Brian and Bulldog: After the video lesson.

[edshaw]

After closing the stance and
after trying Brian's extension
drill. First adjustment that came to
mind was to narrow stance, which
I did. Recorded this after about six
or eight balls, still experiencing aiming
issues. After hitting twenty or so
balls, loosened up and began to
get it all the way back and swing
harder, which goes hand in hand
for me. Cranked a couple of long
balls. Aiming issues resolved.
So, good deal.
Any comments appreciated.
Thanks.
Ed


YouTube - After the video lesson

[bulldog2k]

Re: Brian and Bulldog: After the video lesson.

At the risk of me having got this wrong and saying something hopelessly insulting didn't I remember you saying the magic number of 62? All I can tell you is I'm 32 and I wish my swing looked that fluid, flexible and supple

I'm a 26 handicapper - I know nothing about nothing and you don't want to listen to my opinion about anything, but to me the stance looked much more square and 'orthodox' (feet much squarer - wondered if the shoulders are still a tiny bit open?). I'm delighted you seem happy with the results.

The takeaway seems 'deliberately inside' - or have I got that wrong? Not that that's a problem - just wondering.

Good job. You've inspired me to do the same with my swing - will wait for my missus to get back after the weekend with her camera, and see if I can get some feedback too.

[BrianW]

Re: Brian and Bulldog: After the video lesson.

Hi Ed,

That follow through is much better, you are getting good extension into and through impact which should result in some longer hits.

You still seem a little unbalanced at the end, try getting a full turn (more like your practice swing) so you end with your right toes on the ground, right knee kicked into the left, facing the target and holding that position for a few seconds.

[Mox]

Re: Brian and Bulldog: After the video lesson.

Can I just say ...

When filming golf swings, you will get the best result when the camera is parallel to the target line and positioned perfectly in line (both height and side) with the hands at address.

From that angle, it is MUCH easier to see the takeaway, the positions of the swing and the attack path, which makes it easier to explain why things happen.

Plus - once you have your swing on film from that perspective, using tools like the completely free V1Home software becomes increasingly efficient.

[ubizmo]

Re: Brian and Bulldog: After the video lesson.

In addition, YouTube's flash conversion results in mediocre quality video. Both Putfile and Viddler provide better online playback quality (they also convert to flash, but with better quality settings).

[LowPost42]

Re: Brian and Bulldog: After the video lesson.

Can I just say ...

When filming golf swings, you will get the best result when the camera is parallel to the target line and positioned perfectly in line (both height and side) with the hands at address.

From that angle, it is MUCH easier to see the takeaway, the positions of the swing and the attack path, which makes it easier to explain why things happen.

Plus - once you have your swing on film from that perspective, using tools like the completely free V1Home software becomes increasingly efficient.

Interesting, Mox.

While I agree that DTL is the view to have, I've been taught to have the camera ~3 feet high, and splitting the distance between the body and the ball (ie inside the target line).

[edshaw]

Re: Brian and Bulldog: After the video lesson.

Mox, ubizmo, CMays, LowPost, and Brian:
Thanks for the input and the tech thoughts.
I see a couple of things: first, we need a
standardized way to communicate these
positions, short of outright graphic
representations. For example, I am
not sure what is meant by the best
camera position is parallel to the
target line. That can mean a number
of things. Also, what is a DTL view.
Just post some stills illustrating the
right camera position to take care
of that, if you please.
Second, alternatives to UTube are
welcome, and the reasons they are
better. This is good stuff. Ultimately,
you need a dedicated server, with
the software configured for the purpose.
Those things are out there and in
common industrial use.
The GTO forum becomes the base from
which to link, and to get best results,
the lessons are then privately displayed.
UTube has a "friends only" feature,
and I can only speculate what that
is normally used for.
Anyway, the best case is to find the
best available free service for the time
being, maybe its putfile or vidler. So that's
good input. You can see GTO put some time
into custom upload that has not really
been any better than the free
one size for all content hosts.
Also, editing software is a plus. You
dont need to see me walking around.
Last, the camera itself is an issue.
As you see, I shot mine with a 3400
Nikon Coolpix still camera. The results
are not great, yet, I was able to get
enough info on the file to enable the
teachers to deliver significant info,
though they ask for the capacity for
more detailed information, such as frame
stop etc. Now, realistically, the answer
lies somewhere between the $200
Nikon like I used and the $350,000
Phantom that Nike used to shoot
Tiger. What is needed is basically
the cheapest camera that will do the
job and a reasonable file size.
Also, the teachers need an incentive.

Oh, yeah, Bulldog, I'm a senior citizen.
I appreciate your kind comments, but
make the best of your life now, cuz it
doesn't get any better. Don't sell yourself
short. We can't all have the diagnostic
abilities of Brian, CMays, or Greg, to name a
few, but your impressions mean a lot, even
if half the benefit is to stimulate your own
acuity. I am probably more flexible than
strong, which is all right in amateur golf,
but no more flexible than you, if you are
average weight and height. What appears
to be flexibility is more likely relaxation
and guiding the weights (body mass and
clubhead) along the paths that enable
a fairly friction free action. Note that the
common denominator in the instructors
input are things that encourage that
action. I have put hundreds of hours into
accomplishing what you see there, though,
so I am not to say it comes without effort.

