Joined: 18 Sep 2003 Posts: 137 Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted: Tue Apr 19, 2005 11:46 pm Post subject:
Martin said...
Quote:
I will send some to PT in the next few days. Thanks for the interest Jukka
I say, that would be GREAT! Can't wait to try them out Martin.
btw, what took you so long? I see your last post about testing this ball back in May 2004. Jump ahead a year and you pick up like you never left off. that's funny... glad you did.
Anyway, it's not the magic in the ball, it's the size. Sorry bout that.
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 Posts: 302 Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 4:25 am Post subject:
I know those street hockey balls Martin is talking about. It is absolutely NOTHING like a footbag. It is a safety-orange, hollow, hard plastic sphere meant for slapshots. I can agree that watching pro players kick this thing over a net would be... interesting, but it will definitely NOT be footbag.
I am of the opinion that having such a tiny object and such a large piece of ground to defend from said tiny object makes the game far more exciting.
I have played with some of Yvez larger, heavier (?patent infringing?) bags and yes, I thought they played well.
If the problem for players is visibility, maybe some bright orange material is the answer. This will help with spectator visibility as well. As far as camera visibility is concerned, I have a good stack of footbag home movies in which the bag is clearly visible. Cameras follow golf balls over hundreds of yards from blimps. I simple footbag should be no sweat.
I really have to agree with Kenny on this. It is the quality of play that is really important. After that everything will just fall into place. I know the game is difficult but pretty much every sport is, that's what makes them sports. It is overcoming the particular difficulties of a sport that makes you a player.
Steve
p.s.
Is it just me or is there a certain radical contingent of crazy people in the bay area attempting to turn this game into takraw?
Joined: 18 Sep 2003 Posts: 137 Location: San Francisco, CA, USA
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:19 am Post subject:
Steve said...
Quote:
I know those street hockey balls Martin is talking about. It is absolutely NOTHING like a footbag. It is a safety-orange, hollow, hard plastic sphere meant for slapshots. I can agree that watching pro players kick this thing over a net would be... interesting, but it will definitely NOT be footbag.
Sorry, but that seems pretty closed minded... you just implied that Martin Cote, and perhaps Martin Gratan and Manu, don't know what they're talking about before you even tried what they're suggesting. Also, I believe most of us know, or have an idea, what ball Martin is referring to and he did say he modified it.
also...
Quote:
p.s.
Is it just me or is there a certain radical contingent of crazy people in the bay area attempting to turn this game into takraw?
crazy? yes (speaking for myself at least). bay area? I'm from Jersey yo! turning this game into takraw? Well, I can see how it may seem that way. The reality however is that takraw is an influence... and why not? Net has been stagnant or in decline for YEARS. Why not open up to some change before our sport dies. And it goes both ways. Takraw is a game steeped in tradition and has been around for hundreds of years. Yet, this year, for the first time, they've started holding tournaments which include a doubles division where players basically follow footbag net rules. The difference, they play with a bigger ball than we do, there is no cross court serve, they can use their head, and they can't break the plane. I think footbag can benifit from a bigger ball, not a takraw ball necessarily, and elminating breaking the plane. Doubles takraw is actually MUCH more like footbag net than footbag net is like traditional 3 person takraw.
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 Posts: 302 Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posted: Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:46 am Post subject:
I didn't say anything about team Martin or Eman. I said I knew what ball he was talking about and I relayed the fact that it is not a footbag no matter who is playing with it.
I also respect takraw as a source of inspiration but I like the rules of footbag exactly as they are and as a long time player I feel I am entitled to voice it. While I like the variety of spiking techniques takraw has passed along to my beloved sport, I take pride in the fact that footbag is an entirely different animal. I derive serious enjoyment from footbag net being related (albeit distantly) to that silly, simple, hippy, hack circle. Changing the bag to a hockey ball would go a long way to erasing that connection for me.
[/quote]
btw, what took you so long? I see your last post about testing this ball back in May 2004. Jump ahead a year and you pick up like you never left off. that's funny... glad you did. [/quote]
Well last year, i did find a ball that played similar to a footbag, but the ball was still too hard. Nobody would play with it for a long period. The one from this year is much better balance and is quite playable over a net, though the ball itself is of really cheap quality. So cheap that they vary in weight, hardness and bounciness. On the other hand, it's great to find one with a good balance of the qualities i want. The thing is still to find people to actually play with it. For myself i could get used to it very quickly, but for others it may still be a too different game.
Quote:
I know those street hockey balls Martin is talking about. It is absolutely NOTHING like a footbag. It is a safety-orange, hollow, hard plastic sphere meant for slapshots. I can agree that watching pro players kick this thing over a net would be... interesting, but it will definitely NOT be footbag.
You're right Steve, it doesn't play like a footbag, i find some aspect of it to play better, but the fact that it's empty, makes it weird when you've been playing with pellots filled bags for 20 years. It actually feel like playing a new game.
