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

131–140 of 247 posts

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

#131

Post by mschuster91 »

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…

> ST:TNG and Babylon 5 both suffered badly from loss of the original VFX.

Yeah, Star Trek (VOY/DS9) suffers really on Netflix - I wonder what they chose as source - straight DVD rips? The intro of VOY, for example, has weird color artefacts when the deflector dish of Voyager flies by the camera.

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

#132

Post by mschuster91 »

Havoc wrote: post #126
cabs wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Really? I don't see any tangible reason why a low framerate would be superior to a higher one.

Bandwidth and data transfer, for example - also many devices eat through battery like nothing else when you feed them with high-framerate stuff, and old-ish TVs may not support high-framerate material properly.

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

#133

Post by SwellJoe »

Dpackers wrote: post #4

This is Netflix setting the standard for the whole industry.

How so? There's an entire film and television distribution industry that (currently) dwarfs Netflix in scale. They all have their own requirements, though usually not written out with such clarity.

And, these are not onerous requirements. They ensure good quality but don't impose significant costs. There are several cameras here for under $10k, which was unheard of even a decade or two ago; when I worked in television in college (20 years ago), the cameras in the studio cost ~$80,000 each, and the decks we edited on cost ~$25,000 each.

If you're making a show specifically for Netflix, you follow these guidelines; if not, you can make it however you want, but these aren't terrible or adding significantly to the cost of a production. I mean, there are several line items on most productions that'll be more than the camera. And, in post-production, resolution and file size barely matters today; a computer can chew through 4k almost as easily as 1080p, and multi-terabyte hard disks are cheap-as-free.

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

#134

Post by danudey »

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 spoke to a director friend of mine a few years back about shooting in 4K. He says that when he works (whenever budget allows), he would always shoot in 5K, not because he wanted the extra resolution for the full frame but because he wanted the ability to crop the shot down without losing resolution. Some shots would be scaled down from 5K to 4K, but others would be cropped to 'zoom in', or allow for minor panning that wasn't present in the original camera work.

8K presumably provides the same benefits but to a greater scale; you can scale it down to 4K, you can 'zoom in' on parts of the shot (such as a subtle detail, a pickpocket stealing a wallet for example) without having to use a second camera or record the shot twice, and so on.

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

#135

Post by cosinetau »

chavesn wrote: post #119
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…

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,…

Enhance!

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

#136

Post by greedo »

SwellJoe wrote: post #130
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 thi…

You're not counting the cost of glass for these cameras. Glass can be insanely expensive.

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

#137

Post by mozumder »

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…

4k and 8k is going to be more useful with large and extremely large screen sizes. HD is perfectly designed for traditional TV use cases - with a screen on a table in a living room.

4k and 8k means a completely different use model, like a giant wall-sized screen in the same living room. It's the difference between a movie theatre and an IMAX movie theatre.

When that happens, cinematography can expect to be different, sorta like IMAX movies have different cinematography. Sometimes they even composite multiple HD films together on screen without losing resolution. This would actually be extremely useful for sports, where the background shows the entire field at 8k, with windows showing stats or replays, etc..

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

#138

Post by Houshalter »

coldtea wrote: post #111
L_Rahman wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even ${hollywood-bigshot} = Bong Joon-Ho who made a movie for Netflix that premiered at Cannes film festival wasn't allowed shoot on film: http://variety.com/2017/film/news/bong-joon-ho-working-with-... At first, Darius Khondji, my cinematographer, and I wanted to shoot ‘Okja’ on 35mm, but Netflix insisted that all Netflix originals be shot and archived in 4K,” Bong said in an interview with Variety

> Even ${hollywood-bigshot} = Bong Joon-Ho who made a movie for Netflix that premiered at Cannes film festival wasn't allowed shoot on film That's just BS on Netflix's side though. They still feature all kind of non-Netflix movies that are shot on film.

Netflix has even added amateur youtube series to their collection. With low resolution and terrible audio quality etc. They have no control over content they don't produce. Doesn't mean they can't set standards for the things they pay to produce.

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

#139

Post by SwellJoe »

greedo wrote: post #136
SwellJoe wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 thi…

You're not counting the cost of glass for these cameras. Glass can be insanely expensive.

Yeah, I looked up some of the cameras, and it looks like the Sony FS7 can be had in a bundle with a 28-135mm lens for around $10k. I wasn't leaving it out...I think $10k is in the category of "amazingly cheap for a camera suitable for professional film and television production".

Sure, if you wanted to shoot beautiful cinematography, you'd want more lens options. But, if you're running on a budget, you could shoot a whole film with that one lens, and it'd still look better than most television shot in the 90s-00s.

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

#140

Post by Mister_Snuggles »

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…

> 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 access the settings. There would be a handful of audio outputs, and a switch to disable the internal speakers, which would allow it to feed into an audio system for those that like to have that separate. It would come in a variety of sizes, but only in 4K or 8K resolution.

This doesn't have a tuner or any TV-specific features, nor does it have any of the Smart TV stuff. People who need those are not the target market for this TV.

I wish this was a thing that existed.

Post reply on HN