with multiple camera angles in ultra HD or a club who filmed it on a potato I know who would be featured more. Would we be on Sky more if we had anywhere for them?
Games chosen for extended highlights will be serviced by a proper OB facilities company, who will rig cameras to a standard spec (usually 7 cameras, sometimes 8) for the level of game involved. Clubs don't have their own 'multiple cameras in ultra HD'. Premier League games were 11 cameras minimum spec as standard, that's risen to 13 this season. World Cup matches this summer were 37 cameras & 41 for the semis and final.
£10 per game is considerably more than Sky. The quality of coverage yesterday is maybe forgivable if you're a abroad and paying £100 a year or so, but it was sold to me for a tenner, and I think it's OK to be annoyed at what was delivered.
Would they ever select games for extended highlights or even full match based on facilities though? Surely a club with ready made facilities which just beds cameras plugging in will be cheaper than a club where they have to bring everything? Or doesn't it work like that? Are clubs only allowed to send in one camera angle for TV use then?
I doubt it. Editorial decisions would always win the day, and outside the new mega-stadiums of the uber-rich, where they will build bespoke camera positions into the design, I can't think of any clubs with that facility. The OB companies have to either build camera platforms as part of the rig or cordon off areas of seating to position certain cameras.
No because Tv coverage down to popularity- hence reason Villa , Leeds etc on all the time. So you reckon they will charge you Ifollow prices for Hd coverage and multi camera angles - when sky charges what it does for all those facilities
Do sky offer a pay per game facility or a contract- of course they'll charge £10 because they have to cover themselves with fewer viewers.
Or take Ifollow for 45 a year which is what most would pay for - 4.99 a month. That's target audience or overseas viewers who get every game live. Imagine sky a multi billion pound business will be able to offer match day facilities in terms of coverage
I don't expect (or particularly want) 'Sky-quality' coverage, anyway. I expect a decent camera which can cope with a bit of rain and is pointed somewhere in the rough direction of the ball for the whole match. Not too much to ask when they're charging the price of a cinema ticket.
Of course sky can, I'm just correcting you on the price. For £45 a year you simply can't watch live football every week on ifollow. It's a different package
Or on Sky because they don't show it every game- Ifollow can't legally show the game live on a Saturday
