Airshow Aerial Imaging

[Buzz]

We shot this 20 years ago. Bit dated. [The B2 was "the latest weapon system" and Sean is flying the 800-Collect biplane.]

But still kinda cool air-to-air imaging.

https://youtu.be/DgEwY4JfVz4

[rwanttaja]

We shot this 20 years ago. Bit dated. [The B2 was "the latest weapon system" and Sean is flying the 800-Collect biplane.]

But still kinda cool air-to-air imaging.

[Sorry, need to change video URL and will repost.]

Tease. :-)

Ron "How do you keep a forum participant in suspense" Wanttaja

[Buzz]

Tease. :-)

Ron "How do you keep a forum participant in suspense" Wanttaja

Ok. Ok.

Tough audience! LOL.

It's posted.

Enjoy.

:)

[rwanttaja]

Neat video!

Ron "Worth the wait" Wanttaja

[Buzz]

Neat video!

Ron "Worth the wait" Wanttaja
Thanks Ron.

[We're finishing up a new airplane platform for NFL, MLB, NASCAR, etc. Had shot this stuff for ESPN in '97. Toying with talking to ESPN2 about doing a taped program on one of the major airshows/venues. [E.g. Chicago Air & Water.] A test to see if this kind of air-to-air imaging could help draw a large enough TV audience.]

[lnuss]

Some beautiful shots there -- thanks.

[Mayhemxpc]

Yes, what Ron said. Beautiful. (And it is from a Skymaster, which naturally caught my initial interest.)

[Bill Berson]

I thought is was impressive video. Are you the inventor of this aerial imaging?

[Buzz]

I thought is was impressive video. Are you the inventor of this aerial imaging?
Yes, built the platform in 1996. Have a new platform under development now using a DC-3. Hopefully you'll see it covering sports later this year.

That imaging is 20 years old with what was, at the time, a new generation of gyro-stabilization technology for aerial television. Today's technology is about 50% better than that. Also HD, which wasn't available, of course, at the time.

[We were orbiting really far from the airshow box on Ft. Lauderdale because we were a late add to the airshow by ESPN. Airboss had no experience with us. Today the Airboss would have us in lots closer with no concerns. If we had been, probably had been able to read his instruments on the A-10's pass. LOL.]

[Buzz]

Yes, what Ron said. Beautiful. (And it is from a Skymaster, which naturally caught my initial interest.)
We chose the Skymaster for the engine redundancy, to keep the engines out of the field of view of the camera as much as possible and the unique silhouette to the public when we were orbiting NFL, MLB, NASCAR events.
[Although everyone knows that 2nd Skymaster engine is just to ensure you get all the way to the crash site....:)]

Coincidently, Basler at Oskkosh did all the mods to mount the camera. We had 8 months of work & about $600K invested in it by the time it took off for it's first test flight in Calif. in July 1996. It made it's first public appearance 4 days later at EAA, filming a famous test pilot and Rusty Wallace for ESPN. [Here is an interesting thing about EAA forums. Try and put in the name of the guy that broke the sound barrier. It won't allow you to save it. It converts the text to "a famous test pilot". I tried it twice. No kidding. Try it. Wonder why?]

Nobody at the 5 networks thought an airplane could ever replace a blimp. The Miller Eagle proved it could and started the use of airplane imaging on television. An airplane now does most of golf.

If you look at the '97 Brickyard 400 telecast on youtube, we were on it with the Goodyear Blimp. Of the 8 minutes of aerial imaging ABC used, we did 70% of it. Including all the blimps exposure shots! Every shot in tight and close is the Eagle's

[lnuss]

If we had been, probably had been able to read his instruments on the A-10's pass. LOL.]

I have a question that you might be able to answer -- it's one I've wanted to ask the networks but I can't find a way to email/etc. them:

Why do pro videographers do such a high percentage of work so zoomed in that you have trouble telling what's going on? There was a little of that in your video, mostly no big deal, but in the broader world I often have to look away from the TV screen (especially football games) because the nice, steady camera is catching a bouncing eyebrows-to-chin shot that makes me seasick.

[Bill Berson]

My guess is that drones are replacing the blimp at football games.

