If you've never watched Danny Manhattan, do so now.
Danny Manhattan is a mysterious collaboration that dropped a full decade ago.
Dynasty v Russian Legion - PSP - Finals
It is, perhaps, the first time multiple on-field cameras captured consecutive points in a set.
It is the gold standard for production.
There's obviously a few caveats. Do we miss most of the point? Absolutely. The video heavily skews to compact storytelling rather than a fully holistic view of the match. Ultimately, the story they sought to tell was the overtime. How we got there is less important.
The viewer can still piece together what happens in each individual point in the set, simply due to the way action is edited. It's close to linear. Despite cuts, the viewer can largely understand where players are and what is happening.
Behold, the simple concept of "object permanence".
You see what bunkers players are in. They cut away, and you assume the player is still there. Having a very basic sense of the field, pushing in on a player, solidifying their position in time and space, and cutting away - the viewer can still have a basic sense of where people are and how the game progresses.
We're able to piece this together because the camera is closer to the action.
In action sports, production seeks to involve the viewer. Get them closer to the action than they would be otherwise.
Let's take a look at the same match from the official production.
This show is optimized for "coaching", a holistic view of the field.
The major difference here, outside of commentary, is camera positioning and an aural experience. The audio is, overwhelmingly, commentary. Which immediately prevents a viewer from fully connecting with the field. Very rarely, are we able to see paint in the air. We have to, constantly, recontextualize the field to remind the viewers where players are.
Is that necessary?
I'd hazard to say, no.
Danny Manhattan is a mysterious collaboration that dropped a full decade ago.
Dynasty v Russian Legion - PSP - Finals
It is, perhaps, the first time multiple on-field cameras captured consecutive points in a set.
It is the gold standard for production.
There's obviously a few caveats. Do we miss most of the point? Absolutely. The video heavily skews to compact storytelling rather than a fully holistic view of the match. Ultimately, the story they sought to tell was the overtime. How we got there is less important.
The viewer can still piece together what happens in each individual point in the set, simply due to the way action is edited. It's close to linear. Despite cuts, the viewer can largely understand where players are and what is happening.
Behold, the simple concept of "object permanence".
You see what bunkers players are in. They cut away, and you assume the player is still there. Having a very basic sense of the field, pushing in on a player, solidifying their position in time and space, and cutting away - the viewer can still have a basic sense of where people are and how the game progresses.
We're able to piece this together because the camera is closer to the action.
In action sports, production seeks to involve the viewer. Get them closer to the action than they would be otherwise.
Let's take a look at the same match from the official production.
This show is optimized for "coaching", a holistic view of the field.
The major difference here, outside of commentary, is camera positioning and an aural experience. The audio is, overwhelmingly, commentary. Which immediately prevents a viewer from fully connecting with the field. Very rarely, are we able to see paint in the air. We have to, constantly, recontextualize the field to remind the viewers where players are.
Is that necessary?
I'd hazard to say, no.