Formula 1 2025

[Lionator]

That’s a ridiculously good overtake. 

[cityfanlee23]

What a move max!

[Legend_in_blue]

If the boot is on the other foot, that doesn't happen.

[Zear0]

Piastri cacked it there 

[Muzzy_no7]

Another track not suited to the massive size of these modern cars 

[cityfanlee23]

What is the point in the helmet cam footage? I cannot fathom why F1 release the footage with no stabilisation... It's surely not that difficult to run a stabilisation filter over the footage. I'd rather wait a minute and be able to actually see Hamilton's POV of getting past Pierre than the bouncing unstable mess of a clip that they just showed, Live feed stabilisation is very much a common technology in 2025. If they needed to add stabilisation to a 10 second clip before sending it it's not going to take more than a minute or so. 

They even release it without stabilising the footage onto social media. 

Drink every time I said stabilising 

Edited 18 May 2025 by cityfanlee23

[cityfanlee23]

Great battle with Lando and George there

[cityfanlee23]

Oscar learning from Max there! great overtake

[PhillippaT]

13 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

What is the point in the helmet cam footage? I cannot fathom why F1 release the footage with no stabilisation... It's surely not that difficult to run a stabilisation filter over the footage. I'd rather wait a minute and be able to actually see Hamilton's POV of getting past Pierre than the bouncing unstable mess of a clip that they just showed, Live feed stabilisation is very much a common technology in 2025. If they needed to add stabilisation to a 10 second clip before sending it it's not going to take more than a minute or so. 

They even release it without stabilising the footage onto social media. 

Drink every time I said stabilising 

I have ZERO problems with this - IMO it give a really good idea of the forces the driver is feeling more directly that would otherwise be seen.

[cityfanlee23]

1 minute ago, PhillippaT said:

I have ZERO problems with this - IMO it give a really good idea of the forces the driver is feeling more directly that would otherwise be seen.

I get that, but the human eye stabilises the majority of that for the driver, the driver doesn't see what we are being shown otherwise the cars would be undrivable. For the driver its far smoother albeit still under a lot of different forces. I just don't see much value in showing us footage of something the viewer cannot decipher, and something the drivers don't experience to anywhere near that level, need a happy medium really. 

[PhillippaT]

5 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

I get that, but the human eye stabilises the majority of that for the driver, the driver doesn't see what we are being shown otherwise the cars would be undrivable. For the driver its far smoother albeit still under a lot of different forces. I just don't see much value in showing us footage of something the viewer cannot decipher, and something the drivers don't experience to anywhere near that level, need a happy medium really. 

That sounds like a 'you' problem to me.  Until you can prove that a large amount of people feel the same way, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist.  (Again, I see this as about what the driver is 'feeling', not necessarily seeing...)

Edited 18 May 2025 by PhillippaT

[Muzzy_no7]

Yet another safety car benefitting Max 

[cityfanlee23]

10 minutes ago, PhillippaT said:

That sounds like a 'you' problem to me.  Until you can prove that a large amount of people feel the same way, you're solving a problem that doesn't exist.  (Again, I see this as about what the driver is 'feeling', not necessarily seeing...)

Right, but they don't show the footage to give you an idea of what the driver feels, they are showing the footage to show you the driver POV of specific moments. I'm not really sure what you're arguing against or defending, it just seems pointless Imo to release footage of a pov where you can't actually see anything. If the purpose of the clip was to show the forces the driver is under, the over the top cockpit cam and the camera that is to the right/left behind the helmet do a far better job, it keeps the track footage stable whilst showcasing the driver being moved around in the cockpit. 

Edited 18 May 2025 by cityfanlee23

[PhillippaT]

6 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

Right, but they don't show the footage to give you an idea of what the driver feels, they are showing the footage to show you the driver POV of specific moments. I'm not really sure what you're arguing against or defending, it just seems pointless Imo to release footage of a pov where you can't actually see anything. 

You really don't understand why helmet cams are a 'thing' in pretty much ALL such related sports, then?  Like I said, it's a 'you' problem.  (It's only ever seen as a 'equivalent' of POV, not EXACT, EVER.)

 

EDIT: Go Lewis!

