Live data from Hacker News

Approved Cameras

partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com

171–180 of 315 posts

Re: Approved Cameras

#171

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…

Oh thanks. I thought I was crazy because I could notice the blur on the bottom and top of the screen but not anywhere else. I thought "Maybe they did this so the subtitles have a better contrast" but I found it stupid. At least it was done for artistic motives...

Re: Approved Cameras

#172
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does low pass filter mean in the context of video (i understand in audio)?

Downscaling or blurring - these are the same thing if you pretend it’s bandlimited. Which it isn’t of course.

The signal is typically bandlimited by hardware — the optics and sensor. When it's not, you get weird effects, though that's rare because cameras have optical low pass filters to avoid this.

When they don't, like the Canon 5D mark ii when used in video mode (which just threw out most of the sensor's pixels to get to 1080p), you get aliasing producing moire patterns like this:

https://youtu.be/dMHDB5fG6ys?t=218

Re: Approved Cameras

#173

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.

It's probably too blur out any imperfections in the background green screen, or to hide any uncanny valley lack of detail in the CG set. It's become basically standard practice to use a CG set of some kind in almost everything, because it's cheaper than shooting on site or on a fully detailed sound stage.

Re: Approved Cameras

#174
post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

What other language(s) is that word used in?

It's a moderately rare word in everyday spoken English.

Re: Approved Cameras

#175
post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Maybe, but crazy shallow DoF goes back at least to Kubrick famously shooting parts of Barry Lyndon at f0.7.

Re: Approved Cameras

#176
post #167
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.

Most stuff on Github is garbage as well, but all the best projects are there.

This analogy doesn’t hold since the best projects aren’t on Netflix. HBO’s TV catalog destroys Netflix from a quality and critical acclaim perspective. I can’t even think of a Netflix show I’d consider to be HBO-level quality.

Re: Approved Cameras

#177
Netflix is like an in-flight entertainment system. There's really nothing there you genuinely want to watch, but here you are, you might as well watch something.

Every once in a while, they do have a good show. And even that sucks, because you know they will now ruin it by adding 3 seasons where absolutely nothing happens.

And there's the woke thing spreading its wings. Even in the Witcher, where it's perfectly fine to behead people and burn down villages, but one most not engage in acts of "toxic masculinity", by making dismissive remarks at women. This requires a lengthy dialogue to correct.

Yes, I should cancel.

Re: Approved Cameras

#178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of rental but the real scarcity is in certain lenses, which don't really become obsolete in the same way. Arri puts out a new Alexa and you can maybe get one if you have a hundred grand in your pocket, but there are some master primes or legacy sets that are simply not for sale.

Surely legacy lenses can be reproduced (or modelled digitally!) so that it is impossible to tell the difference. For the component lenses don't you 'just' use the same refractive index and make it the same shape? We can make microchips for a few quid but a metal tube with a few small lumps of shaped glass costs 10,000 times as much? Seems unlikely. Is it a fashion thing, like unless it has the right logo on the lens…

Unfortunately it isn’t that simple. A lot of these lenses are expensive not just due to rarity but from the shear complexity and difficulty in producing them. Some can take literally months of production time. They frequently contain dozens of pieces of specialised glass which are ground to tolerances measured in nanometers. The way the light interacts with these lenses is simply not something that you can simulate. At least not on anything less than a decent sized supercomputer.

And the reason you want one of these expensive lenses, is that they can do things that other lenses physically cannot and can never be persuaded to do.

The famous Carl Zeiss Planar 50 mm f0. 7 lens used in Barry Lyndon is special because it can physically let more light into your camera than any other lens. That’s why nasa commissioned a set of them from Zeiss to use in filming the moon landing.

Re: Approved Cameras

#179

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…

> (Footage? WTF? Video measured by distance? Maybe we should say "frameage" or "pix.")

I'll start saying one of those when my phone dialer icon stops looking like a Western Electric Model 500 handset.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model_500_telephone

Re: Approved Cameras

#180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a lot of rental but the real scarcity is in certain lenses, which don't really become obsolete in the same way. Arri puts out a new Alexa and you can maybe get one if you have a hundred grand in your pocket, but there are some master primes or legacy sets that are simply not for sale.

Surely legacy lenses can be reproduced (or modelled digitally!) so that it is impossible to tell the difference. For the component lenses don't you 'just' use the same refractive index and make it the same shape? We can make microchips for a few quid but a metal tube with a few small lumps of shaped glass costs 10,000 times as much? Seems unlikely. Is it a fashion thing, like unless it has the right logo on the lens…

The lenses are expensive because they're made to very exacting standards but also they're a low volume product line. A cinema lens is hand-assembled from hundreds of components that must be aligned to extremely fine precision, with a lot of human-in-the-loop workflows requiring trained technicians. Why optics are expensive is a long and deep conversation.

As for quality, the highest of high end lenses are much sharper for a given f-stop, and sometimes have higher t-stop ratings, than cheaper lenses you can get. They will look consistent through all focus settings, and won't "breathe" (zoom while focusing). The lenses also come as a matched set, so you can switch between focal lengths and the images look the same -- no color shift or aesthetic change. This puts a huge number of constraints on the lens designer, requiring different materials and manufacturing processes. Cinema lenses aren't irrationally priced, even if the demand is driven by aesthetics.

And yes, modern lens designers could probably recreate classic lenses. No, it's not economically viable, even at outrageous prices. (Because you can digitally fake most of the obvious artifacts, and the few people who really care about the in-camera look aren't enough to justify the engineering cost.)

There may also be a minor materials issue; some of the glass used in very old lenses was pretty exotic, some were even mildly radioactive. It's possible those glasses are not available since there are better replacement options in glass catalogs now. But this is just speculative, I haven't tried to source thorium glass. (Yet?)

Post reply on HN