Big F1 cars look slow Toto
Discussion
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-can-learn-fr...
Toto wondering why the 2005 renault looked fast?
Its cos its small Toto. Like kids go karts look fast and a jumbo jet taking off looks slow. Modern F1 cars are so gigantic that they lose the look of speed.
The joke is the 2020 engine is something so tiny you could easily package it in smaller cars. Its just the aero maniac ruining it all.
Toto wondering why the 2005 renault looked fast?
Its cos its small Toto. Like kids go karts look fast and a jumbo jet taking off looks slow. Modern F1 cars are so gigantic that they lose the look of speed.
The joke is the 2020 engine is something so tiny you could easily package it in smaller cars. Its just the aero maniac ruining it all.
The problem is most of the increase in length over the last 20 years or so has gone into the energy absorption structures in front of the driver. You could shorten the cars behind the drivers by maybe a foot, but to go further than that you'd need to significantly compromise driver safety.
They grew a lot in length in 1998 when they went narrow. The extra floor area helped get back some of the lost downforce and stability.
I don't know how much they can lose behind the driver, I suspect they can make them more compact there if they want to. I think the nose crash structure regs are a lot different than they were in 1998 so I suspect Kambites is right about the front section too.
I don't know how much they can lose behind the driver, I suspect they can make them more compact there if they want to. I think the nose crash structure regs are a lot different than they were in 1998 so I suspect Kambites is right about the front section too.
I don't think size has anything to do with it. Have you ever seen an LMP1 car on full chat? - and they're lumps compared to F1.
You could put any F1 car from any era on its own on a track and marvel at its speed, agility and visual dynamics. In 2040, we'll all be pining for the 2020 cars as a grey / no haired Hamilton gives the W11 a demo run round the new Pyongyang circuit.
You could put any F1 car from any era on its own on a track and marvel at its speed, agility and visual dynamics. In 2040, we'll all be pining for the 2020 cars as a grey / no haired Hamilton gives the W11 a demo run round the new Pyongyang circuit.
There is some 'chatter' amongst the filmmaking communities that ever increasing resolutions and frame rates are having the unintended consequence of dulling the impact of high-speed sport. It's all a bit 'nerdy-tech' but in essence, we've lost some of that 'filmic' look that gave images of the past a bit of an 'edgy' feel.
StevieBee said:
There is some 'chatter' amongst the filmmaking communities that ever increasing resolutions and frame rates are having the unintended consequence of dulling the impact of high-speed sport. It's all a bit 'nerdy-tech' but in essence, we've lost some of that 'filmic' look that gave images of the past a bit of an 'edgy' feel.
This is a real thing - I work in both the TV and Film industry. Not just cars/sport either, a part of what makes any scene cinematic is lost as it becomes closer to 'being there' via ultra sharp imagery and especially HDR that more closely gives an image the sort of lighting a human would see with the naked eye.Old video is simply warmer, for all it's faults. As such it felt like a fantasy/alternate reality thing to view. It's frankly 'too good' now and the illusion is shattered. This is why the industry is examining new ways of presenting media. I think for motorsport a great deal could be achieved by more use of POV cameras and also AI controlled tracking drone footage - to follow the cars from above as they make passes. That's possible already but as I understand it, FOM are not happy about 100+ drones flying over the circuits to make it work. They'd get way more top down footage than the helicopter ever could though. Top down is great for giving a true reflection of speed and proximity.
StevieBee said:
There is some 'chatter' amongst the filmmaking communities that ever increasing resolutions and frame rates are having the unintended consequence of dulling the impact of high-speed sport. It's all a bit 'nerdy-tech' but in essence, we've lost some of that 'filmic' look that gave images of the past a bit of an 'edgy' feel.
I’ve tried to get Brundle, via Twitter, to do a piece like that. Stick 80s camera mounts and cameras on a modern car and see what the result would be. London424 said:
StevieBee said:
There is some 'chatter' amongst the filmmaking communities that ever increasing resolutions and frame rates are having the unintended consequence of dulling the impact of high-speed sport. It's all a bit 'nerdy-tech' but in essence, we've lost some of that 'filmic' look that gave images of the past a bit of an 'edgy' feel.
I’ve tried to get Brundle, via Twitter, to do a piece like that. Stick 80s camera mounts and cameras on a modern car and see what the result would be. 
I think they could get a better sense of the speed by not using the zoom in some shots. Even back in the '80s the cars looked so much faster when you were there than they do on TV, because the angles and changing zoom shrink the distance its travelling.
TT bikes look ridiculously fast when you're viewing them from a camera on a fixed point and relatively close to the action. You can't get a camera that close in Formula 1 but if you are watching them from more of a distance, without changing the zoom so you can see them change in size and getting closer, and also not have the zoom so close up so you get more of the scenery, I reckon you'd have more of an idea how fast they are moving.
TT bikes look ridiculously fast when you're viewing them from a camera on a fixed point and relatively close to the action. You can't get a camera that close in Formula 1 but if you are watching them from more of a distance, without changing the zoom so you can see them change in size and getting closer, and also not have the zoom so close up so you get more of the scenery, I reckon you'd have more of an idea how fast they are moving.
kiseca said:
I think they could get a better sense of the speed by not using the zoom in some shots. Even back in the '80s the cars looked so much faster when you were there than they do on TV, because the angles and changing zoom shrink the distance its travelling.
