The thrill of speed: influence of the camera

[flattyre]

A long while ago, I noticed that onboard videos from the past gave a far greater sensation of speed... even when the cars were traveling at a similar pace.

To see if it wasn't just me, I asked some friends who had NO interest in F1 to do a little experiment - I got them to watch the two videos below, one at a time. The sound was muted so engine noise played no part. The reaction to the second video for all people was "that looks really, really slow compared to the first." But, then I played the two videos side-by-side, so that the cars were at identical points on the track. Then they were all surprised to see that the difference in speed throughout the lap wasn't actually all that different

Both cars had a very similar performance over the lap, yet the first video is far more exhilarating.

So, what are the differences between the two? Obviously the cars were very different 12 years ago. But, I think the real difference is in the camera. The first video has a wider-angled lens, meaning that you can see the scenery fly by. In simple terms, it's like if you're driving a car on the motorway/highway - focus directly ahead, and it seems slow; but look directly to you left or right, and it feels like you're traveling much faster. The same applies here.

My guess is that they made this change to make sponsors on the car more visible. But, with people now owning much larger TVs that are also HD, surely we can change back. Bring back wide-angled lenses, bring back the sensation of speed - and with no increase in danger that the FIA fears so much! What's to lose?

What do we all say about it?



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DameemcGkgs

[Phil]

So, what are the differences between the two? Obviously the cars were very different 12 years ago. But, I think the real difference is in the camera. The first video has a wider-angled lens

Well spotted. Indeed, the fov (field of view) makes a big difference in how speed is perceived. I regularly go to the track and usually film my driving with a GoPro camera and have experimented with the field of view setting, going from narrow to wide angle. The more wide-angle you go, the faster the footage feels.

Do the FIA record 30 or 60fps footage? I know most broadcasts are probably limited to 30fps, but having 60fps feed on the broadcast would also make a huge difference to the perception of speed.

[MOWOG]

Seems like a reasonable idea to me. Good call!

[Richard]

A bit of camera shake makes a difference too. Also the older circuits were more cluttered so things flashed past on the edge of the camera.

[hollus]

Look at their hands. It is like rock vs ballet!

[piast9]

Judging by the amount of the frame covered by the wheels, the field of view is not that much different between these videos. I don't think that is everything that makes the difference. In first video there's shaking, fighting with the car, brief signal losses. As hollus noticed - look at the steering wheel! I think all that contributes to the sensation.

[Tim.Wright]

I think its a mix of digital image stabilisation and the fact that significant portions of the monaco track have been resurfaced over the years. The most recent being this year
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114068

[FW17]

Look at their hands. It is like rock vs ballet!

I think it will be rock if it was the onboard from Perez

[strad]

I have often complained about the changes in lenses both inside and outside the car ruining the sensation of speed.
My other big complaint is the FOM directors that apparently aren't interested in racing

[hollus]

You are right, it is the sky and objects high up!
Re-watch Frenzen's video, but covering the sky part with your hand... and yawn!
But it is not the 16:9 format. the camera is simply pointing much more downwards in 2013, probably from a higher perch as well.
Edit: No, the perch is not significantly higher after all.

[flattyre]

In case you're wondering what hollus is on about... I accidentally deleted the post he was talking about when I was trying to edit it

I made a gif to compare the two videos. I do indeed think there's a slight lens difference, but I reckon another big cause for difference is that the newer video is in widescreen instead of 4:3 - now you can't see as much vertically.

[Daliracing]

It also has to do about the type of camera's. Pre 2005 i guess they where analog. after 2005 they become digital. Maybe thats also a reason for the difference. Please correct me if i'm wrong

I've found this video maybe it show some comparisation
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myy4K9B9zT0[/youtube]

[Richard]

It also has to do about the type of camera's. Pre 2005 i guess they where analog. after 2005 they become digital. Maybe thats also a reason for the difference. Please correct me if i'm wrong

I've found this video maybe it show some comparisation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=myy4K9B9zT0

That's a brilliant video. If you start at seemed to change in 2009, i.e. 2:20. The sky just disappears, earlier footage shows the climb up Eau Rouge approaching, but after 2008 you hardly see it ahead

It seems the widescreen format isn't actually any wider than the early footage, they simply chopped the sky out. Widescreen is meant to give a bigger picture, not smaller

[timbo]

It seems the widescreen format isn't actually any wider than the early footage, they simply chopped the sky out. Widescreen is meant to give a bigger picture, not smaller

Yep, I also remember reading that they still don't have onboard HD, what we see is upscaled picture.

[hollus]

That's right. I just checked and the camera mounts haven't changed position, at least not that much. They are just chopping the top 1/4 of the image off to go from 16:12 to 16:9. And a small lens change, but that seems to be secondary.