Automated sports cameras like Veo, Trace, and Pixellot use two 4K lenses to capture the entire field, then stitch the side-by-side videos into a 180° panorama. The stitched result is usually around 6K wide rather than 8K, because some pixels are lost in the overlap.
Pixels/Degree
With 6K pixels covering 180°, that is about 33 pixels per degree.
A youth player (about 5 ft tall) standing 75 yards from the camera is only 1.27° tall in the video, which means the body is roughly 40 pixels in height and 10 pixels in width. Not enough to clearly show the player's number.
A size-5 soccer ball (with a 9-inch diameter) at the same distance spans only about 0.2°, or roughly 6 pixels across.
That's barely more than a dot. Even the most advanced object detection algorithms struggle with objects that small, especially with motion blur and video compression. More importantly, even if detection were possible, the false positive rate would likely be too high for reliable tracking.
Because of this, most 180° sports systems mainly track players, not the ball itself. The software estimates where play is happening based on player movement. This works reasonably well for keeping the action in frame, but it also explains why:
- The action can be hard to see in the final video — players look like ants and the ball is basically a dot
- Long passes can be difficult to follow
- Footage often looks “zoomed out” — many times it is hard to tell who scored the goal
A different approach: zoom first, then track
FoloCam takes almost the opposite approach. Instead of capturing everything at once, it records with a narrower field of view.
For a soccer game played on a full-size field, the recommended setting is to use 2× zoom on an iPhone, with 4K resolution spread over only 35°. This gives over 115 pixels per degree — roughly 3.5 times more detail than a 180° system. A 180° system would need 6 to 8 4K lenses to achieve the same resolution.
The difference at 75 yards is striking:
| 180° system | FoloCam (2× zoom) | |
|---|---|---|
| Pixels per degree | 33 | 115 |
| Player (5 ft tall) at 75 yards | 10px by 40px | 36px by 144px |
| Soccer ball (9″ diameter) at 75 yards | 6px | 23px |
This higher detail makes direct ball tracking possible and produces footage that looks closer to broadcast-style highlights.
Tradeoffs
That said, a single PTZ camera is not guaranteed to track the ball 100% of the time. And even if it could, some coaches may still prefer wide tactical views that show positioning away from the ball — something zoomed systems cannot provide.
So these tools serve different needs:
- 180° cameras: tactical overview, whole-field context
- FoloCam: clear action, highlights, player detail
It is worth noting that when the tracking algorithm briefly loses the ball, it often coincides with less critical moments of play when nothing interesting is happening on the field. In fact, multiple beta users of an earlier version of FoloCam (a USB PTZ camera controlled by an AI SBC) reported no missed goals throughout an entire high school varsity season.
The cost difference
180° automated systems typically involve specialized hardware and subscriptions that cost thousands per year.
FoloCam uses an iPhone and a DockKit-compatible gimbal, typically around $100. Users can record unlimited 10-minute segments for free, while premium features can be unlocked for only $50 per year. The subscription is per Apple account, so users can set up multiple cameras during a game — filming from different angles and with different zoom levels — without incurring extra subscription costs.
Looking ahead
While Veo and the like have clear advantages for tactical analysis, FoloCam offers significantly higher detail for capturing action at a fraction of the cost.
We're also currently working on a low-cost dual-4K wide camera approach aimed at improving detail while keeping prices much more accessible.
Stay tuned.