TT bikes look ridiculously fast when you're viewing them from a camera on a fixed point and relatively close to the action. You can't get a camera that close in Formula 1 but if you are watching them from more of a distance, without changing the zoom so you can see them change in size and getting closer, and also not have the zoom so close up so you get more of the scenery, I reckon you'd have more of an idea how fast they are moving.
This is why further use of drones in sport is a topic right now. The drone from above can zoom in and follow the car (or whatever sport) from above and give a real sense of movement. If the camera is fixed at ground level and zooms to track the moving subject, then the zoom negates the speed of that subject. TT bikes look ridiculously fast when you're viewing them from a camera on a fixed point and relatively close to the action. You can't get a camera that close in Formula 1 but if you are watching them from more of a distance, without changing the zoom so you can see them change in size and getting closer, and also not have the zoom so close up so you get more of the scenery, I reckon you'd have more of an idea how fast they are moving.
Fixed camera shots are fantastic as the car passes nearby, but hopeless beyond that.
The top down shots really are brilliant which is why F1 and other sports pay huge money to have one or more helicopters in the air. But this is 2020 and the future is to actually have a multitude of drones under AI control covering all areas where anything of interest might happen across the entire circuit. We can't have 100 helicopters, but we can have 100 drones.
On a fim I'm working on now, we have 60 drones flying in formation around the scene to provide a 360 degree view of the action. They're AI controlled to adapt and move as the actors change position - it exceeds the human influence a director could give. Seeing this tech in action I'm thinking that most F1 circuits have just a few parts where anything of interest is likely to happen, so why not have several drones above each such part tracking each car as it passes?
I fully expect it will happen soon enough. That's just how the industry at large is headed.
TheDeuce said:
London424 said:
StevieBee said:
There is some 'chatter' amongst the filmmaking communities that ever increasing resolutions and frame rates are having the unintended consequence of dulling the impact of high-speed sport. It's all a bit 'nerdy-tech' but in essence, we've lost some of that 'filmic' look that gave images of the past a bit of an 'edgy' feel.
I’ve tried to get Brundle, via Twitter, to do a piece like that. Stick 80s camera mounts and cameras on a modern car and see what the result would be. Only it isn't because it's just an effect that's been applied to a 4k clip. It just 'looks' 80s.
40 years ago a 27" TV was considered an expensive extravagance. Today, you have TVs that cover an entire wall. An old CRT TV would have around 400 to 500 horizontal lines. A modern 4k set has over 2,000. So the development of camera technology has been in parallel to TV technology central to which is the transition to digital capture.
Digital is astounding. I'm not suggesting it isn't - but there are trade offs and this is one of them the other is panning - on all but the uber-high-end camera's digital doesn't allows fast panning.
The other factor is the PAL system F1 uses. This is the TV broadcast platform we use in the UK as does Europe, Middle East, Asia and others. The US uses NTSC. I could easily go weapons grade anorak on this but the difference would explain why, when you see an Indy race, the on-car footage captures a wider angle and the sensation of speed greater than we get from on-board F1 footage. NTSC is generally regarded as inferior to PAL but this is an example of the worse actually being better because its worse.... sort of!
I like the idea of sticking an 80's camera on a modern F1 but I doubt Sky, FOM or others would risk this showing up the gear they use!
London424 said:
StevieBee said:
There is some 'chatter' amongst the filmmaking communities that ever increasing resolutions and frame rates are having the unintended consequence of dulling the impact of high-speed sport. It's all a bit 'nerdy-tech' but in essence, we've lost some of that 'filmic' look that gave images of the past a bit of an 'edgy' feel.
I’ve tried to get Brundle, via Twitter, to do a piece like that. Stick 80s camera mounts and cameras on a modern car and see what the result would be. This looks better than most shots of the past few seasons:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K2cNqaPSHv0
StevieBee said:
The other factor is the PAL system F1 uses. This is the TV broadcast platform we use in the UK as does Europe, Middle East, Asia and others. The US uses NTSC. I could easily go weapons grade anorak on this but the difference would explain why, when you see an Indy race, the on-car footage captures a wider angle and the sensation of speed greater than we get from on-board F1 footage. NTSC is generally regarded as inferior to PAL but this is an example of the worse actually being better because its worse.... sort of!
Ummm... PAL hasn't been used in the UK since they turned the analogue transmitters off. Digital video is a component system - YUV (or sometimes RGB).StevieBee said:
I like the idea of sticking an 80's camera on a modern F1 but I doubt Sky, FOM or others would risk this showing up the gear they use!
You can't be serious. The picture & signal quality of the digital cameras & RF link technology is light years ahead of the analogue equivalent in all areas - resolution, dynamic range, noise, & anything else you care to mention. You'd have to strap a 16mm film camera on to begin to get the same PQ & that's not very practical.Edited by Mr Pointy on Friday 18th December 00:25
TheDeuce said:
On a fim I'm working on now, we have 60 drones flying in formation around the scene to provide a 360 degree view of the action. They're AI controlled to adapt and move as the actors change position - it exceeds the human influence a director could give. Seeing this tech in action I'm thinking that most F1 circuits have just a few parts where anything of interest is likely to happen, so why not have several drones above each such part tracking each car as it passes?
I fully expect it will happen soon enough. That's just how the industry at large is headed.
How do you cope with downlink bandwidth & frequency allocation, or do the drones record locally & the footage is downloaded when they land? In general frequency allocation at a race is pretty hellacious as you're having to comply with all sorts of differing allocations & restrictions as you move between countries. Trying to sort out another 100 downlink channels for live full HD signals would be an interesting task I suspect. I fully expect it will happen soon enough. That's just how the industry at large is headed.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff