Disclaimer: This article appeared as a post on a coaching message board. The information and opinions are those of the author, who chose to remain anonymous. Since this article was posted to a public forum, and was unsigned, it is, what is considered, in the “public domain”.

If the author finds us and reads this, Contact Us and we would be happy to give you credit for your work.

Video Technology in Sports

” I for one am glad to see all the discussion about video technology and it’s place in sports. I have worked as a video coordinator and have worked with 3 different companies selling and supporting this type of technology, and am currently employed by one of the companies mentioned in these posts. I will not get into a discussion of who is better than whom in this post, rather try to highlight and answer some of the questions that I have seen on this website. I apologize for this being such a huge post, but I believe there is a lot of unbiased information that might help some coaches learn more about the technology that is invading their lives.

Companies:

There are many good companies to work with. Some have been around a lot longer than others, and all bring a certain value and benefits set to the table. Depending on your budget and the aptitude of your coaching staff, you can spend very little (~$2,500) to very much ($100K+). You also need to look at the long term R&D of the companies and how that fits in to the vision of your department. If you are looking for simple intercutting and cutup generation for tape distribution, all systems on the market can handle this function very easily. Where the divergence starts is how you plan to distribute your content. While most companies offer a server solution for a “coaches network”, capacities and throughput will vary by the type of hardware used, the number of systems on the network, and the video file format types used. And thus, the price. Which leads us to our next topic, technology.

Technology: Video formats

Most of the systems on the market today implement the DV file type, most commonly referred to as Firewire. This is technically incorrect, as “Firewire” is actually a transport mechanism designed to move larger file types from one computer to another. It works VERY well for video, specifically the DV format (more on this later). The DV format started out as a “consumer” level product, but over the past few years has developed into a professional format because of its video quality and lower cost. Sony, Panasonic and others all have readily accepted this format but have made adaptations to it as their “Brand”. DVCPro and DVCam are the resulting products. Both have technically the same high quality, but the difference is personal preference. You can’t go wrong from a quality standpoint with either camera. For some of the “smaller” schools, you can use the Mini-DV format (Sony, Panasonic, Canon, JVC, etc), which technically is the same picture quality. The big difference are the lenses available, which will affect picture quality (zoom, etc).

Since DV is so widely accepted, companies such as Microsoft and Apple have spent a lot of money developing software for playback and recording on computers for home movie editing. I own one of these editing programs, it came with my camcorder. Because much of the legwork was done by these large companies, there isn’t necessarily a lot of development necessary to go into getting it to do the “standard” things that you would look for in a sports editor. Companies can spend more time developing interfaces for coaches, instead of figuring out how to capture DV to the hard drive. This is one reason why it is less expensive. Now back to the “Firewire” issue.

Firewire:

This is a transport protocol that allows for the digital transfer of video and data to and from any device that has this connection. If I have a computer with a FW port, and a camera with a FW port, and software to control the camera and the computer, I can “download” game footage to my computer. This way I do not lose the original camera quality, and I can transfer it in some cases faster than real time. ( I do not know of any sports-specific editing company that is claiming this particular feature yet, but someone might be doing it). Also, since FW allows for data transfer, I can send in and out marks with the video. This is a great feature for teams who cannot afford to buy DV decks as well as cameras. However (stay with me here), for the companies that use the DV video format, but do not use FW to transfer the video to the computer, really don’t give up much quality (if any at all), but they do have to do an analog transfer (s video), which is a real-time process. DV File sizes average a minimum of 13 GB per hour of video, which in the past has been counter-productive to storing a season’s worth of games on a computer, and requires more server horsepower in a network environment. The advent of larger hard drives is making this become less of an issue than it once was. Any company’s offering will work with FW if it is turned on in the software. This is important when comparing systems. Don’t be fooled into thinking that only certain companies use it and others don’t. They all are capable of taking advantage of FW technology. I hope you all understand now the differences and similarities of DV and FW. It’s great technology, and it’s cost effective.

MPEG-2:

A few companies offer (some type of) MPEG-2. One version is the standard DVD format, and the other is based on Sony’s acquisition format. These files formats require the companies who offer this to invest more in R&D to allow for reverse play (a coaches requirement, as we all know) and other critical pieces of the application. The consumer market has shied away from this format until about 18 months ago, with the development of the set-top DVD recorder, and the lowering cost of DVD authoring programs on the market. Basically, the world is now ready for DVD to replace tape as one method of distribution (Just go to Blockbuster). Sony’s version is not DVD compatible with the DVD’s you would play at home. However, the biggest asset MPEG-2 has to offer is smaller file sizes, which will be anywhere from 30-60% of a DV file of the same length. There is less horsepower required to move these files in a network environment, which can relate to $$$, depending on the size and needs of your network.

Software: All companies have a unique look and feel to their software. That is what makes them different. They also all have different feature sets that accommodate different “hot buttons” for coaches. Bottom Line, look at as many companies that fit your vision, aptitude and your budget. Do reference checks on support and R&D.

Hardware/Markup: This should be addressed, because I believe that some companies have been attacked, because this is a hot issue. If you want to buy your own camera, laptop, computer or drives, don’t forget the value add that some companies provide. Most of the time, you can always find a better deal on the internet for a “box sale” (camera, vcr, etc). Sometimes you can get gray market goods that are b stock our imported from another country, and won’t be serviceable by even the manufacturer if they find out it is gray market.

All of these companies are in business to make money. Don’t forget that. Some are just more flexible than others.

Bottom line:

Do your homework. Learn about the companies, understand what it is that your staff needs, and shop appropriately to your budget and vision. A system that cannot grow with your needs is not a smart purchase either.”

….. end of message board post.

A note from the Editor:

Coaches, in my opinion, this is a very well written and informative summary on many of the questions that coaches have about video editing technology. Perhaps the best part of it is that it’s “vendor-neutral” and “product-neutral”.