Should they use a different camera angle for at-bats?

Question

I'm no expert on the subject, so I'd guess that people with far more expertise than I decided televised at-bats are best viewed from over the pitcher's right shoulder.

I can understand it, and I'm sure there's science and research involved. I can usually tell instinctually from this angle when a struck ball will be a base hit, extra bases or has home-run potential, despite the fact that you only see the ball for like 1/20 of a second.

In some cases though, you can't tell if a ball's an easy out. And sometimes fouls that go back to the screen actually look like they're going up the middle for a sec.

It's just that sometimes I think it might be nice to see at-bats (on the TV) from a different perspective. Like from slightly to the side and rear of the batter. So you can really see the ball's trajectory and all.

You know what I'm sayin?

Answer 1

Actually, the camera angle slightly behind the batter is even worse when it comes to judging the ball. This year WGN broadcast a Cubs game using the same techniques they used in 1948 for a couple of innings. (it was in black and white, and the cameras were positioned the way they would have back then - they did not use a center field camera.

There is one problem that is part of broadcasting pretty much any sport, and that is that you are putting a three dimensional image onto a two dimensional screen. Regardless of what angle you shoot at, you will never get a real good idea of how hard a ball is hit or exactly where it is going. Shooting from the side will allow you to see perhaps how far a ball is going, but you lose the perspective of the direction it is going. You may know it's a long fly ball, but it's tougher to distinguish whether it is going to right or left field or up the middle. It's just part of the way that 2 dimensional picture looks.  

Answer 2

i think youre right. it would probably be better with more of an angle

Answer 3

I know what you're saying, but I don't think the MLB's going to do that because no one's complaining about it. So in retrospect: no harm, no foul... ball

Answer 4

The view from center field is by far the best, since it shows as much as possible. You see what the catcher is signaling, the entire pitch, and how close it was to being a ball or strike. No other view provides all of that.

I agree that it's difficult to judge where a hit ball is headed, but that will happen on any camera angle.

I learned this from a friend of mine, who used to be a TV cameraman. He once asked me what I thought was the toughest sport for a TV crew to cover. I guessed hockey, because it moves so fast. Wrong! It was baseball, the last thing I would have expected.

When he explained it to me, it made perfect sense - fielder chasing a ball down 400 feet from home plate, runners on bases, plays at bases, quick throws, etc. The action can be very spread out. The action in all other sports centers around one object.

Part of his explanation was making sure the audience sees the best batter/pitcher action - they tried several angles, and overwhelmingly decided the center field camera is best.