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

241–247 of 247 posts

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

#241

Post by cududa »

yathern wrote: post #112
coldtea wrote: post #110

To paraphrase Bill Gates (who never actually said the original, but anyway) 4K should be enough for everybody. Having seen 1080p stretch and play nicely on a 30 feet cinema screen, and not being much worse looking from regular Hollywood titles even for front seat viewing, I don't see the allure of 8K even for "future-proofing". Sure, monitors and tvs might improve their resolution in the future. But I don't se human…

For traditional 2D screens, I tend to agree with you - that 4K is quite enough. But for Virtual Reality, these higher definitions are a must. 8K per eye will be much better than 4K per eye - at least that's the thought at the moment.

Mostly agree - but even with a screen displaying 2D, how is different. I get the whole "your eyes can only see n number of pixels" what in the world difference does that make? You can't see individual bits of matter photons are reflected off of, but the collection of mater that builds up that "image" to your eye.

Sure the increase in resolution is "imperceptible" in terms of individual elements building up a particular frame, but to assume a visual cortex can't discern increased detail is just arrogant and borderline laughable

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

#242

Post by Doxin »

cbg0 wrote: post #6
Justin_K wrote: post #5

I wish they'd push for 4K 60FPS so they could upgrade their releases to this in the future.

60 FPS is undesirable for most movies/shows, as opposed to 24 FPS which creates a certain feel that most people prefer.

Honestly, having been immersed in a lot of 60fps content for a while, going to a movie theater and having it be 24fps was rather jarring. It strikes me as odd that they are heavily advertising high quality surround sound and 4k laser projectors while leaving the low hanging fruit of frame rate.

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

#243

Post by baby »

cududa wrote: post #240
baby wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because ordinary people don't spend the time to appreciate it, it just look too different for them. Exactly how color movies looked too different at the time.

You're pretty wrong here. Critics panes color movies, consumers like them. This is the inverse of that.

Not true. This pattern is the same you saw with iPhone "nobody would use that" or CDs or ipads, or video games or ... there are always people who are against progress.

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

#244

Post by KaiserPro »

baby wrote: post #231
KaiserPro wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The number of cinemas that can display 48fps is not great, the number of cinemas that can display 60fps is zero? any cinema that can do 3D can do 48FPS, at least. RealD uses a single projector, with an electrically controlled circular polarising filter on the front. This is why 3D in cinema for any kind of action is terrible, because you get juddering nastyness. To get round this, some places project at 96 FPS(well…

> any cinema that can do 3D can do 48FPS, at least. You'll have to explain to me why they weren't showing The Hobbit in 48fps then. You sometimes had to go to a different country to see it in 48fps.

because buying the film in HFR costs extra...

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

#245

Post by KaiserPro »

mikeash wrote: post #236
kpil wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exactly! Fake parallax that just turn epic scenes and scenery into tabletop models. It's obvious, but why do they ruin their efforts like that. Don't they watch their own movies after post 3d editing? I think even Avatar made it too far. I think I've whatched some animated films that didn't blow totally, but almost every other film that I have seen in 3d was a disappointment.

This is complete speculation, but my guess is something like: the people who might understand this (skilled directors and such) are used to 2D and don't much care for 3D, and the people who push 3D (executives) are too obsessed with making things "pop" to realize what they're doing.

True 3D cameras are a massive pain in the arse

Either they are huge, to get two cameras side by side, or they have a half-silvered mirror arrangement (with colour disparity)

Add to that the rigs wobble (vomit inducing) and the distance between the cameras is far to wide, it all looks a bit poop, or requires a huge amount of post work to make fly.

So the normal thing to do is manually cut out each object (rotoscope) and adjust the divergence to place it in 3d.

every object, every frame.

it mostly looks a bit poop.

Not to mention is normally done quickly, like clash of the titans was converted in ~1 month.

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

#246

Post by KaiserPro »

baby wrote: post #230
KaiserPro wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having worked in the industry, I've seen UltraHD with a proper setup. (with the 192 channel sound) for documentaries and sports, yeah, its brilliant. But for "film"? it sucks. why? Because it looks like a play, but with bad acting. Everything that we have learnt, subconsciously, about film, is based on 24 FPS. Any action of any narrative substance in a modern film is linked to a slowmo. This relies on 24FPS. Because…

Watch a bunch of 60fps movies and I assure you that you will look back at 24fps movies and think those look weird.

... I have, I do, I see lots of them.

ultraHD is 8k @ 60fps.

its great for sports and nature documentaries. films look like plays. actors look stilted and wooden.

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

#247

Post by Wistar »

KaiserPro wrote: post #173
praveenperera wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The RED cameras are pretty much unusable without a lot of very expensive add-ons. The real cost comes out to 100K+. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t1PQJmM8P4

They come with a lot of "emotional" baggage Well, its died down now, but it used to be a proper cult. old $work used to make software that was a key step in transcoding from their shitty jpeg2000 "redfile" to something more usable. yes they had high resolution, but they had rolling shutter and were still quite expensive. Not to mention poor colour reproduction.

... and crashing. I hear a lot of complaints about crashing.
Post reply on HN