nba enhanced by camera creativity?? (ns)

As Trump and Hillary are squaring off in the last week of the Presidential campaign, basketball is beginning which means one thing: More questionable camera shots, bringing down the game that would otherwise be something to look forward to. This trend of cameramen being too big for their britches began sometime around the late 90s and early 2000s when the technology of cameras advanced significantly. Cameramen could zoom in and out with greater ease, as the focus would remain the same. With that came the ability for "camera artists" to show off new skills, abruptly moving the camera, following the ball, zooming in and out, their version of the crossover dribble or a 360 dunk. It was and is very difficult to watch. In my day - when RUN DMC was cool, and LL Cool J wore funny looking warmups designed by some solo clothing design artist in Brooklyn, a time when Bryan Adams was cool, when Bill Cosby's only vice was wearing extravagant sweaters - cameramen weren't considered artists. There weren't digital cameras. They did their job with film cameras. They wore knee pads. They drank coffee all day, two steps away from Chris Farley's character, "In a van down by the river." Now, they're artists. Back in the day, they kept the shot on the game, so we, the viewing public, could appreciate the actually play, the actual shot, and so on...and not some crazy portrayal of "let's follow the ball as it goes into the hoop." The problem with camera artists going to town on technology is simple: It kills everything that was once good in sports. People watch for the appreciation of the game, the finer details and then move on with their lives. Hopefully. Otherwise, they might end up writing an article like this. When Lebron takes...let's start with Lebron, he's slightly popular and relatable...when Lebron takes a shot, the camera goes from a wide shot of Lebron shooting, to zooming in on the ball, then following the ball in mid air, panning with the ball into the basket and then - yet again - abruptly zooming out, while panning to Lebron as he jogs away, while zooming in on Lebron jogging away, then zooming out again. All in about three seconds. Three seconds of headache. Pass the Advil. Can we stop with the high octane camera movements? The real appreciation of a game is having a still wide shot of a player's shot, which provides the viewers the full trajectory of the shot in context with the players around him, the spacing on the court and this together gives a clearer view of the actual shot. The viewers see whether there's arc, not so much arc, the distance it was shot from and so on. The same goes for a player dunking. Zooming in on the moment of the dunk, with "great camera skill" does nothing for the viewers other than increase the profits at Advil, Tylenol and Excedrin. Stop zooming in like some MTV show made popular in the 90s. "Oh snap, 'let's get dizzy' camera work - it's the new thing! Tom Green's gonna paint your house!"*
   The other place this technique serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever is in golf. Tiger Woods hits a shot and instead of keeping a wide shot to give the viewers depth perception of the actual arc and trajectory of the ball in comparison with its surroundings, the camera artist zooms in and follows the tiny ball in the air with a  close up. What the viewers see is the actual ball suspended in the air. What a mess.
   Solution: An option within the channel-changer for classical wide shot camera angles and another option for the wilder stuff. 
   

​


*Tom Green painted his parent's house at three in the morning. Possibly, his one funny moment, ever. I think he was on a ladder. They woke up, looked out the window and said, "Tom, what the hell are you doing?" "I'm painting the house! I'm painting the house!"