Edited 18 May 2025 by PhillippaT

[cityfanlee23]

Just now, PhillippaT said:

You really don't understand why helmet cams are a 'thing' in pretty much ALL such related sports, then?  Like I said, it's a 'you' problem.

But the helmet cam with no stabilisation does not give us a good understanding of the forces. 
Let me clarify, the drivers are under immense forces that neither you or me could handle, and I'm not in any way trying to pretend they are less than they seem. But an unstabilised helmet camera is an awful way of portraying those forces, because the lack of stabilisation makes it look like the driver is completely unable to keep themselves straight, it looks like they have no control when in reality, to their credit they do. 
In reality, these drivers have incredible strength and are able to fight the g-forces. WATCH: Ride onboard with Lewis Hamilton around Suzuka with new dynamic camera angle | Formula 1®

The helmet cam does a very poor job of showing the driver fighting those forces. Imo, the exaggerated nature of unstabilised camera footage is less impressive than seeing the behind the helmet cam or the camera above the driver in seeing how much they are able to control under the extreme circumstances. Cameras don't portray bouncing the way a human body does, they also make vibrations and bouncing more pronounced.

[PhillippaT]

2 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

But the helmet cam with no stabilisation does not give us a good understanding of the forces. 
Let me clarify, the drivers are under immense forces that neither you or me could handle, and I'm not in any way trying to pretend they are less than they seem. But an unstabilised helmet camera is an awful way of portraying those forces, because the lack of stabilisation makes it look like the driver is completely unable to keep themselves straight, it looks like they have no control when in reality, to their credit they do. 
In reality, these drivers have incredible strength and are able to fight the g-forces. WATCH: Ride onboard with Lewis Hamilton around Suzuka with new dynamic camera angle | Formula 1®

The helmet cam does a very poor job of showing the driver fighting those forces. Imo, the exaggerated nature of unstabilised camera footage is less impressive than seeing the behind the helmet cam or the camera above the driver in seeing how much they are able to control under the extreme circumstances. Cameras don't portray bouncing the way a human body does, they also make vibrations and bouncing more pronounced.

As I sad, helmet cams are treated this way accross the board.  That you don't like them, is a YOU problem.  Nothing else matters, so long as everyone understands the context - which, given how common they are, now, appears to be the case.  That you want the footage to be EVEN MORE artificial, is YOUR opinion, nothing more.

[cityfanlee23]

7 minutes ago, PhillippaT said:

As I sad, helmet cams are treated this way accross the board.  That you don't like them, is a YOU problem.  Nothing else matters, so long as everyone understands the context - which, given how common they are, now, appears to be the case.  That you want the footage to be EVEN MORE artificial, is YOUR opinion, nothing more.

I didn't say I wanted it to be more "artificial", the footage itself is artificial and exaggerates the forces relative to how the drivers bodies deal with the forces you are telling me you want to appreciate it, and that's not me for a moment trying to reduce the stresses they are under, it's just the nature of cameras. 
I fully understand it's my opinion, not sure why you keep saying it over and over as if I've argued that it isn't at any point? 

We are arguing for the sake of arguing at this point 
 

Edited 18 May 2025 by cityfanlee23

[PhillippaT]

Just now, cityfanlee23 said:

I didn't say I wanted it to be more "artificial", the footage itself is artificial relative to how the drivers bodies deal with the forces you are telling me you want to appreciate it. 
I fully understand it's my opinion, not sure why you keep saying it over and over as if I've argued that it isn't at any point? 

We are arguing for the sake of arguing at this point 
 

It's only arfiticial in that it's a camera in the first place.  But that's the entire point.  Asking to change the footage in any other way, is to turn it into something else - which is not what the audience expects, now.  Any sport using this type of camera works the same way, and that's now expected, whether it's motorcross to rallying etc..

[cityfanlee23]

Just now, PhillippaT said:

It's only arfiticial in that it's a camera in the first place.  But that's the entire point.  Asking to change the footage in any other way, is to turn it into something else - which is not what the audience expects, now.  Any sport using this type of camera works the same way, and that's now expected, whether it's motorcross to rallying etc..

