- This topic has 12 replies, 11 voices, and was last updated 8 years, 10 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
I know a number of good judges who believe Sternrubin was first past the post and should have been declared the winner. Did the judge decide to “play safe” and call a dead heat due to the poor quality of the print?
Is this really acceptable in this day and age with millions of pounds at stake? We should all be able to look at the print and know without doubt that the correct result has been called.
Why is the BHA still in the dark ages? It needs to pull it’s finger out and get this nonsense sorted fast.
>> …a vertical line of these dots photographs the activity on the winning line up to 2,000 times a second, building up the photofinish picture as the horses go through. <<
http://www.racetech.co.uk/photofinish/
10 x 8 available for 30 quid:
http://www.racetech.co.uk/media-services/buy-photo-finish-prints/I backed Sternrubin and was pretty miffed that the result was declared a dead heat. Sternrubin’s nostril looks as though it is slightly hidden behind the white line while Jolly’s Cracked It’s nose is delicately touching it. Poor quality photo IMO … the resolution is awful.
Photo finishes need much better quality, high resolution cameras/prints and not those small, horrible grainy shots.
I thought Sternrubin had edged it, both from the race replay and the photo. I backed Waxies Dargle myself so had no vested interest and vaguely thought it would have been a shame that either horse had to lose after such a fine race (a view shared by most who hadn’t backed Sternrubin I imagine). The fact that we’re even discussing this backs up Ghost of Rob V’s view that better quality is needed. There isn’t any excuse for blurred, grainy images in 2015/2016. The technology exists…
I backed Sternrubin and was pretty miffed that the result was declared a dead heat. Sternrubin’s nostril looks as though it is slightly hidden behind the white line while Jolly’s Cracked It’s nose is delicately touching it. Poor quality photo IMO … the resolution is awful.
Photo finishes need much better quality, high resolution cameras/prints and not those small, horrible grainy shots.
I backed Jolly’s Cracked It.
Must admit I was relieved when the result came, convinced he’d got beat.
Agree with you about the white line Ghost. If anyone’s nostril is in front it’s Sternrubin; and it probably is in front. Although I think the judge tried his best. Reason why it took so (unusually) long for the verdict to come through was the poor picture quality and – as it was so close and the image blurred – had to be on the side of caution.Picture quality is usually better than this. Why was it so bad?
Value Is EverythingPicture quality is usually better than this. Why was it so bad?
Picture quality depends on light, above all else (especially action pictures). That’s why cameras use flash. There are technical ways to overcome the lack of light (raising the ISO level, for example), but much will depend on how modern the current equipment is.
Flash would seem a non-runner because of the ‘fright’ potential, but as it’s at the end of a race, those involved in the photo should not be affected unduly, though anything close behind might be.
Looking at the photo I would also err on the side of Sternrubin, although not convinced. I also backed JCI so I’m also quite relieved the dead heat was given. Is the poor picture qulaity due to the light (or lack of it) as darkness was setting in?
Could this be an area of development for the BHA to consider? Cameras are so advanced nowadays, especially in sport. Look at the super-slomos used in Sky Sports’ cricket coverage – you can even see the bat bend at the moment of contact with the ball. Channel 4 Racing also have such technology with their arty super slomos of horses in flight. You can even see some chasers crossing their front legs in mid-air!
I know it would be expensive to upgrade every racecourse, but it’s not acceptable to have such grainy b+w images in photo-finishes when much better options are available. Things haven’t moved on at all from the Kauto Star v Imperial Commander photo, which featured a blur of cocktail stick legs.
The photo finish pictures released to the press and public are the low resolution versions.
Where there is a close finish the judge reverts to a high resolution image which is much clearer.
The last time I can recall the BHA publishing the hi-res image was after “Smudgegate” when Dave Smith made his final cock-up in the Extra Noble debacle back in July 2013.
As to why they don’t routinely publish the hi-res version goodness only knows, although I’ve no doubt conspiracy theorists will all have their own ideas.
The short answer is to spend much more money on cameras/lenses capable of running at a high ISO setting. The long answer is below!
The single difficult technical issue they face if they won’t or can’t enhance the light either by floodlights or flash, is that if you want a sharp image of something moving fast, you need a fast shutter speed on whatever camera you use (I’m far from an expert, but know some of the basics).
They probably couldn’t get away with a shutter speed slower than 1/250th of a second; ideally they’d want it even faster, but 1/500th would allow in only half the available light as 1/250th, so you begin to see their problem.
The other technical aspect is aperture value; basically the size of the window through which the light comes during the time the shutter is open. As well as controlling light, aperture is the deciding factor in what is in sharp focus. The larger the aperture, the fewer objects stacked one behind the other going away from the lens (as horses would be) will be in sharp focus.
So, what is needed, crudely, when light is low are fast shutter speeds, large apertures and sharp focus all the way across the track: trouble is that is impossible to achieve. The answer, I think, is to spend much more money on the lenses, which incorporate the image sensors. A high quality image sensor allows low light shooting by increasing the ISO setting (I won’t go into the acronym, for which you should be grateful). The better quality the camera/lens, the higher the ISO it can offer. Most high level cameras have ISO settings of up to 6400. An ISO of 200 offers twice the light efficiency of 100; 400 offers 4 times that of 100 etc etc. There is some trade-off in quality of image – each one gets ‘noisier’ as you move up the ISO scale, but it would be unlikely to be poor enough to affect a judge’s call.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.