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 Posts: 302 Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posted: Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:48 am Post subject:
I would like to try out a *slightly* larger than usual bag, with good weight and bright orange panels.
I have tried to kick with tennis and raquet balls toobut never over a net. I can see your point about the hockey ball and its hollowness Martin. What I think I am having a hard time understanding is why we have to make it a BALL and not a BAG? Wouldn't it be easier to tinker with a bags weight and size and fillings than continue to hunt for balls that meet our needs?
What I think I am having a hard time understanding is why we have to make it a BALL and not a BAG? Wouldn't it be easier to tinker with a bags weight and size and fillings than continue to hunt for balls that meet our needs?
Simply because there's not many way to improve a footbag, it has been improved for 20+years. Present footbag have reach the best balance in terms of weight, size and hardness IMHO. Only the color can be improved. Anyway i think there will always be somebody working on improving them, so me i prefer to look elsewhere
With a ball, you can experience gameplay that are similar to a footbag but at the same time it is possible to go beyond what is possible with a footbag. Like make it easier to have rallies for beginners, make it easier to set to the net in singles, make it easier to reach shanked sets, use less energy overall. One thing though, for a ball to replace footbags as a kicking object, it will have to be way better than footbags otherwise people won't switch, and frankly, we're not there yet.
Joined: 23 Mar 2004 Posts: 302 Location: Portland, OR, USA
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 1:13 am Post subject:
I am still confused. I would think that a ball, like the street hockey ball you mentioned, would be a lot tougher for beginners to learn with than a well broken in net bag. No evidence or anything, just speculation.
Say we had a bag a little under tennis ball size that had a core of that straw type material, surrounded by pellets with brightly colored panels. If we use the same amount of pellets we use in the acceptably heavy bags today, the bag would remain a good weight, be large enough to improve visibility and still have the softness that would help newer players learn faster.
It also seems to me that this would be much easier for us to come by because we know so many manufacturers of footbags.
Most important to me is that it would remain a footBAG, which is really all I am concerned with personally.
Joined: 25 Sep 2003 Posts: 37 Location: Naantali, Finland
Posted: Fri Apr 22, 2005 2:39 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Say we had a bag a little under tennis ball size that had a core of that straw type material, surrounded by pellets with brightly colored panels. If we use the same amount of pellets we use in the acceptably heavy bags today, the bag would remain a good weight, be large enough to improve visibility and still have the softness that would help newer players learn faster.
I had this same idea about a year ago but had to dump it. It would be very hard to attach the center of bag to the exterior. If it wouldnt be attached at all it would shift and lead to unbalanced bag. And even if it could be attached what would prevent the filling from moving to other side of the bag?
Joined: 07 Oct 2003 Posts: 131 Location: Helsinki, Finland
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:11 am Post subject:
So, the problem with a bigger bag is the weight.
Would it be possible to find pellets, that would be lighter that the ones used nowadays? I mean if empty core is an impossible solution.
I figure the pellets must be plastic so that they won't melt or swell when they get wet. And I don't believe there are significant weight differences between different plastic types.
So, would it be possible use (or even find) pellets that were slightly bigger and hollow?!
I'm surely not an expert with these material issues, but I think bigger hollow pellets could reduce the weight to some extent....
Joined: 09 Nov 2003 Posts: 74 Location: Ste-Adele, Quebec, Canada
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 3:02 pm Post subject:
Oskari Forstén (odi)
Think of the basic atomic structure and you will see how it can be done...
Olli Savolainen (opa)
That's exactly what I think. I also have a bag from 4 years ago, Pro-Kiker, that came in a batch using a thicker material. It stands to reason that if you want to increase the size of a bag, and not tinker with it's weight too much, then you must reduce the overall density. Same base design, lighter filling and thicker coating... Maybe weight watchers can design it for us
I imagine a polyurethane filling's density could easily be controlled.
Also, as a (trained) cameraman and all around video nerd, let me tell you guys a few things about visibility.
Color: The most visible color to any camera I have used is white. It is not captured the same way as any other color. I think it goes like, in physics, white is all colors, but in video it's the opposite: lack of light (I may have this backwards as I am hungover from post-kick boreal session), which makes it effortless to record. White actually tends to distort the image around it, making it highly visible to spectators. Otherwise I think golf balls would be colored, and home teams would wear colored uniforms, which are usally cooler... Theese are things they teach us at video-nerd school.
Background: Green is the hardest color for any video camera to capture. A 3ccd camera splits all colors in the rgb 3 way before encoding them, that is the major difference between John's unsatisfying cinematography, and some of the better stuff we have seen on TV or otherwise. Seeing as the whole playing field is green, and the park around it, this makes your personal videocam want to assplode... In my 2004 video this is most obvious when you compare visibility in the two net matches I filmed with the same equippement. The match in downtown QC on the blue mat offers optimal visual conditions, the one in MTL looks a little drab.
