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

171–180 of 247 posts

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

#171

Post by Animats »

HappyKasper wrote: post #170
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 wi…

Viewers will get over it. There were industry people opposed to sound, to color, to wide-screen movies, and to digital cameras. They're mostly over that. Adding grain in post-processing is on the way out.

(Film is really dead. There are some directors still making noise about shooting on film, but it's digitized for editing.)

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

#172

Post by [deleted] »

praveenperera wrote: post #96
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

[deleted]

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

#173

Post by KaiserPro »

praveenperera wrote: post #96
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

They come with a lot of "emotional" baggage

Well, its died down now, but it used to be a proper cult. old $work used to make software that was a key step in transcoding from their shitty jpeg2000 "redfile" to something more usable.

yes they had high resolution, but they had rolling shutter and were still quite expensive. Not to mention poor colour reproduction.

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

#174

Post by KaiserPro »

Animats wrote: post #171
HappyKasper wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

Viewers will get over it. There were industry people opposed to sound, to color, to wide-screen movies, and to digital cameras. They're mostly over that. Adding grain in post-processing is on the way out. (Film is really dead. There are some directors still making noise about shooting on film, but it's digitized for editing.)

we've had >24fps for a number of years.

It just doesn't look film-y. I suspect it won't be until VR that we'll see proper high framerate.

Its just such an oddity that I don't think people will take the risk, given the expense in retrofitting cinemas. (plus virtually no TV is actually capable of properly doing 60fps)

just one point:

>Adding grain in post-processing is on the way out.

thats with us to stay. most film grain from 2008 onwards is digital (yes even on film films) because most will have gone through a VFX pipeline with DI. Grain is stripped out and put back in after.

grain is a good visual cue for a number of things, just like desaturation of colour. its a tool thats not going to go away

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

#175

Post by KaiserPro »

mmastrac wrote: post #3

This likely gives them confidence that if they were to remaster for a different color-space or higher resolution, that they could. For a 4K original shot in 8K, Netflix could send it back through the production process for a more reasonable cost and be able to launch the title quickly. I'm surprised they don't ask for VFX sources to be archived though. ST:TNG and Babylon 5 both suffered badly from loss of the origina…

rec 709 isn't a different colour space...

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

#176

Post by KaiserPro »

cracell wrote: post #153
mprovost wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Often you can't reliably re-render shots from a few months earlier on the same project due to the pipeline changing so rapidly. Nevermind going back to the tapes for files that probably came off Irix workstations originally. The file formats for assets (models and textures) are backwards compatible enough that you can usually reconstruct models and maybe animation. So having an archive of the original files doesn't m…

I'm not familiar with modern VFX software. But couldn't you just take a snapshot of the server and then load that onto a box in the future if you wanted to re-render it?

its a question of cost. Sure you can keep a pipeline frozen, but thats very expensive, and there is little need to do it.

its just cheaper and simpler to re-do it from the clean footage, or perhaps get some of the original models.

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

#177

Post by KaiserPro »

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.

UHD isn't technically 4k, its quad HD, hence the funny resolution.

cinema 4k is 4096 wide by 2160 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution#Digital_cinema and predate quadHD by quite a way.

firstly the better cameras are proper 4k, QHD cameras tend to be a bit rubbish. Secondly there are many more tools for dealing with cinema 4k, than QHD

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

#178

Post by baby »

KaiserPro wrote: post #174
Animats wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Viewers will get over it. There were industry people opposed to sound, to color, to wide-screen movies, and to digital cameras. They're mostly over that. Adding grain in post-processing is on the way out. (Film is really dead. There are some directors still making noise about shooting on film, but it's digitized for editing.)

we've had >24fps for a number of years. It just doesn't look film-y. I suspect it won't be until VR that we'll see proper high framerate. Its just such an oddity that I don't think people will take the risk, given the expense in retrofitting cinemas. (plus virtually no TV is actually capable of properly doing 60fps) just one point: >Adding grain in post-processing is on the way out. thats with us to stay. most film g…

It doesn't look film-y is exactly the kind of excuses we used to hear in the past. The reality is that once you've watched movies in 48/60fps you can't really go back to slow framerate movies as you see them blurry and stuttering. I personally can't wait for 24fps to be a thing of the past. Especially for action movies.

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

#179

Post by baby »

cbg0 wrote: post #6
Justin_K wrote: post #5

I wish they'd push for 4K 60FPS so they could upgrade their releases to this in the future.

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

Color is undesirable for most movies, as opposed to black&white which creates a certain feel that most people prefer.

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

#180

Post by baby »

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…

No. A better comparison would be to keep taking pictures with an old camera and refusing to use the latest technology because it doesn't have that feeling. Sure some people do it but don't you prefer the nice stuff?
Post reply on HN