Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Bluemoon forum' started by MCFC1993, 18 Aug 2019.
You mean BoJo’d.
Can you let me know what these ‘signal senders’ are mate? And what technique would be used for the position calculation? Sorry but what you are describing is a fantasy. There are loads of reasons why having equipment in the ball, boots etc is unrealistic. The current tech can work, but there are limitations with its current use model for VAR.
Personally I’d ditch VAR altogether, it’s destroying the spontaneous joy of football. There are many things in life where technology is not the answer
Doesn’t VaR have its own camera system. Surely it’s not connected to the broadcast output.
I assume it’s a separate system, so there’s no need to use 1/25 when some cameras including sodding smartphones and gopros etc can record 120fps. And more if they stick to HD.
They can easily shoot the game at 120 or 240 FPS and in HD and this can be sent down the line with less bandwidth than 4K 25p.
I can’t believe that VAR is based on a ‘domestic’ broadcast system.
I just did a bit more research on this and Sky Q UHD is 50fps so it’s not quite as bad as I thought but I’d say we’re talking about 6 inch accuracy rather than a foot. So all this talk of mm precision is bollocks. It’s probably closer to half a ball minimum.
Anyway, addressing your point, yes they are are using broadcast feeds for VAR
720p has a data rate of approx 1MegaPixel per frame
1080p is about 1.6MP per frame
4K UHD is approx 8MP per frame
So yeah there is probably a trade off where you could send higher frame rates at lower resolution but tbh even at 50 FPS the time (and therefore possible distance travelled of a boot or ball) is quite big. To be really accurate I’d say it would need maybe 200fps. Easily doable by the cameras but not a standard for broadcast.
Hence my other point that the VAR video should be in a dedicated network in the stadium. They could then use the full capability of the cameras.
They’ve chosen a cheap solution which is a bit shite tbh.
I’ve got a lot of faith in the goal line technology as it’s processed locally at high FPS but the rest of it is flawed in my opinion
Doesn’t using more FPS increase the margin for error or manipulation?
Wouldn’t one frame per second be better as we should not be measuring offside to such margins?
No it increases the accuracy. Your complaint seems to be that it shouldn't be that accurate in the first place?
Also Usain Bolt can run 10 metres in a second. Kyle Walker probably isn't far off that. 1 frame per second would have close to a 10 metre margin of error.
not "sender" chips.
chips to be sensed, like the one in the ball sensed by the goal line sensors, being a row of sensors down each touchline, if they can be hidden in the posts, they can be setup nondescript i would imagine.
no mention of cameras i can find anywhere regarding this.
i would think the technology for something like this would be rather simple for tech's, the problem most certainly would be cost and implementation, and even more-so selling the idea to the powers that be at every level
and do i think its a good idea? i dont know if what we saw against spurs was any indication of how much "better" technology has made the game so far. not arsed it started out as a semi joke anyways, but really there is nothing that cant be done regarding this, its just choosing to do it or not.
It makes sense if full transparency isn't what you want
It's more about transparency. It should not be measured at 1mm. Your point about Kyle Walker is true but he runs that fast which of 50 frames per second do the operators stop the clock at the ball would not be travelling forward at speed when it is kicked but Walker will be doing 20mpm. It's so easy to select anyone of the 50 frames available in that second to find him offside when the benefit should be with the attacker.
I just do not trust VAR or the operators. For it to work it has to take away the human element or we just just use it for clear and obvious errors. Rather like when Milner was offside by a metre.