The audience expects whatever they are given. They were not given a choice or an option. If the footage was stabilised when it was introduced, then the audience would expect that. 
But again, the camera exaggerates it,  the camera creates a far more artificial view of those forces than the driver experiences in reality. You aren't seeing what the driver sees, and the nature of the camera means you are not being given an accurate representation of what the driver feels. It's bad in both instances. 

Anyway, my point still stands, the helmet cam in it's current form does a poor job of showing the viewer a realistic representation of the forces the driver is feeling, or what the driver is seeing. I'm not trying to diminish the forces in any way. We aren't going to agree on this, so best to move on 

[PhillippaT]

5 minutes ago, cityfanlee23 said:

The audience expects whatever they are given.

An this is the crux of your problem - you ASSUME that your opinion is the only one that matters.  And you should know exactly what they say about assumptions.

 

Which is why this is ONLY a problem cerated in your own mind, nothing more or less, which is why any and all 'argument' is really you arguing with yourself, because no-one else really cares.  I'm trying to explain this to you, but still...

 

Not sure Norris has any chance of catching Verstappen, here  

[cityfanlee23]

1 minute ago, PhillippaT said:

An this is the crux of your problem - you ASSUME that your opinion is the only one that matters.  And you should know exactly what they say about assumptions.

 

Which is why this is ONLY a problem cerated in your own mind, nothing more or less, which is why any and all 'argument' is really you arguing with yourself, because no-one else really cares.  I'm trying to explain this to you, but still...

 

Not sure Norris has any chance of catching Verstappen, here  

To clarify, if it came across in a different way that was not my intention, I am fully aware this is fully my opinion. I did not intent at any point to suggest my opinion is something all motorsport fans agree with. It seems to me you are trying to tell me what I believe.

Great overtake on Piastri but Max has been flawless today, got lucky on the first VSC, would have been nice to see a late battle with Norris and Max, although on a track like this I can guess what the end result would have been between them both 
Masterclass from Max

[The Bear]

I agree with Lee. We're not seeing what the driver actually sees. 

 

If you shake your head from side to side whilst looking at the TV, you don't see what you'd see from a static camera being waved from side to side. Your eyes and brain filter all that out to concentrate on the focal point in front of you. 

 

If the aim is to give an accurate POV shot then they're currently failing. 

[The Bear]

2 hours ago, PhillippaT said:

An this is the crux of your problem - you ASSUME that your opinion is the only one that matters.  And you should know exactly what they say about assumptions.

 

Which is why this is ONLY a problem cerated in your own mind, nothing more or less, which is why any and all 'argument' is really you arguing with yourself, because no-one else really cares.  I'm trying to explain this to you, but still...

 

Not sure Norris has any chance of catching Verstappen, here  

I'm afraid you're the one that's wrong in this case. Even Martin Brundle on commentary says you don't see all the shakiness. Anyone who's ever driven any kind of vehicle at speed will tell you that too. 

[PhillippaT]

47 minutes ago, The Bear said:

If the aim is to give an accurate POV shot then they're currently failing. 

NO IT'S NOT - WHICH IS THE ENTIRE REASON FOR WHY LEE and YOU ARE MAKING the WRONG ASSUMPTIONS.  It was NEVER intended to be 'ACCURATE' for a 'person'-eye-view.  THAT is the mistake you both make, from the outset, which makes everything else completely moot.

 

Again, arguing on behalf of your own asumptions is also going to cause problems purely for yourself.

 

Adding a camera to a helmet GIVES A HELMET-EYE VIEW, not a 'person-eye view'.  But THIS IS ENTIRELY RECOGNISED AND UNDERSTOOD in pretty much ALL sports which use it.  The fact that you and Lee do NOT, is YOUR PROBLEM, not anyone else's.

 

I've seen a lot of US sports broadcast which specifically mention it being a helmet cam, not a 'person'-cam, for this very reason.

 

Again, helmet cams are very common and well understood for what they are.  If YOU don't understand what they are, and the ramificaitons of that, then that's on you. If you don't like them, then I think the broadcasting world has already shown it doesn't care what you think.

Edited 18 May 2025 by PhillippaT

[Super_horns]

Verstappen showing his class again.

 

Nice  to see Hamilton bouncing back to get a good result .