When will we see "ball cams" in sports?
22 comments
Maybe it could be used by the referees?
I have no idea indeed, but I love how nearly everybody responded to the question by pointing out technical difficulties :)
I have no idea indeed, but I love how nearly everybody responded to the question by pointing out technical difficulties :)
I think it would make a sport like golf a lot more fun to watch.
Also, pitch movements in baseball would become more obvious.
Also, pitch movements in baseball would become more obvious.
I think it could make both these sports more fun to watch, but then I'm not a fan of either. It seems to me that a lot of people following golf and baseball are purists easily turned off by this kind of thing. I could be wrong.
I am a fan of basketball and football, and do know that the innovative camera angles introduced so far fail the pub test; whenever I'm at a bar and the TV switches to one, people either complain or say nothing. I've yet to hear any support.
I am a fan of basketball and football, and do know that the innovative camera angles introduced so far fail the pub test; whenever I'm at a bar and the TV switches to one, people either complain or say nothing. I've yet to hear any support.
In theory, it would be a good idea.
However in most sports, the ball spins rapidly, anywhere from one rotation every few seconds to 50+ times / second.
Personally, seeing that on camera would probably make me barf.
Also, it would be almost impossible to compensate for this, since they usually rotate around more than one axis.
However in most sports, the ball spins rapidly, anywhere from one rotation every few seconds to 50+ times / second.
Personally, seeing that on camera would probably make me barf.
Also, it would be almost impossible to compensate for this, since they usually rotate around more than one axis.
How do you know it would be almost impossible to compensate for this?
Could you elaborate?
Could you elaborate?
Well, theoretically, if a ball was spinning around only one axis for the entire trajectory of the flight, then you could have a camera at the center of the axis and use some combination of gyroscopes / image processing to stabilize the image.
However, the axis on which the ball spins may change during the flight. The ball can also spin on more than one axis at the same time.
The combination of (1) the difficulty associated with determining which axis the ball will spin on, and (2) preventing the ball from spinning on another axis, along with (3) putting all this hardware in the ball without changing the physical performance of the ball, would make this idea difficult to pull off.
However, your idea might work if we're talking about still images. Then you only have to worry about creating a ball that performs the same as traditional air-inflated balls, but has a camera inside.
However, the axis on which the ball spins may change during the flight. The ball can also spin on more than one axis at the same time.
The combination of (1) the difficulty associated with determining which axis the ball will spin on, and (2) preventing the ball from spinning on another axis, along with (3) putting all this hardware in the ball without changing the physical performance of the ball, would make this idea difficult to pull off.
However, your idea might work if we're talking about still images. Then you only have to worry about creating a ball that performs the same as traditional air-inflated balls, but has a camera inside.
I don't see why software can't handle such spins, particularly if we assume that the spin pattern does not change quickly.
Think of it this way:
You would think that at the north pole the sky above you won't actually change, and that it would only rotate around you. However, if you stand there long enough (several thousand years), you'll notice that the earth rotates more slowly along a second axis. This is why the "true" north star changes over time.
See: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/121/lecture-2/precession.html
Apply this to sports balls, and if there's more than one axis, it would probably be hard to stabilize the image with software. One second you're looking at the ground, then the crowd, then the sky, then the foot of the player, etc.
You could put several cameras in the ball, but since most balls are inflated with air - you'd probably significantly change the ball's weight by doing so. My guess is that there are very few situations where a league would be willing to play with a heavier ball.
You could also have one camera with just an extremely high frame rate, and then use image processing to select the few frames every second where the camera's actually pointing in the right direction. However, you'd still want the camera along the major axis, which would be very hard to predict before-hand.
My guess is that if you did this (with only one camera), you might get a few good frames, but not enough to create an actual video. Maybe that's OK - I could see you getting some stellar shots.
You would think that at the north pole the sky above you won't actually change, and that it would only rotate around you. However, if you stand there long enough (several thousand years), you'll notice that the earth rotates more slowly along a second axis. This is why the "true" north star changes over time.
See: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/~imamura/121/lecture-2/precession.html
Apply this to sports balls, and if there's more than one axis, it would probably be hard to stabilize the image with software. One second you're looking at the ground, then the crowd, then the sky, then the foot of the player, etc.
You could put several cameras in the ball, but since most balls are inflated with air - you'd probably significantly change the ball's weight by doing so. My guess is that there are very few situations where a league would be willing to play with a heavier ball.
