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

231–240 of 315 posts

Re: Approved Cameras

#231

Post by m-ee »

rectang wrote: post #149
ace2358 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 limita…

I had the privilege of visiting the van Gelder studio in high school. I asked him about analog vs digital and surprisingly he said he was all in on digital and spending his days remastering his old work with modern tools.

Re: Approved Cameras

#232

Post by KerrAvon »

livinginfear wrote: post #147

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.

Looking for blueprints for Jewish space lasers, are we?

Re: Approved Cameras

#233

Post by dylan604 »

daggerdrone wrote: post #227
dylan604 wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You times how many millions of other users?

How does that matter? They are just stating how much value they are getting out of $10.

it just goes to show how these large budgets are possible. nothing nefarious to see here.

Re: Approved Cameras

#234

Post by YPPH »

snissn wrote: post #128

curious - does anyone know the least expensive camera on their approved list? It's a lot for me to look up price for each one

I was going to ask the same thing if no one else had.

Re: Approved Cameras

#235

Post by YPPH »

trevortheblack wrote: post #136
snissn wrote: post #128

curious - does anyone know the least expensive camera on their approved list? It's a lot for me to look up price for each one

Buying second-hand prices will always be variable, But the cheapest brand new are probably Panasonic BGH1 - $2k Panasonic S1H - $3.7k Canon C70 - $5.5k Blackmagic Ursa - $6k

Thanks for that! Not as bad as I would have thought.

Re: Approved Cameras

#236

Post by sydthrowaway »

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…

Are you kidding? They look very cheap

Re: Approved Cameras

#237

Post by astrange »

NavinF wrote: post #221
astrange wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also, video is not actually bandlimited so the supposedly perfect filter isn’t actually perfect; you can do a better nonlinear one.

What does a better filter look like?

Selective Gaussian blur or hq2x are examples of image filters.

Font hinting is an example of a nonlinear downscaling though most people don’t think of it that way. It preserves line sharpness, which is a non-bandlimited feature since lines are infinitely sharp = made of infinite frequencies.

Overly sharp linear filters produce artifacts like blockiness and ringing; nonlinear ones would try to avoid that but you could still get more difficult ones like moiré.

Re: Approved Cameras

#238

Post by JeremyNT »

xuhu wrote: post #150
nullify88 wrote: post #127

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.

Is this at least partly due to higher resolution / larger displays? Better quality displays with higher resolution sources will make a difference between out-of-focus and in-focus more apparent.

Re: Approved Cameras

#239

Post by bagacrap »

docflabby wrote: post #163

They probably do better to put more work into writing a guide for approved writers. So many (many) shows with great actors completely let down by terrible scripts....

yes but this has worked to create uniformly beautiful "netflix original" documentaries

Re: Approved Cameras

#240

Post by tshaddox »

rectang wrote: post #149
ace2358 wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 limita…

How much post-production dynamic range do you really need/want for live jazz recordings? Surely 50 dB would be plenty, and even that would be pretty impractical to listen to except in very quiet environments. Wouldn’t 16 bit digital audio easily give you 50 dB of usable dynamic range and still have like another 50 dB of headroom?
Post reply on HN