Green is also the hardest color for your TV to show you, in fact cheap TV sets will display images up to 90% red and blue insted of proper shades of green. Don't get me started on digital...Ackbar warned me: it's a trap!
Movement: The reason it's hard to follow is because we film through too narrow a lens, and therefore must move back to capture the whole court. Using a super wide angle lens should allow the cameraman to get close to the action, and still not have to move too much to follow play. A good tripod with ball bearings and adjustable movement limiters makes this smooth and precise like on the NETworks. I will be experimenting this summer in QC with a DVCpro cam with super wide lens, think of the overhead cam in a tennis match, just not the same angle. If you have ever seen that tennis angle used with a regular lens, it hilarious, you can't see the opponent at all, whereas with the wide lens you can see his facial hairs, unless it's Roddick, who is hairless like Manu. This wide lens thingy also makes the bag that much more visible.
Size: Size does matter, but if golf is any indication, a footbag can be seen on TV. I've spoken with cameramen (real ones not dropout/posers like me) and they never say that size is a problem for them. Then again none were women
Thanks to Yves for plugging my movie on this thread, in return let me plug his: BUY STUFF FROM US OR YOU WILL GET CANCER AND DIE
Joined: 25 Sep 2003 Posts: 37 Location: Naantali, Finland
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:50 pm Post subject:
Quote:
Think of the basic atomic structure and you will see how it can be done...
This would be hard because the center has to be right in the middle to have predictable bounce. The second thing is that this wouldn´t help to achieve a bag that is durable enough. Imagine someone dinkin the bag and you try to save it with your toe. If you fail and step on the bag that bag is not going to be just like it was before you stepped on it. One good thing about sepak takraw ball is that it won´t change and everytime you start a match you dont have to argue about a bag that is gonna be used.
Quote:
The reason it's hard to follow is because we film through too narrow a lens, and therefore must move back to capture the whole court. Using a super wide angle lens should allow the cameraman to get close to the action, and still not have to move too much to follow play.
But there is a trade off. First trade off is price. A good quality super wide angle lens (or converter) is very expensive. The cheaper lenses have barrel distortion and vignetting in the corners. Even if you use a good quality lens there will be a trade off. When you are using a wide angle lens filming near the net post the players in the foreground will be large and the bag will be highly visible. But when players are playing farther from the camera ie. near the other post they are considerably smaller because of the wide angle lens. The court would look wider than it is. If you would be using a zoom lens ie. zooming in and stepping backwards the people playing in the court would look approximately the same size but the the court would look narrower.
Thats why i think it would be wise to use at least two cameras to film a match. In my opinion the best overall action camera would be located in the back of the court reasonably high and the other one would be located near the post to get all the spikes. I think the worlds 04 DVD and the Montreal part of the old Airtime movie are quite close to what I´m thinking.
Joined: 09 Nov 2003 Posts: 74 Location: Ste-Adele, Quebec, Canada
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:01 pm Post subject:
You are right Oskari, the lens I will be using costs more than most peoples cameras did, somewhere around 1500$, and the camera I will be using for the wide shots around 10G's, that's why I rent such equipement, and why I can't bring it to world's...
Filming at the net 4 closeups is fairly straightforward and gets good results with limited equipement. Unfortunately it makes it extremely hard to follow the match cause the cameraman's head keeps turning...
As for the angles chosen in The Airtime Project 2002, the were not chosen randomly, many tests were done during the 2 weeks of filming to determine what allowed to follow the match and see the bag best with the equippement at hand. The reason being I blew my budget on one too many cameras, and no money for lenses.
With the appropriate wide lens (The XL Extra Wide-Angle 3X zoom from Canon, "...widens the horizontal angle of view to more than 70 degrees, compared to the 47 degrees offered by the standard 16X lens"), this summer I will be using the same angle as in Quebec city '04, except much closer...
As for the image depth variations, lenses such as this one are multiple lens systems that correct image distortion pretty cleanly, in other words, it cheats...
IMO, you must be able to follow the entire rallye from one angle, and the rest are for replays, closeups and slow-mo's, at least that's the traditionnal way to film NET sports. If I am directly, or almost so, behind the play, one team will be seen through the net, so moving to about a 45 degree angle from the NET post, allows me to capture both teams with a minimum of pivoting. It is also necessary to be at least 2 meters off the ground, to help minimize vertical pan yet keep the high sets in view.
Joined: 25 Sep 2003 Posts: 37 Location: Naantali, Finland
Posted: Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:11 pm Post subject:
Quote:
IMO, you must be able to follow the entire rallye from one angle, and the rest are for replays, closeups and slow-mo's, at least that's the traditionnal way to film NET sports. If I am directly, or almost so, behind the play, one team will be seen through the net, so moving to about a 45 degree angle from the NET post, allows me to capture both teams with a minimum of pivoting. It is also necessary to be at least 2 meters off the ground, to help minimize vertical pan yet keep the high sets in view.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
Sorry bout that.
