Shot in such a way that you can only see an overhead view of the table, and just the player's head, bridge arm and cue? One of the main reason why I try to watch as many accustats tapes as I can is because I try to study the ways all of the players stand, line up to the ball, stroke, etc. With an overhead view of just the table, you can't see the entire player so you can't really learn much about their mechanics. I've noticed that on some accustats matches, like the ones filmed at Derby City Classic, the camera work is excellent, and they frequently allow you to see the entire player while executing a shot (plus the table). Most of the other accustats matches are not like that however, and I think it is a little on the ridiculous side that nobody ever considered telling the cameraman to actually do some real camera work. Another thing that really annoys me is that you really can't tell the difference between the two ball and the four ball in about 99% of the matches I've seen. A big part of the learning experience is trying to visualize a pattern to play, and see if the pro does it. Then to your surprise they don't even play position for what you thought was the next ball. I've seen hundreds of accustats tapes and did they really not realize this until recently, when they use a pink 4 ball now instead of dark purple? I am still a huge fan of accustats, but come on Pat Flemming, do something about that shitty camerawork.
Why are the Majority of Pool Videos....
- Thread starter LastTwo
- Start date
Well I believe the pink 4 ball came about for TV audiences and not for Accustats audiences... it was probably ESPN or another networked that pushed for the change....
I don't know if you are talking about a stationary camera or whatnot, but it might be a time/equip/money issue, I can't imagine accustats making a large profit off any of their non-major video's, so that limits the money they can spend on said video's, perhaps only getting a stationary camera or having a single camera man that cant move around much(normally movements are either done via specialized camera device or by editing together multiple stationary cameras while they move, if accustats can afford neither than you are stuck with a single camera that has to stay mostly stationary).
I don't know if you are talking about a stationary camera or whatnot, but it might be a time/equip/money issue, I can't imagine accustats making a large profit off any of their non-major video's, so that limits the money they can spend on said video's, perhaps only getting a stationary camera or having a single camera man that cant move around much(normally movements are either done via specialized camera device or by editing together multiple stationary cameras while they move, if accustats can afford neither than you are stuck with a single camera that has to stay mostly stationary).
accu-stats videos
Your complaint may be valid....but instead of doing it here, why don't you either e-mail Pat Fleming about it at Accu-Stats@Accu-Stats.com or better yet, call him at his toll-free line @1-800-828-0397? Direct action will get you direct response.....
LastTwo said:
Your complaint may be valid....but instead of doing it here, why don't you either e-mail Pat Fleming about it at Accu-Stats@Accu-Stats.com or better yet, call him at his toll-free line @1-800-828-0397? Direct action will get you direct response.....
For the most part I'm ok with AccuStat's tapes. But I've had the thought recently that it would be cool to see 14.1 matches from the player's perspective, meaning that you have a camera above the table that aims toward the rack. Is that strange or did anyone else ever think that?