Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Netflix Originals: Production and Post-Production Requirements v2.1

backlothelp.netflix.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 247 posts

Re: Netflix Originals: Production and Post-Production Requirements v2.1

#91

Post by bo1024 »

olegkikin wrote: post #70

I'm surprised they don't allow UHD resolution (3840×2160). There are probably a few people in the world who can reliably tell the difference with true 4K. An average person can't even tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.

When you step back, it seems to reveal an almost silly obsession with video resolution as a proxy for quality and future-proofing. It feels like it's coming more from marketing than true quality or future-proofing goals (just look at the audio standards...).

On the other hand I definitely applaud their focus on having good backups and preserving the original source material.

Re: Netflix Originals: Production and Post-Production Requirements v2.1

#92

Post by cabs »

Havoc wrote: post #80

Can someone explain the 24fps to me? It seems out of place old-school in light of the 4K & 240Mbps etc.

24fps - these days - is less about technology and more about standards and aesthetic. There are plenty of reasons why films have been shot in 24fps for the past handful of decades.

When you start increasing that in YOUR film, you lose a sense of familiarity in your audience and their (subconcious) willingness for suspension of disbelief probably goes away with it.

Re: Netflix Originals: Production and Post-Production Requirements v2.1

#93

Post by matt-attack »

ClassyJacket wrote: post #82
matt-attack wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

24fps is a form of impressionism, plain and simple. An engineer claiming that 60fps is better simply because it offers realism, is as naive as claiming that a hi-res photo is obviously better than a Van Gogh because it "has more detail". Can you imagine commenting on an impressionistic painting and remarking, "well it's nice, but if the painter has used finer brush strokes we'd see more detail and it'd be more life-l…

Hogwash. Films are 24fps because that's how fast the cameras and projectors run and that's what people are used to. If what you were saying was true it would be by far the most unlikely coincidence that has ever occurred in the universe that almost every movie ever made chose precisely the same impressionist style.

Actually 24fps was chosen as a balance between audio fidelity and trying to save on film cost. I never said it was designed from conception to create that look.

It's a great example of a happy accident, or serendipity.

Re: Netflix Originals: Production and Post-Production Requirements v2.1

#94

Post by chiph »

ashark wrote: post #20
monkeyprojects wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All 3 hobbit movies where released in the high frame rate format (albeit 48 frames not 60) and the general complaint was that they felt "soap opera"ry due to the way people felt about them. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2014/12/16/hate-the-... Is a decent commentary on the issue

My complaint about the 48fps (after going in hyped to see this Spiffy New Format) was that everyone looked like they were speed-walking all the time, which was really distracting. It was like a sped-up silent film. Nothing else I've seen in higher framerates has had that problem, though—just The Hobbit.

I agree. The orc chase across the rock-studded field did not look good. I found it distracting, as the higher frame rate didn't allow my eye/brain to predict their motion.

Re: Netflix Originals: Production and Post-Production Requirements v2.1

#95

Post by mattalbie »

joshuak wrote: post #90

This is really tragic to watch. I like Netflix in many respects but this is just incompetent. Not one Academy Award Winning film for best picture would qualify for these specs. Not one. I expect very few if any nominees either. The Arri Alexa is eliminated by these specs, for crying out loud. The single most popular camera amongst high end feature cinematographers. This is driven by some misguided belief that input r…

The Arri Alexa 65 is on their list.

Re: Netflix Originals: Production and Post-Production Requirements v2.1

#96

Post by praveenperera »

samstave wrote: post #32

Best pricing info I can find quickly: * c300 mk ii 6998 * c500 18995 * c700 28000 * Varicam 35 12949 * caricam lt 16500 * red dragon 32520 * red weapon 49955 * red helium 49500 * panavision dxl cant find * sony f55 28990 * sony f65 cant find * sony fs7 12949 * arri alexa 65 cant find * ursa mini 4.6k 5995 * ursa 4.6k 4995

The RED cameras are pretty much unusable without a lot of very expensive add-ons. The real cost comes out to 100K+.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t1PQJmM8P4

Re: Netflix Originals: Production and Post-Production Requirements v2.1

#97

Post by marcosdumay »

matt-attack wrote: post #30
fenwick67 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's why he said "in the future", when people might eventually realize that 60FPS is good.

24fps is a form of impressionism, plain and simple. An engineer claiming that 60fps is better simply because it offers realism, is as naive as claiming that a hi-res photo is obviously better than a Van Gogh because it "has more detail". Can you imagine commenting on an impressionistic painting and remarking, "well it's nice, but if the painter has used finer brush strokes we'd see more detail and it'd be more life-l…

It's not nearly as naive as somebody claiming that an specific pattern of impressionism is the ultimately superior representation for everything.

Re: Netflix Originals: Production and Post-Production Requirements v2.1

#98

Post by ashark »

ClassyJacket wrote: post #83
ashark wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My complaint about the 48fps (after going in hyped to see this Spiffy New Format) was that everyone looked like they were speed-walking all the time, which was really distracting. It was like a sped-up silent film. Nothing else I've seen in higher framerates has had that problem, though—just The Hobbit.

I didn't feel like that at all and it surprises me anyone did. Do you have the same problem when you see people walk in real life?

No, and other high-fps video I've watched (all on much smaller screens, though) hasn't had that effect. I've wondered if the sensation was generated by some combination of 3D + 48fps + viewing angle. Or maybe something to do with the post-processing particular to that film. My wife reported the same effect—people walking with a casual gait but seemingly slightly sped up. Also affected other movements of people and objects, but walking was the most noticeable. The level of distraction it induced was similar to when audio and video are slightly out of sync (though, to be clear, they were not, that's just the kind of constant low-level distraction in caused)

We saw the second one in 24fps 2d (we mostly avoid 3D because we rarely care enough about it to pay extra, but it was the only way to see the first one in 48fps) because we both hated the first one's presentation so much, so I don't know whether we'd have experienced it in that one.

Re: Netflix Originals: Production and Post-Production Requirements v2.1

#99

Post by joshuak »

mattalbie wrote: post #95
joshuak wrote: post #90

This is really tragic to watch. I like Netflix in many respects but this is just incompetent. Not one Academy Award Winning film for best picture would qualify for these specs. Not one. I expect very few if any nominees either. The Arri Alexa is eliminated by these specs, for crying out loud. The single most popular camera amongst high end feature cinematographers. This is driven by some misguided belief that input r…

The Arri Alexa 65 is on their list.

Yes, and not the camera I'm referring to.

Re: Netflix Originals: Production and Post-Production Requirements v2.1

#100

Post by mattalbie »

hoschicz wrote: post #35
mattalbie wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Increases costs dramatically. 2.5x the data.

video size != costs! Most movie production costs are mostly humans.

Video size absolutely correlates with cost. It's not 1:1 but there's a relationship. The entire pipeline masters from uncompressed sources. When you need to color, crop, re-frame, or add VFX, you need to read/render those files at original resolution. Render time (and equipment that can do it) becomes a factor, particularly for post-production vendors, who pass on the cost (and mark it up).

True, Post Production is not the largest piece of the pie, but it still adds up to millions of dollars.

Post reply on HN