You could also have one camera with just an extremely high frame rate, and then use image processing to select the few frames every second where the camera's actually pointing in the right direction. However, you'd still want the camera along the major axis, which would be very hard to predict before-hand.
My guess is that if you did this (with only one camera), you might get a few good frames, but not enough to create an actual video. Maybe that's OK - I could see you getting some stellar shots.
You might partially compensate for the weight of the camera by using lightweight materials (and paying the monetary cost) and by filling the ball with hydrogen.
The only sport I think this would be interesting in would be (American) football. It would be a neat perspective to watch the quarterback get blitzed and chuck a hail mary, looking down on the WR right before the ball gets a view of the grass.
If you put a camera on both ends, you get a forward/backward view for the most part. Then write something that takes the video and orients the field to the bottom of the screen or something like that.
This reminds me of a post on reddit a loong time ago. Camera software for use with blurry surveillance video that sharpened the image by adjusting it with frames seen immediately before/after. Anyone by chance remember that?
If you put a camera on both ends, you get a forward/backward view for the most part. Then write something that takes the video and orients the field to the bottom of the screen or something like that.
This reminds me of a post on reddit a loong time ago. Camera software for use with blurry surveillance video that sharpened the image by adjusting it with frames seen immediately before/after. Anyone by chance remember that?
Thats a great idea - but boy could that be disorienting unless they included some sort of amazing stabilization mechanism. (Think spinning balls). One way to pull it off would be to make a clear ball with a camera mounted on a gyroscope on the inside so the camera could move independent of the ball. On second thought, maybe the value added here doesn't warrant the expense?
Just use a software solution. Put 6 or or so cameras pointing out radially and then stitch the views together for a full 4pi view. No need for a fancy gyroscope. There's an idea for a startup...
As long as you're going to use a software solution, you might be able to get the number of cameras on the ball down to zero: have a bunch of cameras in the stadium, and reconstruct from them what the ball would be seeing.
(I suspect you'd want the view of wherever the ball was projected to land.)
(I suspect you'd want the view of wherever the ball was projected to land.)
What about when the ball bounces, or otherwise changes direction suddenly? It would be very hard to watch. But you wouldn't want to make the ball's POV the actual real-time feed anyway, you'd totally lose the context of the game. This technology would only be useful for replays.
Perhaps another approach would be to have a bunch of cameras around the stadium, motion-track the ball in 3d, then stitch the ball's POV together using a process sort of like Google street view, or that dumb 3d revolving-subject thing that was in all the commercials five years ago. Then you could calculate a 'line of best fit' for the ball's trajectory and render video 'just-in-time' for a quick, smooth replay.
Perhaps another approach would be to have a bunch of cameras around the stadium, motion-track the ball in 3d, then stitch the ball's POV together using a process sort of like Google street view, or that dumb 3d revolving-subject thing that was in all the commercials five years ago. Then you could calculate a 'line of best fit' for the ball's trajectory and render video 'just-in-time' for a quick, smooth replay.
So what would the default view be? Is there a view that would work for most sports?
Also what about having flying robocams? How would they work?
Also what about having flying robocams? How would they work?
You may not see an IPO, but a good chance of becoming profitable or getting bought out. Think of SportVision, who make the "1st & Ten" first down line on televised football games, and glowing hockey pucks.
How about a football? I can't think of a way to mount a camera on one of the ends, but a camera inside could work if it could be stabilized.
Real leather footballs aren't perfectly pointy on the ends. You could introduce a thin tube running through the primary ball axis containing all the imaging and transmission electronics, without throwing of the balance. Think endoscope.
A "glove" cam for boxing would be easy to implement and would give boxing fans exactly what they want.
A camera from every player's POV seems way more interesting to me.
I predict it will be easy in 10 years (and sooner with a large enough budget). High-res cameras will be no larger than a tiny segment of football lacing, or basketball inflation pins/pumps -- as are built into retail balls today with little effect on playability. Advanced optics will allow extremely wide-angle views in multiple directions. Fast computers will compensate for any rotations.
As others note, though, placing cameras in balls may not be as interesting to fans as other options, like player cams. (Beyond Justin.tv, what about LeBron.tv or Peyton.tv?)
As others note, though, placing cameras in balls may not be as interesting to fans as other options, like player cams. (Beyond Justin.tv, what about LeBron.tv or Peyton.tv?)
Thanks, but no thanks!