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

161–170 of 247 posts

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

#161

Post by nso »

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…

Netflix sells pixels. Not stories.

They are the McDonalds of movies, and a McDonalds is all about standardization and efficiency.

If only allowing for cameras that deliver a narrow and predictable band of technologies let's them work more efficiently, and if they are able to make and save money that way, it makes perfect sense for someone who works at scale to do exactly what they are doing. They are a market marker now, and thus can afford to play around with previously established norms.

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

#162

Post by fgandiya »

frankchn wrote: post #71
martinbalsam wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would say that the Arri Alexa SXT is a better camera than most of the cameras listed there.

I suspect the Arri Alexas are not on the list because they do not have "a true 4K sensor (equal to or greater than 4096 photosites wide)." The SXT has a 3404 x 2202 resolution when used in open-gate format.

Yeah, that's their reason https://backlothelp.netflix.com/hc/en-us/articles/229498668-...

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

#163

Post by axaxs »

hrktb wrote: post #122
coldtea wrote: post #110

To paraphrase Bill Gates (who never actually said the original, but anyway) 4K should be enough for everybody. Having seen 1080p stretch and play nicely on a 30 feet cinema screen, and not being much worse looking from regular Hollywood titles even for front seat viewing, I don't see the allure of 8K even for "future-proofing". Sure, monitors and tvs might improve their resolution in the future. But I don't se human…

I use my 40" 1080p tv as a second monitor from time to time, and it's way too ugly to be deemed as 'good enough' IMO. Perhaps action movies won't be much improved with better resolution, but I'll want screencasts, browser windows, nature documentaries or really any detailed image to be shown in 4K at least. Actually I'd want screen to stop being "TVs" or "computer monitors", it should be just a high def big rectangle…

Actually, a lot of the lower end Vizios act like this now. They are essentially a monitor with chromecast. And people seem to rip them in reviews for that...

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

#164

Post by axaxs »

fenwick67 wrote: post #8
cbg0 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

60 FPS is undesirable for most movies/shows, as opposed to 24 FPS which creates a certain feel that most people prefer.

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

I understand 60 fps is more 'realistic', but I hate it. It completely ruins a show/movie for me because I can only think about how weird it looks, without being able to determine exactly why.

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

#165

Post by joshuak »

nso wrote: post #161
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…

Netflix sells pixels. Not stories. They are the McDonalds of movies, and a McDonalds is all about standardization and efficiency. If only allowing for cameras that deliver a narrow and predictable band of technologies let's them work more efficiently, and if they are able to make and save money that way, it makes perfect sense for someone who works at scale to do exactly what they are doing. They are a market marker…

They may be marketing pixels "more is better", but they are selling content. Customers come, and remain because of content. Bad content at 4k is still bad content.

It's true good image quality does help, but my point is they already have both simply by specifying the delivery requirement.

What they are doing is more like a company that says they won't buy software that's written on anything other than emacs, or Notepad.

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

#166

Post by ams6110 »

joshuak wrote: post #165
nso wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Netflix sells pixels. Not stories. They are the McDonalds of movies, and a McDonalds is all about standardization and efficiency. If only allowing for cameras that deliver a narrow and predictable band of technologies let's them work more efficiently, and if they are able to make and save money that way, it makes perfect sense for someone who works at scale to do exactly what they are doing. They are a market marker…

They may be marketing pixels "more is better", but they are selling content. Customers come, and remain because of content. Bad content at 4k is still bad content. It's true good image quality does help, but my point is they already have both simply by specifying the delivery requirement. What they are doing is more like a company that says they won't buy software that's written on anything other than emacs, or Notep…

I don't and will never own a 4K TV, but having seen it at friends' houses I think image quality can go too far. It is so "uncanny" vivid and sharp it's distracting. Maybe because I grew up with NTSC when a 20" TV was a "big" television, but I can't watch the 4K stuff without getting queasy.

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

#167

Post by Animats »

James Cameron ("Avatar", "Titanic", etc.) used to argue that high frame rate was more important than higher resolution. If you're not in the first few rows of the theater, he once pointed out, you can't tell if it's 4K anyway. Everyone in the theater benefits from high frame rate. This may be less of an issue now that more people are watching on high-resolution screens at short range.

Cameron likes long pans over beautifully detailed backgrounds. Those will produce annoying strobing at 24FPS if the pan rate is faster than about 7 seconds for a frame width. Staying down to that rate makes a scene drag.

Now, Cameron wants to go to 4K resolution and 120FPS.[1] Cameron can probably handle that well; he's produced most of the 3D films that don't suck. He's going to give us a really nice visual tour of the Avatar world. For other films, that may not help. "Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk" was recorded in 3D, 4K resolution and 120FPS. Reviews were terrible, because it's 1) far too much resolution for close-ups, and 2) too much realism for war scenes. Close-ups are a problem - do you really want to see people's faces at a level of detail useful only to a dermatologist? It also means prop and costume quality has to improve.

The other issue with all this resolution is that it's incompatible with the trend towards shorter shot lengths. There are action films with an average shot length below 1 second. For music videos, that's considered slow; many of those are around 600ms per shot.[2] They're just trying to leave an impression, not show details.

[1] https://www.polygon.com/2016/10/31/13479322/james-cameron-av... [2] http://www.cinemetrics.lv/database.php?sort=asl

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

#169

Post by cakedoggie »

Houshalter wrote: post #141
joezydeco wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Friends reruns also got the HDTV rescans. In some shows you can see things that weren't supposed to be on-camera in the 4:3 format. It's just a matter of which shows are worth the cost and time to do it.

They did this to some of the star trek series. Some scenes you can see things that were not meant to be seen. E.g. here Kirk and Khan are arguing, and then suddenly two people dressed like them start fighting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=B_c... I can't find it now, but I believe they even redid some of the early CG effects by just rerendering the old models with modern software. It's wort…

What is the vid you send supposed to show?

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

#170

Post by HappyKasper »

Animats wrote: post #167

James Cameron ("Avatar", "Titanic", etc.) used to argue that high frame rate was more important than higher resolution. If you're not in the first few rows of the theater, he once pointed out, you can't tell if it's 4K anyway. Everyone in the theater benefits from high frame rate. This may be less of an issue now that more people are watching on high-resolution screens at short range. Cameron likes long pans over bea…

You neglect to mention the fact that we are so used to seeing 24 fps that anything above it doesn't look like a movie.

Why do home videos have that "home video" look? The biggest reason is the 60 fps frame rate - it just doesn't feel cinematic. Even the 48 fps of the Hobbit films felt too "lifelike" and not cinematic enough.

A lot of prominent directors, as you've mentioned, say they'd like to move towards a world with higher frame rates. But that'll be a bitter pill to swallow for a viewing public that unconsciously believes "cinema" means 24 fps.

3D in particular is very difficult to watch at frame rates as low as 24 fps - a big reason it makes so many people nauseous, and a big reason so many directors are saying we need higher frame rates.

High resolution may not be a huge positive but it is definitely not a negative. There's nothing inherently cinematic or better about low resolution like there is about 24 fps, and if excessive sharpness feels jarring in a scene, the cinematographer can elect to use a lens with a softer focus.

And the strobing effect you mention - unless we're talking 3D (where motion blur feels wrong), a low shutter rate and consequent good amount of motion blur easily avoid strobing.

Post reply on HN