kind of a stupid article. moving the camera from 10-15 degrees left to 10-15 degrees above may give a more accurate representation of strikes on the corners, but it gives you a distorted sense of pitches at the top and bottom of the strike zone. 6 of one, half dozen of the other.

we now have those little strikezone boxes which show the exact placement of pitches, so i don't know why moving the camera angle will help at all.

i guess all of this is to say that there is no definitive perspective on strikes balls (i.e., there's no perfect place to observe strikes/balls). the best perspective probably turns out to be the consensus perspective achieved by compositing several perspectives. my little solution would be to have both the offset left and above center cameras.

and the other thing that the article leaves out is probably that the slightly off-center left camera angle was created to accentuate the "battle" between pitcher and batter. it is attempting to overlay a mini-narrative of heroic struggle over the longer contest of the game.

Didn't ESPN do a "true center" camera for a couple of years? I remember the placement was so high as to be distracting.

I prefer the behind the plate camera myself, but was hooted down by some other Primate. You don't get as good a view of the pitch with that cam, but you see everything else.

Watched the Sox in DC this weekend, the view of the infield there on a ball put in play is tremendously high. Almost like a view from a blimp. Not as weird as the camera angle as Iba Arena at Ok St. for basketball, but still different than any baseball angles I remember.

kind of a stupid article

I disagree. I thought it was interesting.

Didn't ESPN do a "true center" camera for a couple of years?

Yes. They mention it in the article, noting that they abandoned the practice after about a year.

hooted down by some other Primate

It was me!

I dig the straight over the top angle, and looking at the videos in the article, it looks like Pie Hole's
complaint is at best exaggerated. Both pitches appear knee high to me.

IMO the centerfield camera's got the best angle, but every once in a while I like the one that peeks over the catcher's shoulder, just to remind us just how fast a Major League pitch really is.

I prefer the behind the plate camera myself, but was hooted down by some other Primate.

Wow, that might be the first thing tfbg9 and I agree on, YES uses that camera every now and then, and I just hate it. You can't see the pitch at all, you can't really see the swing, it's a disaster. I think if that became the standard shot I'd stop watching games and listen to them exclusively.

Where would you guys prefer to sit at a game? In CF or behind home plate?

Where would you guys prefer to sit at a game? In CF or behind home plate?

First base line, about 15 rows back, behind the dugout.

Where would you guys prefer to sit at a game? In CF or behind home plate?

Behind home plate, but up high.

But that's unrelated to the camera angle, because when the play occurs they switch to the 1B/3B line cameras. The only point of the pitch delivery shot is to see the pitch, which you can't do with the do with the behind home plate camera.

If I could only have one camera for the game, I'd take one in the upper deck behind home plate, I suppose. But that's obviously not the case.

Where would you guys prefer to sit at a game? In CF or behind home plate?

do my eyes have the zoom power of modern cameras?

do my eyes have the zoom power of modern cameras?

Maybe. Are you a cyborg and/or a mutant?

do my eyes have the zoom power of modern cameras?

You could be like my Dad when he was around and bring binoculars.

Add me to the list of centerfield camera lovers. I love the Red Sox straight-on angle and don't understand why everyone doesn't use it.

ESPN's camera was up in the Uecker Seats, too far away to see much of anything.

Rogers Sportsnet used the dead-centre camera for a couple of years on Blue Jays broadcasts, just like the angle the Red Sox are using now. I liked it at first, but I wound up missing the offset camera because it was able to zoom-in closer to the players. My understanding is that Sportsnet switched back to the offset camera because the dead-centre camera at Rogers Centre was unable to follow the play on infield grounders. The camera was located inside Windows Restaurant and its side-to-side movements may have been impeded somewhat.

As technology improves, I wonder if we might one day see a camera located right behind home plate with the catcher and umpire being digitally removed. It would be an interesting angle, similar to the ones used in video games.

Behind home plate, but up high.

Concur in general, but it varies with the ballpark.
Chase Field is too steep, but Dodger Stadium is great.

They should have two smeras and alternate between them depending on what arm the pitcher throws with.
That way lefties wouldn't look like everything breaks 10 feet.

Watching the Giants/Cards on CSN Bay Area - nice job walking Pujols there, Bochy - they're using the straight-on centerfield camera. Never would have noticed if we hadn't just had this conversation. How long has this been going on, anybody know?