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

121–130 of 247 posts

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

#121

Post by coldtea »

UnoriginalGuy wrote: post #113
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…

If resolution was the only metric, that makes sense. But reality is that we're seeing higher color depth ("HDR"), higher framerates, higher quality sound streams (e.g. Dolby Atmos and beyond), and even technologies we aren't envisioning today because the hardware isn't "there" yet. If 8K is only a resolution bump, then boring, but it may be much more than that. 4K is.

Actually it's the reverse situation.

Shoting on lower resolution gives you better color depth/accuracy AND higher framerates to chose from.

It gives better color because (all other things being the same) signal and color accuracy degrade with higher resolution -- less photons "hit" each diode on the sensor.

And there's literally no digital cinema or amateur camera that doesn't allow for much higher framerates in lower resolutions than it does on higher resolutions. That's because the higher the resolution the more taxing it is for the sensor and processor in the camera to keep up with high frame rates. 4K x N fps means 4 times more volume than 1080p x N fps.

Lastly, sound is totally orthogonal, because that's recorded off camera with special recorders.

So we might be getting better color depth and sound quality lately, but that's not because we moved to higher resolution.

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

#122

Post by hrktb »

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 than can be used to display anything. For that we'd need to come at least to retina level of text rendering from any comfortable distance. That should mean 8k as standard def in my book.

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

#123

Post by mprovost »

iampliny wrote: post #66
mmastrac wrote: post #3

This likely gives them confidence that if they were to remaster for a different color-space or higher resolution, that they could. For a 4K original shot in 8K, Netflix could send it back through the production process for a more reasonable cost and be able to launch the title quickly. I'm surprised they don't ask for VFX sources to be archived though. ST:TNG and Babylon 5 both suffered badly from loss of the origina…

Most VFX shots loop through not one but several software packages. Sometimes even through multiple VFX vendors. Project files are proprietary and become inaccessible over time. And different VFX houses write their own add-ons that are not shared with a vendor like Netflix. So collecting VFX shots in a pre-rendered state is notoriously difficult. Doesn't mean it's not worth trying. But you'll probably end up with vari…

Often you can't reliably re-render shots from a few months earlier on the same project due to the pipeline changing so rapidly. Nevermind going back to the tapes for files that probably came off Irix workstations originally. The file formats for assets (models and textures) are backwards compatible enough that you can usually reconstruct models and maybe animation. So having an archive of the original files doesn't mean that you can re-render at higher resolutions without a lot of effort. The originals would need to be redone with more detail in any case to benefit from the higher resolution.

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

#124

Post by sverhagen »

eponeponepon wrote: post #46

That's beautifully clear - I wish I worked with specifications so lucid. I've got almost no real knowledge of the field it's governing, but I believe I would know how to successfully shoot some footage that Netflix would accept off the back of reading it. One thing intrigues me though - albeit likely a function of my lack of knowledge on the matter - do these requirements implicitly rule out shooting on film for Netf…

I don't know for real, since it's not my field. But generally any field that you start digging into turns out to have its complexities, that you may not have expected. While this looks pretty decent to the layman's eye, if I got this level of detail for the software projects I work on, it would also be much better than what I normally get to work off of, but I still would have plenty of room for interpretation.

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

#126

Post by Havoc »

cabs wrote: post #92
Havoc wrote: post #80

Can someone explain the 24fps to me? It seems out of place old-school in light of the 4K & 240Mbps etc.

24fps - these days - is less about technology and more about standards and aesthetic. There are plenty of reasons why films have been shot in 24fps for the past handful of decades. When you start increasing that in YOUR film, you lose a sense of familiarity in your audience and their (subconcious) willingness for suspension of disbelief probably goes away with it.

> There are plenty of reasons why films have been shot in 24fps for the past handful of decades.

Really? I don't see any tangible reason why a low framerate would be superior to a higher one. Even on a very basic level high framerate is superior to low framerate and 24 is well...the absolute minimum.

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

#127

Post by [deleted] »

ahakki wrote: post #77
kuschku wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is simply motion blur. You can just shoot in 60fps with a shutter as you’d use for 24fps, you get all the feeling, all the motion blur, and none of the chopiness.

That is simply not possible. While it is possible to render a digital scene at 60fps with any arbitrary shutter speed (e.g. 1/48s the default 180° shutter used in 24fps film productions), it is not possible in real life with a real camera. There are only 48 48ths in each second and you will not be able to start a new frame while you are still capturing the one before it. 60fps limits your availible shutterspeeds to a…

[deleted]

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

#128

Post by Havoc »

sitharus wrote: post #84
Havoc wrote: post #80

Can someone explain the 24fps to me? It seems out of place old-school in light of the 4K & 240Mbps etc.

It's not a requirement, just a specification of minimum bit rate. Most movies are still presented at 24fps because higher frame rates apparently look different. The Hobbit was released in 60 fps and the reception by critics was mixed. Personally I don't see it but I'm no expert.

>It's not a requirement, just a specification of minimum bit rate.

Sure. Why not specify a progressive 60fps though. Every second fkin phone can do 60fps these days...spec'ing future netflix catalogue at 24fps seems very odd.

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

#129

Post by kuschku »

ahakki wrote: post #77
kuschku wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is simply motion blur. You can just shoot in 60fps with a shutter as you’d use for 24fps, you get all the feeling, all the motion blur, and none of the chopiness.

That is simply not possible. While it is possible to render a digital scene at 60fps with any arbitrary shutter speed (e.g. 1/48s the default 180° shutter used in 24fps film productions), it is not possible in real life with a real camera. There are only 48 48ths in each second and you will not be able to start a new frame while you are still capturing the one before it. 60fps limits your availible shutterspeeds to a…

It’s correct that you can’t directly reach the same result, but all media currently produced, for TV and film, is shot at different shutter speeds than it is shown.

As you need to add VFX, basically all content is shot with as fast a shutter as possible, and you add the motion blur back in post. And, as you rightly mentioned, when you do that you can choose any shutter speed in post.

Dealing with motion blur when rotoscoping is a bitch, btw.

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

#130

Post by SwellJoe »

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 this trend Netflix is; they're right out front (Amazon is doing interesting things too, with their pilot voting feature). They're providing the formula for how to make shows for Netflix (which would probably be acceptable across the board at Amazon and whoever else is doing original programming at this level and on this scale).

I really like this kind of openness about technical requirements, because it feels like an open invitation to make things. This, more than any hand-wavey "There's more opportunity for small productions than ever before!" kind of statements feels like an actionable piece of knowledge and a part of any business plan that involves making content for this new market. Democratizing that knowledge by posting it on the web is super cool. It seems small, I guess, but it's a cool indicator of where the market is going.

If I were fresh out of film school, or currently working at a production company, I'd be looking at that and thinking, "I bet I could raise the money I need to put together a pilot to these specifications." You'd still have to put all the pieces together to make a good show/film like you always have, but the technical side of it looks really achievable today in a way that it never has.

Post reply on HN