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

241–250 of 315 posts

Re: Approved Cameras

#241

Post by TulliusCicero »

antisthenes wrote: post #68

It's too bad they don't screen their actual content with the same rigor as they do their technical side. I don't doubt their technical side is excellent. Most of Netflix is utterly mindless garbage content for background consumption. I struggle to name even 5 of their originals over the years that you could call good "TV" or Cinema. Black Mirror is the only one that really comes to mind.

> I struggle to name even 5 of their originals over the years that you could call good "TV" or Cinema.

Netflix puts out plenty of good stuff, some people just can't distinguish "I don't like it" from "it's bad."

Comments like this are usually just an invitation for someone to put forth what shows they think are decent so you have a chance to dunk on their taste.

Re: Approved Cameras

#242

Post by nullc »

xuhu wrote: post #161
galago wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this case the OOF points of light are actually vertically oriented ovals. The idea being its reminiscent of "1974" style anamorphic lenses. Its an affectation not unlike digital retro photo filters, except that its the physical lens. Its not unlike musicians who use vintage equipment because they want to reproduce something as it was done in the past. Its gets a bit dissonant if the movie is set in the present tho…

I just imagined sitting for a photography course test and the first question is "why do anamorphic lenses not produce round out-of-focus points of light, since the in-focus parts are not stretched". Naturally the course material didn't cover any of this.

The out of focus spots are an 'image' of the aperture mask. So they'll take on whatever shape the aperture has... not its physical shape, but its optical shape.

In an anamorphic lens the image is squeezed, so the effective aperture is squeezed... well, in most of them. There are anamorphic lenses with the anamorphic part behind the iris, and for those you don't get the oval shaped oof highlights.

Re: Approved Cameras

#243

Post by Rebelgecko »

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…

Oh wow, I've noticed that a lot of Netflix Originals blur out regions of the frame that aren't front and center and it bugs the hell out of me. I assumed it was some weird post-production attempt to mimic depth of field, I didn't realize it was a lens choice.

Re: Approved Cameras

#244

Post by dopa42365 »

wmf wrote: post #52
baxtr wrote: post #21

Top of the list is Munich based ARRI. A fascinating story by itself: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arri

The really interesting part is that ARRI Alexa was pretty much the #1 camera in Hollywood but Netflix won't accept it because it's not 4K.

Alexa is a camera line/category, not a specific camera.

Re: Approved Cameras

#245

Post by edub »

I've had the opportunity to work on two short productions for ESPN in the last two years. My role is writing the code for the screen overlays and real time scoring system.

I have very little knowledge in cameras but did have to review all the production guidelines.

Netflix doesn't mention image sensor size (CCD) but ESPN requires 2/3" or more. I'm guessing every camera they list as approved would meet that spec even though they don't specify it.

At the time I was surprised to learn that ESPN wants you to deliver all content in 720p. Wikipedia says that their Digital Center is equipped for 2160p, but they still broadcast in 720p. The archivist in me would want to receive the material greater than 720p even knowing it is to be broadcast in 720p, but I can understand the additional complexity that such a small thing can add, especially when dealing with hundreds of production companies.

I speculate that Netflix wants you to turn in higher quality video because they are factoring in that over time encoding and streaming algorithms and increased bandwidth will allow them to push higher quality feeds to end users, and they want the highest possible raw capture so they can improve the stream as technology improves, whereas ABC is content with airing footage in the future that looks as it did when it aired originally.

Re: Approved Cameras

#246

Post by hellbannedguy »

alternatetwo wrote: post #158
mdoms wrote: 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.

There is also some original content which is quite good.

No post body was provided.

Re: Approved Cameras

#247

Post by Kerrick »

sjtgraham wrote: post #225

A couple of months ago I had a Zoom meeting with the CEO of another startup. I remarked his camera must be good because the capture was of incredible quality. His "webcam" was actually one of the Canon ones on the list. https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1633519-REG/canon_379...

I’m a hobbyist videographer and I’m not above setting up my lighting (3-point with octobox, strip box, and hair snoot) and camera (a7s iii with G lens) as a webcam to impress. I’ve recorded a few instructional videos at work with it, set it up for the first couple weeks after acquisition to meet the team, and I’d use it for job interviews if I was looking.

It’s not why I have the gear but… “smoke ‘em if you got ‘em.”

Re: Approved Cameras

#248

Post by supernova87a »

Maybe this is a little off topic, but I was curious to know why, when the Blackmagic pocket camera came out like 3 years ago, it was such a revolution/attention-grabbing camera? As in, people were like, this upends the dominance of ARRI, etc etc.?

Was it just the resolution available for the price point at the time? How did the company achieve it, and why weren't any of the major camera manufacturers able to do that up until that time?

Re: Approved Cameras

#249

Post by nopenopenopeno »

shiftpgdn wrote: post #117
kaczordon wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also it looks like 4K is their minimum standard now. I bet the higher resolution makes it easier, with big*ss GPUs to clean up the raw footage. Resolution is far less important than bit color depth. We barely need 4K(Alexa used to be 2K) much less 8K footage for something to look good on a tv.

Sure is nice to crop in though.

If you’re shooting 4K, you have to be calculated with your lens configuration to actually get that resolution at the sensor. After that kind of effort, cropping your shot in post is going to be a silly step to take.

Re: Approved Cameras

#250

Post by ancientworldnow »

supernova87a wrote: post #248

Maybe this is a little off topic, but I was curious to know why, when the Blackmagic pocket camera came out like 3 years ago, it was such a revolution/attention-grabbing camera? As in, people were like, this upends the dominance of ARRI, etc etc.? Was it just the resolution available for the price point at the time? How did the company achieve it, and why weren't any of the major camera manufacturers able to do that…

I work professionally as a colorist and the blackmagic cameras aren't professional cameras. They just don't look nearly as good (especially in difficult scenarios) and the footage is far less flexible than arri, red, or the high end sony venice line.

The only projects that use them in my experience are low budget music videos (I'm talking very low budget - typically sub $10k) and documentaries. Occasionally you'll see them as a C cam for higher end jobs.

Post reply on HN