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

181–190 of 247 posts

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

#181

Post by baby »

matt-attack wrote: post #93
ClassyJacket wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hogwash. Films are 24fps because that's how fast the cameras and projectors run and that's what people are used to. If what you were saying was true it would be by far the most unlikely coincidence that has ever occurred in the universe that almost every movie ever made chose precisely the same impressionist style.

Actually 24fps was chosen as a balance between audio fidelity and trying to save on film cost. I never said it was designed from conception to create that look. It's a great example of a happy accident, or serendipity.

Cool :) can we have 60fps movies now that the technology is here?

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

#182

Post by baby »

monkeyprojects wrote: post #15
fenwick67 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's why he said "in the future", when people might eventually realize that 60FPS is good.

All 3 hobbit movies where released in the high frame rate format (albeit 48 frames not 60) and the general complaint was that they felt "soap opera"ry due to the way people felt about them. https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnarcher/2014/12/16/hate-the-... Is a decent commentary on the issue

They looked amazing to me and I had the reverse feeling afterwards when watching a 24fps movie. For some time they looked slow and stuttering/laggy until I got used to them again. Can't wait for more 48/60 fps movies ^^

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

#183

Post by Corrado »

cakedoggie wrote: post #169
Houshalter wrote: post #141

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They did this to some of the star trek series. Some scenes you can see things that were not meant to be seen. E.g. here Kirk and Khan are arguing, and then suddenly two people dressed like them start fighting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=B_c... I can't find it now, but I believe they even redid some of the early CG effects by just rerendering the old models with modern software. It's wort…

What is the vid you send supposed to show?

I think the point the parent was trying to make was that 4K resolution can be detrimental. You can plainly see that the two actors that play the original characters didn't actually perform the fight scene. In the original broadcast the resolution was so low that makeup and effects didn't really have to be that great in order to work.

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

#184

Post by baby »

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.

People are used to 24fps and don't want to change. The same thing happened when we transitionned to sound or films in colors. Fortunately some directors don't care about this and will probably pave the way for the next generations (james cameron, peter jackson)

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

#185

Post by baby »

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.

So were black&white movies.

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

#186

Post by baby »

DanBC wrote: post #81
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.

I have never watched a tv show show and thought "You know what this needs? Not better writing, plotting, story arcs, acting, or directing, but more frames per second or a higher resolution".

Really? Everytime I watch an action movie and can't understand anything I wish it had more fps.

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

#187

Post by dood »

Animats wrote: post #167

James Cameron ("Avatar", "Titanic", etc.) used to argue that high frame rate was more important than higher resolution. If you're not in the first few rows of the theater, he once pointed out, you can't tell if it's 4K anyway. Everyone in the theater benefits from high frame rate. This may be less of an issue now that more people are watching on high-resolution screens at short range. Cameron likes long pans over bea…

4k is less resolution than 35mm film, which was used very successfully for most of the history of cinema. Chris Nolan shot Interstellar & his Batman films on 70mm, which exceeds 8k resolution.

So I think you're quite wrong about 4k being "too much resolution for closeups" or being "incompatible with... shorter shot lengths".

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

#188

Post by richardknop »

HappyKasper wrote: post #170
Animats wrote: post #167

James Cameron ("Avatar", "Titanic", etc.) used to argue that high frame rate was more important than higher resolution. If you're not in the first few rows of the theater, he once pointed out, you can't tell if it's 4K anyway. Everyone in the theater benefits from high frame rate. This may be less of an issue now that more people are watching on high-resolution screens at short range. Cameron likes long pans over bea…

You neglect to mention the fact that we are so used to seeing 24 fps that anything above it doesn't look like a movie. Why do home videos have that "home video" look? The biggest reason is the 60 fps frame rate - it just doesn't feel cinematic. Even the 48 fps of the Hobbit films felt too "lifelike" and not cinematic enough. A lot of prominent directors, as you've mentioned, say they'd like to move towards a world wi…

Is this a real concern of ordinary people? I am not a movie expert, just somebody who watches movies a lot and I have never thought to myself "this new movie with 48fps doesn't look like a movie, it's too lifelike, not cinematic enough".

I assume people who think like that would be very marginal minority of movie experts. I don't believe average viewer would even think of such argument.

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

#189

Post by Svenskunganka »

HappyKasper wrote: post #170
Animats wrote: post #167

James Cameron ("Avatar", "Titanic", etc.) used to argue that high frame rate was more important than higher resolution. If you're not in the first few rows of the theater, he once pointed out, you can't tell if it's 4K anyway. Everyone in the theater benefits from high frame rate. This may be less of an issue now that more people are watching on high-resolution screens at short range. Cameron likes long pans over bea…

You neglect to mention the fact that we are so used to seeing 24 fps that anything above it doesn't look like a movie. Why do home videos have that "home video" look? The biggest reason is the 60 fps frame rate - it just doesn't feel cinematic. Even the 48 fps of the Hobbit films felt too "lifelike" and not cinematic enough. A lot of prominent directors, as you've mentioned, say they'd like to move towards a world wi…

When I first watched the Hobbit, I didn't really notice any difference other than pan-intensive scenes didn't look as washed out. I don't recall thinking it was too lifelike or realistic. When I heard that it was because it had a higher framerate, I decided to start using frame interpolation via SVP[0] on my video player to artificially create more frames between each original frame, and I'm really happy. It isn't perfect, in some scenes there can be artifacts, but it mostly looks great. In action-packed fighting scenes you can finally see what's happening, and not just one big mush of colored abstracts.

I liked it so much that I even went out of my way to buy a TV that had a built-in frame interpolation that's been said to be better than most other high-end TVs.

[0]: https://www.svp-team.com/wiki/Main_Page

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

#190

Post by foldr »

dood wrote: post #187
Animats wrote: post #167

James Cameron ("Avatar", "Titanic", etc.) used to argue that high frame rate was more important than higher resolution. If you're not in the first few rows of the theater, he once pointed out, you can't tell if it's 4K anyway. Everyone in the theater benefits from high frame rate. This may be less of an issue now that more people are watching on high-resolution screens at short range. Cameron likes long pans over bea…

4k is less resolution than 35mm film, which was used very successfully for most of the history of cinema. Chris Nolan shot Interstellar & his Batman films on 70mm, which exceeds 8k resolution. So I think you're quite wrong about 4k being "too much resolution for closeups" or being "incompatible with... shorter shot lengths".

4K is about 25MP. That's around the resolution limit of 35mm film in still photography. The exposed area is considerably smaller in movies as the film is run vertically rather than horizontally.
Post reply on HN