Exactly this. When the flippin' Aussie V8's look considerably faster than F1, there's a problem.

I want to see and know, without any external confirmation, just how hard these cars are to drive.

How else are new fans supposed to be in awe of these machines? If they think "yeah I could probably do that" they're not likely to watch each week. Even if they're told the car is going 180mph, if it looks slow, then it looks far too achievable.

It's so easy to fix as well, that's why it's so damned frustrating.

To put it another way (and to borrow an analogy I saw on another forum): An F1 race shouldn't be some opera to be mused over, savoured and admired on a pedestal whilst the cars drift by (and sail unimpeded over run-off areas, though that's another subject...) It should be fast, loud and aggressive rock & roll, man.

(No disrespect meant to opera fans BTW!)

Well I'm sorry but, I've watched plenty of F1Digital coverage and it looks as fast then as it does now. Its a car going round a racetrack fast, simple as that..., regardless of what camera angle is used.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOjUwkCJTxU

Thats some good camera work there.

I don't see what's special or fast-looking about the camera-work there. Looks about the same as modern coverage tbh. Granted, Monaco is the slowest circuit on the calendar, and the video is no longer interlaced, so that's removed some of the sense of speed there.

I think that one of the problems with the camera work and the cameras today is that it's actually too good. I know this might sound like a daft thing to say so I'll try to explain what I mean!
The videos captured by the on-board cameras is now really really superb. Crisp, clear, brilliant colours/contrast & extremely smooth, too smooth. The image stabilisation removes the drama from the images being broadcast. this paired with the cars being so refined and the tracks getting ever smoother give the impression that nothing is happening in the car of any consequence. Years ago the on-board cameras would jostle around as the car bounced along the track & you's get to see the vibrations and violence that the drivers & cars were being subjected too. Now it's like the camera isn't attached to the car at all but is floating along side it.
Something similar has happened with extreme sports. Mountain biking that I enjoy (but will not claim to be stunning at!) can shake you to bits. The constant jolts, bumps, bad landings, skids, turns can leave you aching at the end of a run. Watch it back from the camera you had & it all looks really pedestrian & sedate.

Yes I've heard a similar argument before and I think there's something in it. Probably around the time of the Senna movie because the violence of the onboards around e.g. Monaco was so striking.


Hmm, interesting. Part-way through the lap I was half-way to agreeing with FOM Fan that it doesn't look any different to now - the usual familiar camera angles of Monaco and all that. It really needs an equivalent 2016 lap against it for proper comparison.

But I think you're right - there is a directness to some of the camerawork that conveys the speed better, though it is a bit marginal. Actually, I think the shrill, loud engine noise is worth as much as any of the camerawork in terms of conveying the speed - it sort of "tricks" the brain somewhat. It just sounds fast!

Saw this on BuzzFeed about the F1 logo. Had no idea until they pointed it out heh:
http://i.imgur.com/NPr2NDT.png

Is this the "hidden 1" in the F1 logo? (not clicked the link?).

There's an arrow in FedEx and a bear in the Toberlone logo.

Yes. I knew about the FedEx one but had no idea F1 had it's own. Been going strong since Jan 1994!

Except it's not, the camera positioning has a real effect on the impression of the speed conveyed to the viewer and FOM admitted this themselves once upon a time:

Don't bother argueing with him for gawd sake !

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/new...gs-rise-945215

this year has been really boring, lack of crashes makes it boring
only good part was the renault fuel leak in practice

for me this season has had many good bits but there have been far too many 20 lap lulls which makes it overal the worst season i've watched in 10 years when i started watching f1

Problem is, if you have narrowish cars on wide tracks with car parks for run off and the need to get in CGI adverts it makes the cars look slow.

I hope you're joking. I've been a fan of F1 for over 22 years and crashes don't interest me, nor should it to any motor racing fan.

I love F1 aswell but not happy that from 2019 only on sky
I've watched f1 for over 30 years and watched every race some classics

Agreed.

Oh fgs.

I'm going to distract myself from that by commenting that it is gratifying (sort of) to rewatch a Legard commentary and realise that yes, he really was that shit at it, I did not imagine it.

An absolutely hilarious moment in the press conference, just there. Essentially, a journo asked Charlie Whiting what he thinks Donald Trump would make of the swearing over team radio.

Received the DUKE 2017 catalogue the other day and it has an interesting statement regarding old F1 season reviews:
"We look forward to filling (...) other 'gap years' in the long run of F1 history that it has been our great pleasure to publish on video for Formula One since 1982. Many clients have also asked about the 1980s and '90s on DVD and we hope that they will eventually also appear on official DVD's from the FOM archive".

More on streaming.
http://deadline.com/2016/11/liberty-...ng-1201850657/
Jp