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

231–240 of 247 posts

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

#231

Post by baby »

KaiserPro wrote: post #223
baby wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> The number of cinemas that can display 48fps is not great, the number of cinemas that can display 60fps is zero? any cinema that can do 3D can do 48FPS, at least. RealD uses a single projector, with an electrically controlled circular polarising filter on the front. This is why 3D in cinema for any kind of action is terrible, because you get juddering nastyness. To get round this, some places project at 96 FPS(well…

> any cinema that can do 3D can do 48FPS, at least.

You'll have to explain to me why they weren't showing The Hobbit in 48fps then. You sometimes had to go to a different country to see it in 48fps.

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

#232

Post by baby »

apetresc wrote: post #216
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 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.

Because ordinary people don't spend the time to appreciate it, it just look too different for them. Exactly how color movies looked too different at the time.

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

#233

Post by kpil »

mikeash wrote: post #215
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.

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 a…

Exactly!

Fake parallax that just turn epic scenes and scenery into tabletop models.

It's obvious, but why do they ruin their efforts like that. Don't they watch their own movies after post 3d editing?

I think even Avatar made it too far. I think I've whatched some animated films that didn't blow totally, but almost every other film that I have seen in 3d was a disappointment.

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

#234

Post by voltagex_ »

softawre wrote: post #219
voltagex_ wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unfortunately buying a TV without the smarts also means sacrificing the DVB-T tuner, as well as the price being significantly higher. It looks like the commercial version of a ~2012 panel (http://pro.sony.com.au/pro/product/professional-displays-bra...) retains at least some of the smarts. I like the idea of driving a TV via RS232 but the replacement for the tuner - a HDHomeRun - is sold at ridiculous prices in Australia.

I bought my 4K TV at $800 - at RRP of $1800 I would have been really angry but I can buy a 4K HDMI switch and get over it.

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

#236

Post by mikeash »

kpil wrote: post #233
mikeash wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

Exactly! Fake parallax that just turn epic scenes and scenery into tabletop models. It's obvious, but why do they ruin their efforts like that. Don't they watch their own movies after post 3d editing? I think even Avatar made it too far. I think I've whatched some animated films that didn't blow totally, but almost every other film that I have seen in 3d was a disappointment.

This is complete speculation, but my guess is something like: the people who might understand this (skilled directors and such) are used to 2D and don't much care for 3D, and the people who push 3D (executives) are too obsessed with making things "pop" to realize what they're doing.

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

#237

Post by modfodder »

gcb0 wrote: post #225
modfodder wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What cameras would you prefer shooting on that isn't listed? I'm not seeing anything that I'd prefer to shoot on (other than film). Cameras like the Sony A7s or the Panasonic GH5 are great for the low budget film, but if Netflix green lights your project, you can afford much better cameras. Unless the project calls for really small and unobtrusive cameras, in which case Netflix would most likely approve the use of wh…

The projects i am involved are only being paid $1mi by Netflix for long feature. It is hardly money that takes you out of low budget line. Granted, it is "free" 1mi since they still keep box office and rights.... If you are not filming in a place where equipment rental is free like the US, GH5's become very inviting as your second (and third) camera.

Is this for projects funded (at least partially) by Netflix before production? Would love to hear more about your experiences (both with Netflix and general filmmaking outside the US).

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

#238

Post by adiabatty »

lotyrin wrote: post #148
dave_sullivan wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bet we see neural network-based upsampling (aka super resolution) being used for HD remasters in the near future.

Nobody's done this yet?

It's an area of active research: https://github.com/nagadomi/waifu2x

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

#239

Post by Justin_K »

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.

That's an opinion.

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

#240

Post by cududa »

baby wrote: post #232
apetresc wrote: post #216

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because ordinary people don't spend the time to appreciate it, it just look too different for them. Exactly how color movies looked too different at the time.

You're pretty wrong here. Critics panes color movies, consumers like them. This is the inverse of that.
Post reply on HN