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

141–150 of 315 posts

Re: Approved Cameras

#141

Post by alias_neo »

Tomdarkness wrote: post #112

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…

I don't know a whole lot about camera lenses, but it's this the reason shows like Sabrina have that extremely annoying distortion/aberration near the edges of the frame but covering almost everything not in focus at close range? I find it extremely jarring.

Edit: grammar

Re: Approved Cameras

#142

Post by germinalphrase »

rbanffy wrote: post #139
rectang wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 theore…

> capturing at higher resolutions makes it feasible to crop and zoom? The more you capture, the more you have to play with at later production stages.

And pay for. Larger data size across the chain isn’t costless.

Re: Approved Cameras

#143

Post by TedShiller »

This is totally arbitrary. Many Nikon cameras match those requirements but are randomly not listed.

You could use an “unapproved” camera and just overwrite the metadata. Nobody would know (unless you’re using an iPhone or something).

Re: Approved Cameras

#144

Post by noahtallen »

hug wrote: post #31
Raidion wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, this isn't for movies that are bought by Netflix from an existing rights holder, it's movies and series that are commissioned by Netflix. It seems reasonable that they'd want to capture as high quality as possible for as much content as possible, as you can always lose quality in post (or distribution). I don't suppose this would preclude directors using cameras that wouldn't work otherwise when needed (like…

You may have mixed up where you're responding to: This particular comment thread is not really about the cameras that are in use, but instead about the sound. (Sound recorded by the camera itself -- if it can even record sound -- is essentially never used.) The problem is that the camera requirements are defined, presumably to try to have some lower bound on the quality of the visuals, there is no requirement for aud…

I think the compression complaint is very fair. It totally negates the excellent camera quality! It doesn’t matter if your camera has excellent dynamic range if dark scenes in Netflix are compressed to shit and look terrible.

Compare to Disney+. As much as I dislike Disney, they have 4K Dolby vision for no extra cost, and quality is excellent. Prime and Netflix could both take examples out of their book. (Some of the compression in recent Amazon shows has also been very bad. For example, the trees in the background of the wheel of time were often a mess of compression artifacts even at 4K.)

Re: Approved Cameras

#145

Post by germinalphrase »

dylan604 wrote: post #107
lekevicius wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not what I expected at all: log (n.2) "record of observations, readings, etc.," 1842, sailor's shortening of log-book "daily record of a ship's speed, progress, etc." (1670s), from log (n.1). The book so called because a wooden float at the end of a line was cast out to measure a ship's speed. General sense by 1913.* So it does have a relationship to the wooden log - it was originally a series of measurements from a…

On set, depending on the size of crew, part of the job for an AC or 1st AC is to make a camera report. Each shot is logged to note things like which lens was used, what filters were used, the height of the camera from the floor, the distance of the film plane to the focus point, the frame rate, aperture, ISO, etc. All of this info can then be used if they needed to do a pick up later to put the camera in the same set…

This may not be universal, but when I was a 2nd AC/Loader - the 1st AC didn’t log anything. Always 2nd AC along with keeping the slate.

Re: Approved Cameras

#146

Post by felixg3 »

mdoms wrote: post #84
bredren wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The streaming services are in strong competition for original content. Sometimes buying exclusive rights to completed work off the shelf. This content seems to get labeled as an "XYZ original," be it Apple, Netflix or something else. Do you differentiate between content greenlit and produced by the streaming services from those purchased? I'm curious because they are two different capabilities and it seems each servi…

Yes, there is a clear quality difference between the stuff they acquire/license (some of which is quite good) and the utter dreck they produce themselves.

I wasn’t aware that „dreck“ is being used in English. TIL

Re: Approved Cameras

#147

Post by livinginfear »

I'd like to see their guidelines for the social content of their productions. Every Netflix production I've seen seems to feature commonly themed social commentary, in some cases more subtle than others.

Re: Approved Cameras

#148

Post by dylan604 »

germinalphrase wrote: post #145
dylan604 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On set, depending on the size of crew, part of the job for an AC or 1st AC is to make a camera report. Each shot is logged to note things like which lens was used, what filters were used, the height of the camera from the floor, the distance of the film plane to the focus point, the frame rate, aperture, ISO, etc. All of this info can then be used if they needed to do a pick up later to put the camera in the same set…

This may not be universal, but when I was a 2nd AC/Loader - the 1st AC didn’t log anything. Always 2nd AC along with keeping the slate.

"depending on size of crew"

To get to 2nd AC, you had a good sized crew

Re: Approved Cameras

#149

Post by rectang »

ace2358 wrote: post #130
rectang wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 theore…

I know recording live music can get hairy, but yikes! How was 16bits not enough? Were all the preamps set to max? Who records at -12db - -6db? Record at a way lower level and boost at the amp stage?

Imagine you're recording highly dynamic music, like Jazz. Clipping is absolutely never OK. You have to leave tons of headroom, there's no other way. So 16 bits is not enough for live capture — especially when the source is dynamic or the recording conditions are chaotic.

The studio I used to work at was one of the first ADAT studios back in the 90s, and they did a lot of rock. One of the ways they got past the limitations of the medium was to compress and limit to tape. You generally don't want to do that unless you have tons of time to set up and get it right (a la Rudy Van Gelder), which was not in most budgets. But it worked well enough and the ADAT recordings out of this studio sounded way better than most.

Mercifully storage has gotten cheaper in the decades since and you really shouldn't capture to 16 bits any more.

Re: Approved Cameras

#150

Post by xuhu »

nullify88 wrote: post #127
Tomdarkness wrote: post #112

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…

Might be related but I'm finding recent TV shows and film to have a really narrow field of focus while the rest of the screen is either blurry like your example or a depth of field effect. My eyes generally wander to look at the surrounding scene or detail but I get the feeling I'm not supposed to be looking there.

To some degree the DoF feels like a trend, there will probably be movies in the 50's made in the Netflix style of the 20's.
Post reply on HN