[Mox]

Re: Brian and Bulldog: After the video lesson.

Interesting, Mox.

While I agree that DTL is the view to have, I've been taught to have the camera ~3 feet high, and splitting the distance between the body and the ball (ie inside the target line).

But isn't that exactly what I'm saying?

I might not have made myself too clear, then.

Parallel to the target line (not in line with the target line), and at the position of the hands (pretty close to 3' high and midway between the body and the ball).

So we agree completely.

[Mox]

Re: Brian and Bulldog: After the video lesson.

Like this ...



The right picture is what I mean.

[edshaw]

Re: Brian and Bulldog: After the video lesson.

Thanks, Mox. I see your point.
You point the camera right down
the target line, then move it a
foot or so to your left, so that
the hands are in the center of
the frame. Got it.
So, um, did you produce those
pictures? And, if you did, what
do you have there? If you didn't,
how do you suppose they were
produced?

[Mox]

Re: Brian and Bulldog: After the video lesson.

Nope - not mine, sorry.

And I don't know what software was used, but you can do similar (albeit simpler) things with the free V1 software I mention above.

[LowPost42]

Re: Brian and Bulldog: After the video lesson.

Sorry Mox - I misread. Yes, we're saying the same thing. I thought you were saying to line it up down the target line. Hee hee hee.... oops!

The pictures is the 'pefect swing' software, IIRC. I should also note that I'm pretty sure it's also a perfect two plane swing.

[BrianW]

Re: Brian and Bulldog: After the video lesson.

Hi Ed,

A great thread. You have expressed your objectives, opinions and considerations in such an articulate way that it brings a breath of fresh air to the site. Bulldog is also becoming the sorcerer's apprentice in this field.

Thanks both of you.

[bulldog2k]

Re: Brian and Bulldog: After the video lesson.

*imagines a bumbling buffoon of an apprentice; not noticing the bunsen burner had been left on, test-driving the broomstick into the ceiling, turning self into frog, etc*

[ubizmo]

Re: Brian and Bulldog: After the video lesson.

Also, what is a DTL view.

That means "down the line," which means looking at the golfer from the side away from the target, looking along the line toward the target.

Second, alternatives to UTube are
welcome, and the reasons they are
better. This is good stuff.

These free video hosting sites convert your video to .FLV (flash video), to save bandwidth. The conversion involves compression, which involves some loss of quality. YouTube is, of course, the biggest video hosting site in the world, getting millions of hits per hour. They have, for obvious reasons, opted for a fairly high compression factor, so that they can handle the traffic. But that high compression results in mediocre video quality. Some other sites are competing by offering lower compression but higher quality. Putfile and Viddler are two that I know of that do this. A video uploaded to Putfile or Viddler has a bigger playback screen and looks better than the same video uploaded to YouTube. I've tried it.

Moreover, Putfile and Viddler have better privacy options. You may not want the entire world looking at your golf swing. On Putfile, if you designate a video as "private," then it doesn't show up on your home page on that site, and it doesn't show up in searches. But if you post the URL here, we can see it. In short, the only people who can see it are those who know the URL, or stumble upon it by accident (unlikely). This is called "blind URL" privacy. YouTube doesn't offer this. YouTube allows a more limited form of privacy, where you can email the URL to people. Viddler offers a couple of levels of privacy, including blind URL, and "friends only." So you could make a video private on Viddler but post the blind URL here and we'd be able to see it, but no one else would. This sort of thing may not matter to you, but I think it's worth noting.

Also, editing software is a plus. You
dont need to see me walking around.

If you have Windows XP then you have Windows Movie Maker, which is what I use. It has a learning curve, but it works fine. The output, a .WMV file, also involves some compression, but there's little quality lost. Macs, I believe, have iMovie bundled in the operating system. So there's no need to buy editing software.

Last, the camera itself is an issue.
As you see, I shot mine with a 3400
Nikon Coolpix still camera. The results
are not great, yet, I was able to get
enough info on the file to enable the
teachers to deliver significant info,
though they ask for the capacity for
more detailed information, such as frame
stop etc.

I use the Pure Digital Point & Shoot, which you can get at Target (online) for about $90. And I got one on ebay for my son for $50. This is a great little camcorder. Cheap, easy to use, and made for online video. It's about the size of a bar of soap and the price is so low I don't mind sticking it in my pocket, golf bag, etc. and taking it with me anywhere. It has built-in flash memory for up to about 30 minutes of video. When it's full you must either delete or download it to a computer, but it has a built-in USB connector for that, so you don't even need a cable. And the software is also built-in. Somebody finally figured out that people don't want to have to putz around with options, settings, software, etc. They just want to shoot and view or send it. I can't recommend it highly enough. There's a new version of it (same camera) being marketed by RCA as the "Small Wonder EZ201" with a few extra features, such as an SD card slot.