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

201–210 of 247 posts

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

#201

Post by dood »

foldr wrote: post #190
dood wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Without getting into the old and terribly complicated film vs digital argument, I think it's widely agreed that 35mm and 4k are at least in the same ballpark of resolution, and that IMAX exceeds 4k, so I maintain that shooting 4k does not present any new issues around closeups or quick cuts.

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

#202

Post by neukoelln »

foldr wrote: post #190
dood wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is it 25 MP? 4096 × 2160 pixels = 8.8 MP.

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

#203

Post by Havoc »

mschuster91 wrote: post #132
Havoc wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

>Bandwidth and data transfer

The bitrate is specified in the specs so that's not it.

>old-ish TVs may not support high-framerate material properly

These are the specs for how it's shot not how it's broadcast.

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

#204

Post by Havoc »

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".

Bit of a false dichotomy but OK. I want my movies to have all of the above, including more frames.

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

#205

Post by imeron »

neukoelln wrote: post #202
foldr wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is it 25 MP? 4096 × 2160 pixels = 8.8 MP.

If you do that for three colors separately that is around 25MP.

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

#206

Post by foldr »

neukoelln wrote: post #202
foldr wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How is it 25 MP? 4096 × 2160 pixels = 8.8 MP.

Oh, oops, I thought 4k referred to the vertical resolution. In that case, yeah, film possibly has a bit more resolution still.

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

#207

Post by iampliny »

cracell wrote: post #153
mprovost wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

I'm not familiar with modern VFX software. But couldn't you just take a snapshot of the server and then load that onto a box in the future if you wanted to re-render it?

Archive-by-VM has been attempted from time to time. In the case of VFX there isn't a single server, but many different workstations, servers, render blades, etc. So preserving the entire pipeline in amber is a challenge.

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

#208

Post by iampliny »

objclxt wrote: post #62
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…

> 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 Netflix? In terms of resolution, no. Standard 35mm can produce a good quality 4K transfer (depending on the speed of the film you're using), and if you shoot on VistaVision (which is where you use 35mm film but rotate it 90 degrees) can go even higher. Of co…

3:1 would be an extremely low -- I've never seen a shooting ratio that low in my life. Shooting just 4.5 hours of footage for a 1.5 hour film, for example, is unheard of.

Even a 10:1 shooting ratio was pretty low for indie features in the 35mm days. Nowadays it's not uncommon to see shooting ratios upwards of 30:1 on digitally acquired productions. (Although that number varies a lot with the director.)

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

#209

Post by mprovost »

iampliny wrote: post #207
cracell wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not familiar with modern VFX software. But couldn't you just take a snapshot of the server and then load that onto a box in the future if you wanted to re-render it?

Archive-by-VM has been attempted from time to time. In the case of VFX there isn't a single server, but many different workstations, servers, render blades, etc. So preserving the entire pipeline in amber is a challenge.

And, somebody has to pay for it. The producers of the current project won't allocate any of their budget to preserve something for a (hypothetical) future sequel/re-release - that is somebody else's problem. The only places that I know of that do a decent job with archiving are animation houses like Pixar that own their own IP.

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

#210

Post by baby »

aninhumer wrote: post #191
richardknop wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not a technical argument they make, it's just a gut reaction to 48fps looking different. The fact that it's more lifelike can actually make it feel fake, because it can feel like you're watching actors on a set. Personally I do think people will get over it eventually, especially for less "cinematic" stuff. Or possibly variable framerate will become a thing, and directors will choose different framerates for dif…

> The fact that it's more lifelike can actually make it feel fake, because it can feel like you're watching actors on a set.

I personally didn't get that feeling either. Just got a feeling of "it looks better". Especially that dragon scene.

> variable framerate will become a thing

It already is a thing with slow motions, but it is not what you're thinking of.

Have you ever tried to do slow motion with a 30fps video? It doesn't look good. So your idea will probably look bad, inserting 24fps sequences in a 60fps movie will just look laggy.

Post reply on HN