Netflix’s Media Production Suite
71–80 of 154 posts
Re: Netflix’s Media Production Suite
#72What part of this makes good stories?
Re: Netflix’s Media Production Suite
#73I read through that whole article thinking, - I wonder what the UI looks like compared to tools I use now - I wonder if there will be a free tier, since my video needs are modest It never occurred to me until I reached the end that this wasn't a "enjoy this tool we made" post, but instead a "look how awesome we are" post. :-/
If you’re unable to appreciate a behind-the-scenes look at their engineering because the technology isn't for you or available to you, that's totally valid! But it's a you're not interested thing, not a Netflix is boasting about something that doesn't matter thing. Only a few thousand teams in the world need most of what they do over there, but that doesn't mean they aren't massive technical achievements. Most of them are. The scale, complexity, and cadence of modern production has given rise to some of the biggest technical challenges I’ve ever seen. And for anyone close to that world, this kind of content is of great interest — if not genuinely valuable.
Re: Netflix’s Media Production Suite
#74Having a dozen different VFX departments using different file transfer methods like FTP seems like a nightmare. But then I realized that the banks do this, and probably worse. There's one that uses Gmail to exchange documents (not financial, but important nonetheless) and uses the read receipt to determine if it has ingested the data. Replaying ingestion is marking unread.
It was not allowed and they had reliable corporate tools to exchange patient data, but the UX probably felt so cumbersome they'd rather face legal risks than doing it the right way.
Re: Netflix’s Media Production Suite
#75Re: Netflix’s Media Production Suite
#76Re: Netflix’s Media Production Suite
#77I was reading about the cinematography of _Collateral_, possibly the first large budget feature film to be shot digitally, and one of the issues back in 2004 when it was made was the amount of storage required for digital video and the risk of not being able to retrieve the images from the data stores: > “We did massive testing with the hard drives, and everything was great, and then we had an experience where we sho…
But you are right that Collateral did do something very new/unusual at the time, and that was shooting scenes in higher frame-rates than 24, and mixing multiple frame rates in a film. (This might not sound like much, but until this time, pretty much every film was 24fps for the previous eighty years and it had a very specific look that everyone's eyes/brains were conditioned for, unbeknownst to them.)
And the other thing that was very interesting thing about it (though not something very visible to a viewer) was that it was shot on the Thomson Viper FilmStream camera[1], which was the first major attempt at shooting not just digital, but very close to "raw". It was also a huge pain in the ass. The camera itself was massive, but due to the bandwidth, it recorded to an external storage array that had to be pushed alongside it at all times, and that was itself about the size of a shopping cart. (This device was hilariously referred to as the "Director's Friend.")
In 2002, my friend and I, both cinema nerds in high school, drove an hour away to the nearest theater showing a film called Russian Ark[2]. Why were journeying to to see a strange little Russian film where a never-named character walks the viewer through Russian history? Because just like each episode of the recently-released Netflix show Adolescence, this entire film was a single, very long, very complicated, unbroken shot. One shot. No trickery, no cuts that were just hidden to the audience, one shot, through streets, buildings, snow, ballrooms with a couple hundred choreographed actors, it was crazy. This is easy now compared to how it was back then.
As we've now established with Collateral (and this film predates it by 2 years), digital cinematography existed, but the storage was a real problem, the power was a real problem. Since this film was one shot, it needed almost 100 minutes of both, unbroken. And since it was a very complex moving shot, it had to be operated handheld. So essentially they had an incredibly ripped director of photography who operated the camera on a steadicam the whole time while a giant array of daisychained batteries and hard drives were lugged behind him. And they did it something like 100 times until they had a few takes where there were no mistakes.
None of this really means anything to anyone anymore, but at the time, to cinematography nerds at least, this stuff was all absolutely insane!
[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20040103133953/http://www.thomso...
Re: Netflix’s Media Production Suite
#78I was reading about the cinematography of _Collateral_, possibly the first large budget feature film to be shot digitally, and one of the issues back in 2004 when it was made was the amount of storage required for digital video and the risk of not being able to retrieve the images from the data stores: > “We did massive testing with the hard drives, and everything was great, and then we had an experience where we sho…
Collateral was not the first fully digitally shot feature film. In fact, Collateral was not even fully digital. (The first major , all-digital, HD feature film was Attack of the Clones , but there were other fully-digital feature films before that, just not as major, and/or not always HD. Robert Rodriguez' Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2001) was fully digital.) But you are right that Collateral did do something very ne…
I'm wondering why people would have chosen to do early digital if it was so inconvenient. When did the cost and flexibility advantages start to really kick in?
Re: Netflix’s Media Production Suite
#79I read through that whole article thinking, - I wonder what the UI looks like compared to tools I use now - I wonder if there will be a free tier, since my video needs are modest It never occurred to me until I reached the end that this wasn't a "enjoy this tool we made" post, but instead a "look how awesome we are" post. :-/
Hi there, I'm a fellow filmmaker building my own tools and would love to hear your thoughts and needs. If you'd like (and anyone reading this), please email Studios at weedonandscott dot com
Re: Netflix’s Media Production Suite
#80The tech is cool, but it seems like the main result of having such a pipeline is that Netflix has been able to produce an incredible amount of low-effort schlock that mostly lacks soul and artistic merit.
That is, it used to be (80s/90s) a lot more obvious what the prestige/not prestige boundary was. Cheap TV content (soaps etc) was shot on video, expensive content shot on film. Now everything looks the same. Perhaps the one remaining effort signal was lighting, but Netflix seem to have chosen very flat bright lighting styles for everything now. Bad news for us chiaroscuro lovers. And even when directors do try to do that, they've often over-estimated the HDR so you get the opposite: an entire series which is too dark.