[Buzz]

I have a question that you might be able to answer -- it's one I've wanted to ask the networks but I can't find a way to email/etc. them:

Why do pro videographers do such a high percentage of work so zoomed in that you have trouble telling what's going on? There was a little of that in your video, mostly no big deal, but in the broader world I often have to look away from the TV screen (especially football games) because the nice, steady camera is catching a bouncing eyebrows-to-chin shot that makes me seasick.
The networks are doing everything to fix their plunging ratings. E.g. the crown jewel of sports television today is the Thursday Nite Football NFL broadcast package [use to be Monday Nite Football]. It's down 20-21% [CBS & NBS share it] in the last two years.

My short answer is: maybe trying to find a way to appeal to a generation raised on video games. Some believe the solution is making TV more like playing a video game. So rather than John Madden illustrating a play on his "tele-strator", put a camera in the QBs helmet. Of course, when you are that "close" to the action and have such a limited perspective, it requires 10 camera angles to show viewers the same thing John did with his "tele-stator".

But I think the solution is what you are talking about.

Viewers need/want a "macro" view of the competition. Not an over-zoomed in perspective. It would make watching sports TV relaxing again rather than something that requires a nap after.

In my view, playing a video game and watching television are two different activities with two different goals. Much like watching a football game and playing football in your backyard are two different activities with different goals. I don't want my sports TV to become sitting in a chair that bounce me around during a play so it feels like I'm in the game. [The Consumer Electronic Speech keynote last week was by the CEO of Intel. The hot new topic is Virtual Reality. Put you right in the football telecast. Personally, I think VR is an additional entertainment experience. Not a replacement for the experience of television.]

I watch NFL to put my feet up, eat some popcorn and kick back. Not to be bounced around visually or physically like I'm playing with my two young boys in our backyard.

Lastly, the biggest viewership plunge is NASCAR. Maybe I'm biased. But I think this research remains true today. It's largely unknown as evidenced by the explosion of in-car camera use. https://youtu.be/nzqf9EG2cC0

That research and our experience shown here 20 years ago is why we are designing the new platform to fly even higher than we did on auto racing 20 years ago......with 3 aerial cameras vs. the single camera blimps fly. https://youtu.be/Xqqnjz3nJIo

[Buzz]

My guess is that drones are replacing the blimp at football games.
Actually, you don't see any live drone use anywhere on sports television. And probably won't for a long time to come.

Currently live drone use by the networks is banned by virtually all the leagues & venues.

It's called "The Last 50 Foot" problem. You can't mix the current drone technology with human beings. http://wapo.st/1MUlmna?tid=ss_mail&utm_term=.47ae150ffa54.

It boils down to drones being 4-8 blades spinning at ~ 9,000 rpm. The perceived danger around people is too high. [Even shielded] Also, NASA did a recent study that drone noise is the most irritating environmental noise at the same volume levels.

[99% of any drone footage on golf is shot before the tournament when the course was used. They did use a drone live several years ago at Whistling Straits. It had to remain over Lake Michigan. The only shots it was able to provide were virtually useless for the telecast. They could have been done out the window of a Cessna 150 out over the lake with a hand held Go-Pro.]

Drones are a long way from making their way into live television. They need to be a lot more compatible for close use around humans before they'll risk them around the crowds in stadiums.

[Bill Berson]

Is the drone/blimp safe enough? (half powered, half balloon)
I guess strong wind might be an issue unless it has enough power.

P.S. That link didn't work. Can't even copy and paste. Weird!

[Floatsflyer]

Lastly, the biggest viewership plunge is NASCAR.

With very good reason. It's BORING and as exciting as watching a pound of raw liver sit in a bowl!!! Around....and around....and around...and around...

New coverage techniques, new technologies, new applications will not help change the nature of these events because they are what they are: Inherently boring for television viewing. I.E. bad television.

The same can be said for multiple aerobatics routines at airshows, in person or on TV. Boring and uninspired after 2 displays. The TV ratings for Red Bull air races are abysmal.

[Buzz]

With very good reason. It's BORING and as exciting as watching a pound of raw liver sit in a bowl!!! Around....and around....and around...and around...

New coverage techniques, new technologies, new applications will not help change the nature of these events because they are what they are: Inherently boring for television viewing. I.E. bad television.

The same can be said for multiple aerobatics routines at airshows, in person or on TV. Boring and uninspired after 2 displays. The TV ratings for Red Bull air races are abysmal.
Hate to be a TV exec. Awfully hard to figure out how to appeal to people. E.g. the phenomena of "reality TV" is hard to figure out. Would be impossible to predict the appeal of some of the shows that are popular. The Truman Show brought to life.