Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Approved Cameras

partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 315 posts

Re: Approved Cameras

#111

Post by vanilla_nut »

mdoms wrote: post #38
OliverJones wrote: post #15

This means Netflix operates as a production and post studio for their many and talented film-makers. The stuff with the red N on the poster -- some of it is REALLY good -- uses Netflix-operated handling. Any video production goes through a lot of steps from raw studio footage to edited, finished product. This web site says that Netflix processes and people handle a lot of that. Also it looks like 4K is their minimum…

> The stuff with the red N on the poster -- some of it is REALLY good An overwhelming majority of it is total garbage. It's such a bad ratio that I treat the red N as a negative signal when I'm choosing something.

The McDonald's of TV show production. With very, very few exceptions (Midnight Mass, maybe?) I at least know what I'm getting into: designed-by-committee, very very "safe", out of place (most likely contracted) references to other Netflix shows to try to cross-pollinate viewers... not exactly a recipe for success.

Similar to how Amazon Originals now seem synonymous with "we cut the writer's outline from 12 episodes to 6, enjoy the rushed character and plot development!"

Re: Approved Cameras

#112

Post by Tomdarkness »

The technical quality of Netflix originals is really high. One thing that annoys me though is for some reason despite having rigorous standards for the camera it seems a common trend through numerous Netflix Originals to use the Vantage Hawk V-Lite Vintage '74 line of anamorphic lenses. I guess it's a stylistic choice but it results is some (for me at least) annoying image distortion that can really distract from the show. They are literally described at claiming the flaws are a feature: "The Vintage’74 version has certain gentle aberrations and other characteristics that might be considered flaws by others but are welcomed storytelling tools for cinematographers"

You can see this is some example footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhbRkoeNb9U

Note the distortion and blurred top and bottom of the image.

Re: Approved Cameras

#113

Post by OJFord »

dylan604 wrote: post #97
colechristensen wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you used actual film it was long lengths of the stuff, hence footage. Lots of words have weird no longer relevant sources. Like “logs”.

It's becoming less and less of a thing as film is used less and less, but some of the older NLEs would allow you to view your time as feet+frames and allowing to specify between 35mm and 16mm. Film was also sold by the foot. You didn't by film by 15 minutes. You bought film by 1000' rolls (35mm).

> Film was also sold by the foot. You didn't by film by 15 minutes. You bought film by 1000' rolls (35mm).

But that just makes sense doesn't it? It's only 15 minutes' worth if you run it at 1000'/15m.

Re: Approved Cameras

#114

Post by dylan604 »

kunai wrote: post #99
dylan604 wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It was always standard to acquire at higher resolution than being delivered. Hell, they shot 35mm film for SD for decades, 16mm for non-extravagent budgets. The first use of 4k wasn't for 4k delivery, but for single camera shoot of talking head reframing. Full frame for the wide, cropped in for the MED/CU shots. Larger image also allows for cleaner image stabilization. Allows for more detail on pulling keys in post,…

> Hell, they shot 35mm film for SD for decades I'm not sure this is the case. Low-ISO cinema 35mm film (like Kodak VisionT 50D/250D) far exceeds SD resolution. How do you think Star Wars was ever scanned into 4k? Or 2001: A Space Odyssey? Film captures highlight detail logarithmically as well, while digital sensors still haven't really figured out how to render highlights well. This allows greater shadow detail with…

Maybe you misinterpretted what I was meaning. What you quoted from my post was meant as saying they took all of the image from a 35mm frame just to shoot a measly SD image. That's like shooting 4k to deliver SD. It's seemingly way overkill.

>That type of use case seems better suited for mini-DV or other contemporary video formats.

You realize that people were shooting film for TV production long long before DV was ever invented right?

Re: Approved Cameras

#115

Post by Turing_Machine »

threeseed wrote: post #76
mdoms wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The stuff with the red N on the poster -- some of it is REALLY good An overwhelming majority of it is total garbage. It's such a bad ratio that I treat the red N as a negative signal when I'm choosing something.

> total garbage Which historically correlates with commercial success. It's why Netflix is more than happy to green-light awful shows such as Emily in Paris.

Definitely.

McDonalds grosses a helluva lot more than Wolfgang Puck -- $19.21 billion vs $57.50 million.

Re: Approved Cameras

#116

Post by tuankiet65 »

On their anime production requirements (https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360...):

> The working resolution must be 1920x1080 or higher throughout the production, including drawing, scanning, background, CG and VFX.

At least a few years ago, there was a belief that most anime were produced at under 1080p, then upscaled if necessary. Therefore 1080p anime didn't offer and advantages compared to 720p releases. I wonder if this is still true to this day.

Re: Approved Cameras

#117

Post by shiftpgdn »

kaczordon wrote: post #109
OliverJones wrote: post #15

This means Netflix operates as a production and post studio for their many and talented film-makers. The stuff with the red N on the poster -- some of it is REALLY good -- uses Netflix-operated handling. Any video production goes through a lot of steps from raw studio footage to edited, finished product. This web site says that Netflix processes and people handle a lot of that. Also it looks like 4K is their minimum…

> Also it looks like 4K is their minimum standard now. I bet the higher resolution makes it easier, with big*ss GPUs to clean up the raw footage. Resolution is far less important than bit color depth. We barely need 4K(Alexa used to be 2K) much less 8K footage for something to look good on a tv.

Sure is nice to crop in though.

Re: Approved Cameras

#118

Post by jefftk »

wmf wrote: post #52
baxtr wrote: post #21

Top of the list is Munich based ARRI. A fascinating story by itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arri

The really interesting part is that ARRI Alexa was pretty much the #1 camera in Hollywood but Netflix won't accept it because it's not 4K.

The original Alexa, yes, but that's from 2010.

Re: Approved Cameras

#119

Post by dylan604 »

OJFord wrote: post #113
dylan604 wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's becoming less and less of a thing as film is used less and less, but some of the older NLEs would allow you to view your time as feet+frames and allowing to specify between 35mm and 16mm. Film was also sold by the foot. You didn't by film by 15 minutes. You bought film by 1000' rolls (35mm).

> Film was also sold by the foot. You didn't by film by 15 minutes. You bought film by 1000' rolls (35mm). But that just makes sense doesn't it? It's only 15 minutes' worth if you run it at 1000'/15m.

Yes, I was just mentioning that for those that might not be aware.

Developing your film was also charged by the foot. The soup didn't care about your framerate. Just how much was need to process.

Re: Approved Cameras

#120

Post by rectang »

kaczordon wrote: post #109
OliverJones wrote: post #15

This means Netflix operates as a production and post studio for their many and talented film-makers. The stuff with the red N on the poster -- some of it is REALLY good -- uses Netflix-operated handling. Any video production goes through a lot of steps from raw studio footage to edited, finished product. This web site says that Netflix processes and people handle a lot of that. Also it looks like 4K is their minimum…

> Also it looks like 4K is their minimum standard now. I bet the higher resolution makes it easier, with big*ss GPUs to clean up the raw footage. Resolution is far less important than bit color depth. We barely need 4K(Alexa used to be 2K) much less 8K footage for something to look good on a tv.

I would think that capturing at higher resolutions makes it feasible to crop and zoom? In digital production, you always want to work at high resolution for all intermediate stages, then reduce bit depth only during the final output stage.

When I worked in music production a while back, we often had the problem of source material recorded at low amplitude to 16-bit media (e.g. DAT, CDDA, ADAT). While 16-bit is theoretically sufficient, in the real world you need headroom while recording in order to avoid clipping. So we'd often wind up with grungy sound from inadequate bit-depth during capture and intermediate production.

Post reply on HN