Is this something I'd need to own a television to understand?
January 27, 2011 3:00 AM Subscribe
Why is a broadcast camera's monitor mounted so that the operator has to look up?
I was at a basketball game tonight, seated behind the primary game camera operator. His camera had a BW monitor mounted above the camera such that the operator had to crane his neck essentially the entire time. Immediately below the physical monitor were a couple of boxes feeding cables into the monitor. Beneath that, and more at eye level was a rarely used, as best as I could tell, control panel.
(Picture here.)
I know I've seen cameras with the monitor mounted immediately in front of the operator, so why this configuration at all? It seems wildly unergonomic, and it would appear that the control panel could easily be located a bit lower... is there something I'm missing? Perhaps it's less distracting?
I was at a basketball game tonight, seated behind the primary game camera operator. His camera had a BW monitor mounted above the camera such that the operator had to crane his neck essentially the entire time. Immediately below the physical monitor were a couple of boxes feeding cables into the monitor. Beneath that, and more at eye level was a rarely used, as best as I could tell, control panel.
(Picture here.)
I know I've seen cameras with the monitor mounted immediately in front of the operator, so why this configuration at all? It seems wildly unergonomic, and it would appear that the control panel could easily be located a bit lower... is there something I'm missing? Perhaps it's less distracting?
I'll see if I can double-check with my dad, who has been a TV director for close to 40 years now. But if you look at the way the camera is set up, the monitor is in line with the camera's line of sight. When shooting on-set, if the camera is low (they're on hydraulics), say, for a shot of people sitting at a desk, the monitor is at eye level. If the shot goes high, or at an angle--like your basketball game, you can point the monitor down towards the operator. Unlike a shoulder camera, an eyepiece is not always going to be feasible. In ye moderne worlde, the monitor could probably be replaced with an LCD on the back of the camera itself--that looks like a CRT--with a similar effect. CRTs remain in use, though, at least the last time I was at my dad's station.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 5:30 AM on January 27, 2011
posted by Admiral Haddock at 5:30 AM on January 27, 2011
It looks to me like he is seated in front of a camera you are supposed to be standing in front of. Maybe to preserve the view for spectators behind?
When I see camera's like that at baseball games the guy stands behind it where the camera's lens is at about chest height and the monitor is right in front of him.
posted by bitdamaged at 5:31 AM on January 27, 2011
When I see camera's like that at baseball games the guy stands behind it where the camera's lens is at about chest height and the monitor is right in front of him.
posted by bitdamaged at 5:31 AM on January 27, 2011
I guess it's so they can keep the real-life action in some sort of peripheral vision while still keeping the viewfinder in their field of view.
ding ding. I would say that is just it, and I was just about to propose that idea.
If the operator only had to look forward they could theoretically get distracted by what is really occurring and forget that they are operating a camera.
posted by zombieApoc at 5:34 AM on January 27, 2011
ding ding. I would say that is just it, and I was just about to propose that idea.
If the operator only had to look forward they could theoretically get distracted by what is really occurring and forget that they are operating a camera.
posted by zombieApoc at 5:34 AM on January 27, 2011
My director husband does this sometimes because he says the subject opens their eyes wider to look slightly up, making the face mode engaging and approachable.
O_O
posted by sandra_s at 6:35 AM on January 27, 2011
O_O
posted by sandra_s at 6:35 AM on January 27, 2011
Actually, I'd agree with bitdamaged here, in that the operator is sitting, which puts him out of the ergonomic positioning of the camera setup. If he was standing, (a) the monitor would be easily visible, and (b) a monitor at the control-panel level (if I'm looking at the picture right) would be very hard to see well. It appears that the monitor is tiltable, so I assume the 'correct' position for using the camera is to be standing, with the monitor tilted more levelly.
posted by Hargrimm at 6:40 AM on January 27, 2011
posted by Hargrimm at 6:40 AM on January 27, 2011
I'd say simply given the camera model he's operating, and the seating position he's in, and the placement of the camera so it has an unobstructed view of the floor...... the angle the monitor is at is set simply so that the operator can see it.
IT may very well not be optimal, and not be the varourite camera for the job - it may just be circumstances.
posted by TravellingDen at 6:53 AM on January 27, 2011
IT may very well not be optimal, and not be the varourite camera for the job - it may just be circumstances.
posted by TravellingDen at 6:53 AM on January 27, 2011
Best answer: A part of it is also how many broadcast teams like to spend their money. A picture-accurate CRT is generally FAR cheaper than a similarly accurate LCD. The only major downside to CRT's, from the perspective of many video teams, is that they're bulky. The downsides to cheap LCD's are that you cannot trust the picture they show. Not many broadcast teams are going to drop a ton of cash just so that their cameramen don't have to look up.
As for moving it down, well, that's prime real estate on the camera. Looking at this photo (and it's dark, so I might be mistaken here), the large box that you see there IS the lens. Yep, the entire thing. The camera is a relatively small object compared to top quality lenses. This may or may not be the lens he's using, but I'd say it's definitely the same brand / line. The handles, form factor, and markings are definitely similar. With that type of lens, the tripod connects to the lens, not the camera, and the camera hangs off the back of the lens on a sled.
