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

211–220 of 247 posts

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

#211

Post by riffraff »

baby wrote: post #198
dx034 wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 displa…

AFAIU 3D TVs are not a thing anymore

http://www.businessinsider.com/3d-tv-is-dead-2017-1

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

#212

Post by coldtea »

degenerate wrote: post #150
chavesn wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, but what about "zoom and enhance"? :) Seriously, sure, 4K is enough for output but who says it's enough for input? As long as sensors keep getting better, the industry will keep finding ways to take advantage of it until it's essentially required. Imagine a future where you can zoom in on any detail as well as you could with a high-res sensor at capture time? It's not necessary for today's viewing experiences,…

I sometimes help film live events for a friend when he needs extra hands. Getting the framing perfect is really hard unless you're very good with the camera. Panning to follow a moving subject while simultaneously making sure everything else in the shot is desired is... really hard. Imagine being able to simple film a "general area" in 8K and the post-production team could handle all the framing/panning and still get…

>So the higher the better... let's get there, and make everyone's life easier.

Not really. For one, 4K already makes life more difficult, adding huge trnascoded files, slow renders, proxy workflows, etc. That's on a pure technical level.

On an aesthetic level, it's a bad habbit too and cropping in post is a lazy copout or an emergency kludge. Setting your frame is more than just "getting what you want in the final output", it affects parallax, compression, etc. Croping from 2x the frame is not the same optically. And deciding in post means a less well thought out frame in the first place. So, it's nice as a emergency kludge to save ones ass, for documentary, ad work or news, but not so good for movies.

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

#213

Post by coldtea »

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…

>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.

That's because monitors are mostly about static images, and are viewed in a much smaller distance than TVs.

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

#214

Post by coldtea »

eveningcoffee wrote: post #142
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…

Have you actually seen 4K in the cinema?

Yes. So?

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

#215

Post by mikeash »

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.

I think it will change because high frame rates look much better. It's not what people are used to, but what people are used to changes over time.

3D has two major problems. First is that the technology sucks. The glasses are heavy, bulky, and don't do a particularly good job of filtering out the opposite eye's channel. Second is that filmmakers don't understand how to do 3D at all. Every 3D film I've seen loves to add parallax where there should not be parallax. They don't understand that binocular depth perception only works out to a few dozen feet, which causes anything with observable parallax to be perceived to be nearby, and that in turn causes large objects to look tiny. Seeing a spaceship or airplane or mountain that looks like a toy because the filmmakers decided to "pop" it out of the screen is the exact opposite of a cinematic experience.

High frame rate doesn't have this problem. The technology is good, and using it properly in films doesn't appear to be a failing.

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

#216

Post by apetresc »

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 the opposite, actually. "Experts" are pushing for higher framerates, but "average viewers" complain that something feels wrong, home-video-y, and just plain weird on high-FPS movies. They can't put their finger on it, they certainly won't mention the framerate, but they tend not to like it.

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

#217

Post by degenerate »

coldtea wrote: post #212
degenerate wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sometimes help film live events for a friend when he needs extra hands. Getting the framing perfect is really hard unless you're very good with the camera. Panning to follow a moving subject while simultaneously making sure everything else in the shot is desired is... really hard. Imagine being able to simple film a "general area" in 8K and the post-production team could handle all the framing/panning and still get…

> So the higher the better... let's get there, and make everyone's life easier. Not really. For one, 4K already makes life more difficult, adding huge trnascoded files, slow renders, proxy workflows, etc. That's on a pure technical level. On an aesthetic level, it's a bad habbit too and cropping in post is a lazy copout or an emergency kludge. Setting your frame is more than just "getting what you want in the final o…

You are correct it would not work for movies. For my use case, it sure would!

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

#218

Post by bitJericho »

Svenskunganka wrote: post #189
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…

When I first watched the Hobbit, I didn't really notice any difference other than pan-intensive scenes didn't look as washed out. I don't recall thinking it was too lifelike or realistic. When I heard that it was because it had a higher framerate, I decided to start using frame interpolation via SVP[0] on my video player to artificially create more frames between each original frame, and I'm really happy. It isn't pe…

I finally understand people who don't like 3d movies. Your comment makes me feel ill! I hate high framerates in movies. Just ruins it imo.

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

#219

Post by softawre »

voltagex_ wrote: post #145
Mister_Snuggles wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Actually I'd want screen to stop being "TVs" or "computer monitors", it should be just a high def big rectangle than can be used to display anything. I would love to see this as well. My ideal "television" has at least 8 HDMI inputs plus a couple of composite or component video inputs. There would be no cable/antenna/tuner input. There would be buttons on the remote for power, volume, input, plus menu and enter to…

Amen. My current TV has the Android TV stuff so tightly integrated that when you're making the CPU work hard, there's huge delays switching inputs or settings.

Buying a smart TV is like buying an all-in-one PC. Much easier to replace the Fire Stick if it's outside the box.

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

#220

Post by danyul »

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.)

In the 2D animation industry it's mostly irrelevant since we are animating on ones, twos, and fours (every single, second, or fourth frame at 24fps) depending on what is happening in the shot.

There is also not nearly as much tweening as you might expect. Sometimes animating on ones just cannot accurately give you the same effect as letting a persons brain fill in the missing info. Which is why watching The Hobbit in 48fps pulled me out of the movie at some points; I appreciated the extra clarity, but there were details that would have otherwise just been a blur that became distracting.

Post reply on HN