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

191–200 of 247 posts

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

#191

Post by aninhumer »

richardknop wrote: post #188
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…

Is this a real concern of ordinary people? I am not a movie expert, just somebody who watches movies a lot and I have never thought to myself "this new movie with 48fps doesn't look like a movie, it's too lifelike, not cinematic enough". I assume people who think like that would be very marginal minority of movie experts. I don't believe average viewer would even think of such argument.

It's not a technical argument they make, it's just a gut reaction to 48fps looking different. The fact that it's more lifelike can actually make it feel fake, because it can feel like you're watching actors on a set.

Personally I do think people will get over it eventually, especially for less "cinematic" stuff. Or possibly variable framerate will become a thing, and directors will choose different framerates for different effects.

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

#192

Post by richardknop »

aninhumer wrote: post #191
richardknop wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is this a real concern of ordinary people? I am not a movie expert, just somebody who watches movies a lot and I have never thought to myself "this new movie with 48fps doesn't look like a movie, it's too lifelike, not cinematic enough". I assume people who think like that would be very marginal minority of movie experts. I don't believe average viewer would even think of such argument.

It's not a technical argument they make, it's just a gut reaction to 48fps looking different. The fact that it's more lifelike can actually make it feel fake, because it can feel like you're watching actors on a set. Personally I do think people will get over it eventually, especially for less "cinematic" stuff. Or possibly variable framerate will become a thing, and directors will choose different framerates for dif…

I see. I remember seeing Hobbit movies for the first time and they looked slightly different from other movies. But to me it seemed like a better quality so I didn't complain.

Though, I heard some people say that scenes in old LOTR movies looked more realistic. This was mostly because Hobbit used more CGI though, for example orcs in Hobbit movies were all CGI but before in LOTR they had real actors to play orcs.

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

#193

Post by rothbardrand »

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…

What if you delivered 48 fps but you reduced brightness of every other frame by %25? Then you're getting a 24 fps strobe effect like we expect from movies, but without the juddering.

This might make a 48fps experience feel more like film, without compromising the advantages of 48fps

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

#194

Post by dx034 »

baby wrote: post #178
KaiserPro wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At which point it will look like a youtube video to many, not like a movie in the cinema. High frame rates haven't been successful for several years, I don't see why this should change. Same for 3D. Maybe there will be another trend that enables it, but as of now 3D wasn't a great success.

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

#195

Post by aninhumer »

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…

If directors were meaningfully able to choose between 24fps and higher framerates, then your argument would be a lot more convincing. Since in practice only well respected auteurs can get away with the extra cost and weirdness, I don't know if you can really call it an artistic choice.

I can believe that some scenes might benefit from the visual effect of a lower framerate, but I can also imagine other scenes, such as complex action and long horizontal pans might benefit from higher framerates. Also I think the "too real" feeling might work quite well to convey grittier settings.

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

#196

Post by trophycase »

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.

Sorry, hate 60 fps. Everything just looks fake.

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

#197

Post by trophycase »

slhck wrote: post #26
stinkytaco wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a pretty good analogy. Film is attempting to portray a 3D world in 2D. Even if everything looks really good, it's still fake and 4K at 60fps just draws attention to that fakeness. For sports, news, even documentaries this isn't a huge deal because you are not trying to get people to suspend their disbelief. But for narrative cinema, it can take you right out of the picture.

I don't understand your argument… if the analogy were true, listening to a CD or streaming from the web would make most people think the recording is "fake" or artificial, longing to listen to it on vinyl. Which I guess most people probably haven't had the chance to compare to CD yet.

Regardless of whether or not the analogy is good, the point still stands. 48 fps looks fake and totally destroys immersion.

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

#198

Post by baby »

dx034 wrote: post #194
baby wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

At which point it will look like a youtube video to many, not like a movie in the cinema. High frame rates haven't been successful for several years, I don't see why this should change. Same for 3D. Maybe there will be another trend that enables it, but as of now 3D wasn't a great success.

> but as of now 3D wasn't a great success

I too find 3D gimmicky often, but probably because the technology varies grandly between production, cameras and theater displays. On the other hand, there are 3D movies every day in every big cinemas and 3D TVs as well. So I'm not sure we can say that it wasn't a great success.

> High frame rates haven't been successful for several years

The number of cinemas that can display 48fps is not great, the number of cinemas that can display 60fps is zero? So I don't know how you can say that "High frame rates haven't been successful for several years".

Actually if you look on Youtube, high FPS videos are successful.

> At which point it will look like a youtube video to many, not like a movie in the cinema

There are some great youtube videos out there, don't know why you're saying this. Cinema is what you're defining as 24fps, sure because you're used to it. If tomorrow we start watching a lot of 60fps movies then you will define it as Cinema. Objectively 60fps is better for action movies anyway, the rest will follow.

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

#199

Post by kalleboo »

ashark wrote: post #98
ClassyJacket wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ob…

I had the same impression of "speed-walking", and I saw it in 48fps 2D. It almost felt as if the projection was lagging sometimes and then sped up the film to catch up or something, it was very distracting.

I've never had the same impression from TV or home movies which is 50/60 fps.

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

#200

Post by kalleboo »

SwellJoe wrote: post #130
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

It's amazing that a show that'll be watched by millions can be produced on a few thousand dollars worth of equipment. It brings the barrier to entry way down. It's still gonna cost upwards of $100,000 per episode, even for a very low budget small-scale thing, due to crew, locations, sets, insurance, etc. But, it's a really interesting time for television and film production. It's also interesting how in charge of thi…

My impression is that people generally don't even buy these cameras - they make a shooting schedule and then rent a camera (and associated lenses, mounts, dollies, etc)
Post reply on HN