Because the tripod attachment point is relatively far forward (being attached to the lens), the camera operator is already a fair distance back from the pivot point - which makes operating the camera difficult.
Our only options for moving the monitor down then, are:
1) Buy an expensive LCD (and even with this, most experienced operators I've worked with mount that lcd in the same place when they setup their camera)
2) Attach the monitor to the back of the camera, which places the operator another 18" away from the pivot point of the tripod, which means fast moves are that much harder. Not a good option.
3) Somehow integrate the monitor into the camera, which, because most cameras are convertible from shoulder-mount to tripod-mount, would not work.
tl;dr -- Because of how the video industry has evolved, up on top is the best place for it.
posted by frwagon at 9:09 AM on January 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
As for moving it down, well, that's prime real estate on the camera. Looking at this photo (and it's dark, so I might be mistaken here), the large box that you see there IS the lens. Yep, the entire thing. The camera is a relatively small object compared to top quality lenses. This may or may not be the lens he's using, but I'd say it's definitely the same brand / line. The handles, form factor, and markings are definitely similar. With that type of lens, the tripod connects to the lens, not the camera, and the camera hangs off the back of the lens on a sled.
Because the tripod attachment point is relatively far forward (being attached to the lens), the camera operator is already a fair distance back from the pivot point - which makes operating the camera difficult.
Our only options for moving the monitor down then, are:
1) Buy an expensive LCD (and even with this, most experienced operators I've worked with mount that lcd in the same place when they setup their camera)
2) Attach the monitor to the back of the camera, which places the operator another 18" away from the pivot point of the tripod, which means fast moves are that much harder. Not a good option.
3) Somehow integrate the monitor into the camera, which, because most cameras are convertible from shoulder-mount to tripod-mount, would not work.
tl;dr -- Because of how the video industry has evolved, up on top is the best place for it.
posted by frwagon at 9:09 AM on January 27, 2011 [1 favorite]
Best answer: I ran a television camera for about a year, and (although a much older model) it was nearly identical configuration. In short, you can tilt the monitor up and down so the operator can see it no matter how high or low the camera is. It looks like the camera is set high enough to shoot over the heads of the crowd even when they are standing. The operator is sitting because it's less tiring than standing for 3 hours. So he's just tilting the monitor down to see it. It's on top so the operator can be closer to the body of the camera and its controls than if it were on the back of the camera.
posted by The Deej at 9:22 AM on January 27, 2011
posted by The Deej at 9:22 AM on January 27, 2011
Response by poster: The lens bit makes a lot of sense, as does the fact that it's a CRT... it *looks* like there'd be clearance beneath the screen to just mount it lower, but that's likely not the case, and I suppose you might NOT actually want the screen literally inches from your face.
Thanks, all! And yeah, that lens looks exactly like the markings on the side of the one in question.
posted by disillusioned at 12:23 PM on January 27, 2011
Thanks, all! And yeah, that lens looks exactly like the markings on the side of the one in question.
posted by disillusioned at 12:23 PM on January 27, 2011
To add to frwagon and The Deej's good answers:
I ran cameras, both handheld and on sticks, for over a decade. Field production is often a rushed, hectic endeavor where perfect really is the enemy of the good. Studio camera operators have the time to get their rigs just right (often you'll see a monitor slung on the side of the body rather than on top) but corporate video and sports are often fly-by-seat-of-pants affairs. The camera op is usually responsible for setting up, and there are lots of factors beyond their own comfort. You want it isolated from vibration (that long lens will translate every little bump in the bleachers to a big wiggle in the shot), you want isolation from idiots who will set their drinks on your camera case. You can't block the people behind you (they will complain, to YOU) but you can't allow yourself to be blocked by those in front of you (your director will complain). Good operators are definitely are thinking about ergonomics, but it's a demanding job (and surprisingly low on the TV production totem pole) where your comfort is not the highest priority.
posted by werkzeuger at 12:35 PM on January 28, 2011
I ran cameras, both handheld and on sticks, for over a decade. Field production is often a rushed, hectic endeavor where perfect really is the enemy of the good. Studio camera operators have the time to get their rigs just right (often you'll see a monitor slung on the side of the body rather than on top) but corporate video and sports are often fly-by-seat-of-pants affairs. The camera op is usually responsible for setting up, and there are lots of factors beyond their own comfort. You want it isolated from vibration (that long lens will translate every little bump in the bleachers to a big wiggle in the shot), you want isolation from idiots who will set their drinks on your camera case. You can't block the people behind you (they will complain, to YOU) but you can't allow yourself to be blocked by those in front of you (your director will complain). Good operators are definitely are thinking about ergonomics, but it's a demanding job (and surprisingly low on the TV production totem pole) where your comfort is not the highest priority.
posted by werkzeuger at 12:35 PM on January 28, 2011
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by Geckwoistmeinauto at 4:21 AM on January 27, 2011