(10-10-2015 05:27 PM)Almadenmike Wrote:  

(10-10-2015 02:44 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  True, but I wonder if with all the advancements in cameras these days if we can't shoot TV back at the west instead. It was always the excuse that TV had to shoot from the west with the sun behind it, but I just don't know that this is really true anymore. Sure, it would take some 'special' filters or digital enhancement or something, ...

This is not an excuse. It's always better to take photos/videos with illumination coming from behind the camera. I doubt that it's possible (or feasible economically) to convert into-the-sun images into viewer-acceptable ones with the speed and resolution needed for TV. Even if it were possible, I also doubt there is any driver for trying to create such an innovation. What applications are out there where the camera must be looking into the sun?

Looking into the sun would make silhouettes of the players, since little light is reaching the sides of the players that the camera can see. Reducing the lens apeture when the sun is actually in the frame makes the contrast even worse.

You seem to have a problem with the word excuse... would rationale be better?

Well, the obvious application would be Rice Stadium... but I imagine that there are all sorts of applications where being able to put the sun behind you isn't an option... Like trying to take a picture of the sun. How about golf? Reality Tv?

It's important to note that you aren't really looking into the sun... you're looking down onto the field and the sun is above, but in front of you. Only if you pan above the stands are you actually looking into the sun.

But my point is really that you're almost describing an analog system and everything is digital these days. My cell phone can adjust to the sun behind the subject. Surely a couple hundred thousand dollar camera with the aid of a video trailer can do even better.

No, it's not optimal, but it's better than showing empty stands. I think this wasn't an option in 1995, but in 2015 it should be.