Did the drivers do that walk and cross arms especially for the BBC when they had grid graphics or did the Beeb get it from FOM?

These are going to be as bad as the WTCC ones, aren't they.

I feel I should clarify my point before in that drivers doing the green screen stuff is hardly new - on UK TV at least, Sky has been doing it since they started in 2012.

What I was wondering was whether FOM doing them was a new thing (as opposed to each broadcaster having to pull the drivers in to do it), or whether it's always been done by them.

Linked from the BBC News website with the headline "Flagging thrills. Has technology ruined Formula 1?"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/guides/z3gyqty

I don't believe we should resort to using camera trickery to fake excitement. I find it exciting enough, if you don't then go watch Red Bull's X-Games or some other "Extreme" sports crap like that...

Eh? I was talking about turning OFF the artificial stabilisation that hides how savage these cars are.

Just moments before? So presumably after the FOM sting at 5 mins to? I suppose they only said they wouldn't interupt the race, but while I imagined they would take a break between the chequered flag and the podium I didn't anticipate one just before the formation lap. I suppose it's quite a good idea - an awful lot of money to Channel 4 (I suspect) for a break which including sponsorship is under a minute long, but if the ads are naff they might break the anticipation somewhat. Wonder if Sky will follow suit or go the other way and point out "we're now advert free" from an earlier point?

I've been expecting these ad breaks to happen with C4. Inevitable I suppose, but if it brings them money to keep F1 free to air - which the BBC couldn't take advantage of - then it's tolerable. Here's hoping C4 can finance getting F1 fully free to air when the Sky deal ends.

The NBC coverage - if you've seen it - is far worse though. Lots of adverts in the race on top of dire commentary. Also there's very little build up and follow up. Be glad we live in the UK.

Yes, but then you'll give the viewers motion-sickness. I don't want to watch Cloverfield...

The point is, saying "F1 isn't exciting because the cameras are position in the wrong place or aren't shakey enough" isn't solving the issue. it's faking the image to make it *look* more exciting... F1 should be exciting either from a super-low-down cam or something like that, but equally from a birds-eye view from the heli-cam too. It should be camera-angle independent so-to-speak.

As Sky used them too, in the The F1 Show's studio background display, I'd assume they were from FOM.

It isn't faking it though, having a slightly bumpy picture on an onboard is hardly Cloverfield, it's more real than what is currently shown. T-cam onboards have always been more boring than ones next to the driver's head due to the angle. They show you what the driver is doing, but lose some of the speed of movement that lower onboards have.

The outboard cameras are the same really, Monaco's tight camera angles give you a sensation of speed that is entirely accurate if you were actually stood where the camera is. China's long straight has a long shot that makes the cars look painfully slow and boring trundling towards you, even though they're going flat out. No fakery involved, but one looks better than the other.

Like if you were actually at a race...
Watching from a helicopter you'd see the whole track, but be a bit too distant from the action.
Crane at the end of a long straight you'd see things coming towards you for ages, but get no real sensation of speed until they actually go past at the corner, by which point they're going slower anyway.
Side of the track on that same straight, the cars would fly past very quickly.
Sat on top of the roll hoop looking down into the cockpit, you'd feel part of the action, but more looking in than being part of the race.
Clinging onto the sidepod looking straight down the track you're almost at a drivers eye view as if you're in there with them.
On the front wing, inches from the track racing by beneath shows you just how fast you're really going and has you right on the edge.

None of those angles to watch from is fake, but the ones that take you into the thick of the action are a more immersive experience than bland perfectly framed shots of Rolex, DHL or Pirelli ads occasionally polluted by a few cars.

Nobody gets motion sickness watching F1, stop making stuff up, it's getting boring.

Sky and BT have been doing adverts right before kick off in the football for a couple of seasons now, it's not a big deal.

Is anyone else having problems logging into the F1.com website? I'm getting a very helpful "There has been an error" message. I get it when I ask it to remind me of my password too - and that is regardless of whether I use my F1 login or google login.

How is it more "real"? It's either real (it shows cars doing something in real life), or it's not (i.e. it's a CGI simulation or a video game), regardless of the shot used.


I disagree - the current T-Cam (which is more central in its position) gives a fuller picture, the other ones where the camera is offset to one side mean half your picture is blocked due to the cars body being in the way.


But by raising the camera up a bit (like at China), it allows you to see more of the entire straight within the same shot, so you're not just seeing the cars in the foreground, you can see more cars in one shot, thereby you've got more to look at.


See above. I don't like the whole "F1 is great when you're watching a blur of colour flash past the camera" argument, because that's a **** angle IMO. What does that show you? Just a blur of colour... When I see a shot, I want to be able to know immediately what part of the track they're on, and what cars i'm watching. It's pointless otherwise. A blur of colour is just nothing, meaningless. I want context - and you only get that by showing more of the surroundings.


No, because you're just seeing the driver twiddling dials with no indication of how that relates to what the car is physically doing on track

I don't see how this is different to the current overhead T-Cam, plus half your shot would be taken-up by the car's static bodywork that the camera is attached to...


No, because you'd end up having half your screen covered in blurry grey tarmac (which tells you nothing & is boring), and the top half would be a blurry mess of greenery...


They're not fake, but IMO they're a waste of camera space. The whole point of framing a shot is to ensure that a viewer can understand what's happening immediately - and you only do that by providing context such as the surroundings - and also multiple points of interest within the same shot... This ADHD, uber-close-up cinematograhpy/direction style people are suggesting will just leave viewers disoriented & confused, and you'll get more complaints that people couldn't follow a race. I'd much prefer to be able to understand a large portion of a boring race, than understand nothing of an exciting one.

That's my problem with series like GP2, GP3 & Formula E, (and to a lesser extent, bike racing): you're just seeing overtakes without any meaning, any context. Yes there's an overtake but if I don't understand what they're fighting for, what that means for the championship etc. etc. whether that overtake is an easy or difficult one (due to driver or car differences). That sort of thing. My enjoyment of a race is solely based on my ability to follow & understand what's going on track, WHY stuff is happening. Not simply how....

WE know it isn't but a lot of people think it is, my mates all want to know why they should spend 2 hours on Sunday watching someone drive round in circles when they can do that themselves and have more fun.

It NEEDS to look more exciting, we need to see more of the driver working, being buffeted about and the work they have to do. Having a G rating meter means nothing unless you know what 5 g feels like

What should be done then? Ban driver seatbelts? Give every fan a motion-simulator chair that reacts appropriately whenever the feed switches to an onboard shot?

You obviously didn't see my original point.

I said that the cars hide the drivers too much, it's not FOMs fault, it's the rule makers. The drivers need to be more visible so that we can see them at work, see how much they get banged about in the cockpit, see how hard they have to press on the brakes.

My original point was that the halo hides the driver even more, it's nowt to do with FOM
Stop being so defensive about FOM when there was no criticism of them

Why does nobody make this complaint about the WEC, or GT racing then? They're by & large fully enclosed, yes there's onboard cams but they still show the driver, same as F1 does.

FOM Fan go and take a break for a day or something mate. Your tirades back at folk over everything are tiresome.

No. While I have gone OTT in the past, I don't feel my viewpoints are invalid right now.

I suggested that a few days ago. I would buy into that.

oh my GOD stop this nonsense. It's pretty obvious what the point being made to you is, stop being obtuse ON PURPOSE and ****ing behave like a grown up in this thread for once.

If nobody watches you there is nobody to make complaints.

My point is that by faking excitement (which is what such frippery - including making camera positions closer - would do), you wouldn't solve the real issues.