Filming entires swims? I don't think this is a good idea.

KBREEDER

Hi, I saw some suggestions recently that Diana should have filmed her swim. Sounds like a good idea, but I was thinking about the logistics of this and don't think this would be a good precedent for our sport. First off, filming someone swimming from another boat is very difficult. The boat the camera is on is moving, the swimmer is moving, so someone would have to be on the camera the whole time. Also, filming at night is very difficult. I did a Catalina relay back in the 90's where we had someone filming (only for part of the swim) and they required a large spotlight on the swimmer at night. One of the swimmers on our relay really felt uncomfortable and nervous with a "spotlight" which made him a nice silhouette from the bottom (for unfriendly creatures?). I didn't like the a light shining in my eyes because I can't see anything, really ruins the night vision. Also, what it if starts to rain? With Murphy's law in place it would be unlikely that an entire swim of several hours could be filmed appropriately for people to "watch". (Gosh who would want to watch 53 hours of anyone swimming?) Inevitably there would be gaps in the filming where people changed film, cameras, or the weather was bad, the boat not in the proper position etc. etc. Then there would be charges of cheating because the camera didn't catch it. Can anyone think of an entire marathon swim that was filmed as an example that this is feasible?

lakespray

KBREEDER wrote:

Inevitably there would be gaps in the filming where people changed film, cameras, or the weather was bad, the boat not in the proper position etc. etc. Then there would be charges of cheating because the camera didn't catch it. Can anyone think of an entire marathon swim that was filmed as an example that this is feasible?

Technology has made this unobtrusive and entirely doable. GoPro camera's come to mind. No one uses film anymore it's all digital some of these cameras have amazing low light capabilities compared to the equipment of yore. Plus you can purchase four or five of these camera's for the cost of single quality movie camera from the 80's, there small and water proof.

timsroot

Niek wrote:

As observer I will refuse to wear one.

1 crew member continuous occupied with filming?
What if it's a +24 hours swim? Than you need more crew members just for filming.

Or do you want the swimmer to wear one?

Why not just mount it to the boat?

lakespray

Exactly that's why I used the example of GoPro camera's they are small, designed to be mounted just about anywhere. In fact I would probably mount them in various places on the escort boat, check the angles, turn them on and forget about them.

jgal

Having a film crew for your swim is intrusive. Having a small camera like a GoPro on your swim could be a great tool after the fact. Many of us experience the lull around 6-7 hours of swimming... where every stroke feels like a monumental effort. I remember my crew telling me my stroke rate had dropped significantly when I was about 6.5 hours into swimming the Channel. I could not feel this at all.

In my Jersey swim, I injured my wrist pretty badly. I later found out I tore a set of tendons and had to have surgery to repair it. While I was aware that I was in pain, it'd be awesome to know when it was noticeable that my wrist was collapsing on my pull throughs. My Doctor wanted to know how many hours I swam in this condition, and I couldn't answer him.

For the unfortunate failed attempt, watching the footage could be a great tool to see what factors contributed to your inability to continue. An observer's report helps, but seeing yourself swimming can help you see the issues that came about, and prep you on how to fix the issue during your next attempt.

Is it required? No. But I'd think it'd be a helpful tool to have...especially for the finish!