European Sportscar TV Coverage

[sceptic]

Originally Posted by JAG

Yet they have the budget to send a crew to every ALMS and LMS race for the Endurance Mag show's features and interviews.

From a cost point of view there is a lot of difference between having someone on site and being able to get them to contribute.

It would mean that rather than just taking the World feed, Motors would need to send their own satellite truck, and pay for their own satellite space.

The person on the ground would also need to have communications to both Motors HQ in Paris, and to the commentators who are usually in England.

For a 1000km race you are looking at upwards of Euro10,000 for that.

In addition, I get the impression that some of the ALMS stuff in Endurance mag is done by Hindy, who is obviously otherwise engaged during the races.

[sceptic]

Originally Posted by deggis

I'm talking about Le Mans world feed: why it's so impossible to have proper onboard camera feed? You know, for example last year the feed/connection kept breaking up everytime in certain parts of the track and audio was totally asynchronized, and it had quite awful audio quality anyway. And too few onboard cameras, as far as I remember only Audi, Pug and Flying Lizard Porsche. See example.

Long track obviously has something do with getting good enough signal... but it's quite interesting that looks like camera systems have gone technically backwards if continous, smoother, better audio quality and with synchronized picture and audio onboard feed was possible already 10 years ago?

At Le Mans there are various problems.
1) It's a long track. That makes it very difficult to cover using the modern ground-based link systems. The fact that there are so many trees there doesn't help either. In the past they've used helicopters for the links but that's very expensive, and not ideal for a 24 hour race because they have to stop to refuel every two hours.

2) The on board cameras need to be powered somehow. Mostly the teams won't want them to be drawing power from the car, so they need their own batteries, which need to be changed on a regular basis. The other option is to put lots of batteries in the car at the start. But batteries are heavy things and for some reason teams don't like you weighing down their cars like that.

3) There is no way that the audio will be out of sync on the onboard links. The audio and video are sent on the same path. If the sound doesn't match the pictures it's probably because you are getting sound from one car and pictures from a different car.

4) Picture and signal quality on live links are now far more stable than they were in the analogue era, although the amount of RF interference around these days means you will never get a perfect signal.

[JAG]

Originally Posted by sceptic

From a cost point of view there is a lot of difference between having someone on site and being able to get them to contribute.

It would mean that rather than just taking the World feed, Motors would need to send their own satellite truck, and pay for their own satellite space.

The person on the ground would also need to have communications to both Motors HQ in Paris, and to the commentators who are usually in England.

For a 1000km race you are looking at upwards of Euro10,000 for that.

In addition, I get the impression that some of the ALMS stuff in Endurance mag is done by Hindy, who is obviously otherwise engaged during the races.

Isn't a cost of 10k Euros rather modest when you are dedicating 6hrs of coverage 5-6 times per season?

Motors TV do provide live coverage of Le Mans scrutineering during the daytime when few are watching, it's seems strange to penny pinch for actual race day coverage at peak times.

Considering Audi's spend on DTM promotion, which must be in the millions, they likely have commited funds to at least improve the quality of the world feed.

[TheNewBob]

Originally Posted by old man

UK commentators are too keen on talking about foreign drivers and not taking a direct and active interest in UK drivers.

This should of course be with the exception of ITV and it's F1 team, who are yet to have it pointed out to them that the world doesn't revolve around Lewis Hamilton, or whoever happens to be the top British driver at the time (ITV alone hold a massive percentage of my reasons for completely switching off from F1 over the last 4 years or so).

I think what makes sportscar racing difficult for the commentator is having 50+ cars on the track in four different classes with anyone of 150+ drivers in those cars at any one time.

However, at the same time, this can often make for some great stories and events that could, and probably should, make every race a classic as far as TV coverage is concerned.

[Jimmy Magnusson]

Originally Posted by sceptic

2) The on board cameras need to be powered somehow. Mostly the teams won't want them to be drawing power from the car, so they need their own batteries, which need to be changed on a regular basis. The other option is to put lots of batteries in the car at the start. But batteries are heavy things and for some reason teams don't like you weighing down their cars like that.

I think we've found a use for KERS...

[speed-demon]

I'll add my tuppence worth here...

I was delighted that the Daytona race got live coverage this year and I guess the frustration was that after a long wait, it could and should have been a bit better.

Commentary teams are absolutely key to great race coverage and having the right blend of analysts and experts in the team is a priority, along with good information to allow viewers feel that they are there (or better still, are at an advantage to those watching trackside!). I really didn't get this from the Eurosport coverage this time round - I actually got more info from live timing and the internet radio coverage (when I could get it to work), plus the ticker tape banner at the top of the screen.

Carlton Kirby and Mark Cole both have their strengths and weaknesses (Mark, for heaven's sake, can you learn how to pronounce half the names properly, please....) and Carlton for one is excellent on pre-recorded or scripted events such as the Dakar, while I don't doubt Mark's overall enthusiasm and experience in following the sport - even if his 'facts' seem a bit questionable from time to time. However, pair the two together and it simply doesn't work for me. They have a tendency to wander down conversational cul-de-sacs, despite action on the screen warranting more attention. They also always seem very removed from the race (which, of course, they physically often are) but they don't appear to be capable of analysing in detail what is happening in front of them on screen - but then, neither are ex drivers, so we shouldn't necessarily expect them to. This is where a Brundle or a Crompton-type is invaluable. When you put two 'armchair experts' together, you get a conversation, not a commentary.

Another disappointing element of the coverage was that, while we did get a fair few chunks across the whole of the race, there was no effort to update us on what had happened in the preceding hours each time coverage resumed. Now, I realise Eurosport could not control the live footage, but I can't believe they couldn't have edited some replays together and at the very least I would have thought the commentators could have done more in this regard.

Overall, sportscar TV coverage is a bit hit and miss; the Speed commentary is good, even if the ALMS TV deal doesn't allow them to show much of the action in depth. I find the LMES coverage pretty average, to the point that I really can't be bothered to watch an entire race - with the lack of decent commentary/on screen info, I have better things to spend my time doing.

Best coverage on car racing is the V8 Supercars (thank you Motors for continuing to show more than even the Aussies get!!) and NASCAR, followed by ITV's F1 coverage and then A1 GP, everything else seems a pretty average to me.

[old man]

"Another disappointing element of the coverage was that, while we did get a fair few chunks across the whole of the race, there was no effort to update us on what had happened in the preceding hours each time coverage resumed. Now, I realise Eurosport could not control the live footage, but I can't believe they couldn't have edited some replays together and at the very least I would have thought the commentators could have done more in this regard." (Speed Demon)

As you say, Speed Demon, you can get a lot of info from live timing and and other web coverage and a good team would spend the time when not on air watching what they could get and making a story for the resumption of coverage. We sat up for hours after the TV cover stopped and got up early morning so that when the TV came back we knew where we were. This would increase the interest, viewing figures and ultimayely, their fee

[Jimmy Magnusson]

Carlton had other things to do that weekend though, he was commentating the live skiing in between the Daytona coverage!

[sceptic]

Originally Posted by JAG

Isn't a cost of 10k Euros rather modest when you are dedicating 6hrs of coverage 5-6 times per season?

I would imagine that Motors' total budget for a live LMS race is somewhere in the region of Euro5000, so it would represent a threefold increase in cost for them

[old man]

Originally Posted by Jimmy Magnusson

Carlton had other things to do that weekend though, he was commentating the live skiing in between the Daytona coverage!

OK, but there are usually two people in involved on these occasions and it depends what you want to be expert at, commentating or talking