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

251–260 of 315 posts

Re: Approved Cameras

#251

Post by ancientworldnow »

OliverJones wrote: post #15

This means Netflix operates as a production and post studio for their many and talented film-makers. The stuff with the red N on the poster -- some of it is REALLY good -- uses Netflix-operated handling. Any video production goes through a lot of steps from raw studio footage to edited, finished product. This web site says that Netflix processes and people handle a lot of that. Also it looks like 4K is their minimum…

Netflix farms out all this post work. That's why they have these delivery specs. You follow the white papers and then they run it through their automated systems that do QC (followed by people verifying). Then they run it through an auto pipeline to create final streaming files and archives but they don't do any further manipulation of the image. Once you start doing one Netflix job they return to your post facility consistently.

Re: Approved Cameras

#252

Post by thenickdude »

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...

Canon released an app to allow most of their cameras to run as a fairly low-res webcam (it's a streaming capture from the liveview system rather than 720p).

This was really great for me with Zoom because I could get a sharp colourful image even in the low lights I had available, where a standard webcam would have dissolved into a grey mush of noise reduction.

Re: Approved Cameras

#253

Post by ancientworldnow »

dylan604 wrote: post #22
Laminary wrote: post #7

Wonder why they approve the Canon C70 but not Canon C200

If it were up to me, if the camera doesn't have Global Shutter, it should not be allowed. Nothing more annoying to me than when flash/strobes appear on partial multiple frames. Then again, if it were up to me, it would not be allowed to be called cinema unless it used global shutter.

The Arri Alexa is the camera on which essentially every Oscar winning film and it has been shot on for the past decade has a rolling shutter as do the film cameras before it.

Re: Approved Cameras

#254

Post by rectang »

tshaddox wrote: post #240
rectang wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Say that I need a 300x400 image for a webpage. Does it make sense to set my camera to take 300x400 pictures? What happens when we crop and postprocess?

If we want the best quality end product, free from low-res artifacting, we need to preserve an excess of resolution all the way through production until the final export. Exactly how headroom much is enough? Enough that artifacts arising from insufficient resolution are not perceivable in the end product.

Re: Approved Cameras

#255

Post by imiric »

I would like to see the film industry focus on not only increasing resolution, but frame rate as well. 24fps has remained a standard for too long mostly because of legacy and stylistic reasons, but with the switch to digital productions and projections, and internet bandwidth increases across the board, there's no reason why shows and movies couldn't be produced and delivered at 60fps and beyond.

The main argument against this is that consumers would find the "soap opera effect" jarring, or that it would add even more strain on traffic for ISPs. These are minor complaints that would go away as more high FPS content is produced, and bandwidth is increased. With the advent of cloud gaming, the infrastructure should already be prepared for these high bitrates anyway. And consumers could always be given the choice to stream at different frame rates if it bothers them stylistically.

I for one would appreciate more detail in fast moving scenes that otherwise become a blurry mess at 24fps.

Re: Approved Cameras

#256

Post by floatingatoll »

devindotcom wrote: post #230
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...

Having a C for webcams is really over the top! The qualities of a digital cinema camera are wasted on such a compressed stream. A mirrorless and basic prime will give you the same effect for 1/10 the price. That said it's entirely possible he needs to record serious footage on it for marketing and stuff and they sent him this because it shoots to their standards. Still, it's funny.

Maybe it's a pre-production prototype, repurposed to fit a need :)

Re: Approved Cameras

#257

Post by Mandelmus »

imiric wrote: post #255

I would like to see the film industry focus on not only increasing resolution, but frame rate as well. 24fps has remained a standard for too long mostly because of legacy and stylistic reasons, but with the switch to digital productions and projections, and internet bandwidth increases across the board, there's no reason why shows and movies couldn't be produced and delivered at 60fps and beyond. The main argument ag…

When I watched The Hobbit in high frame rate (HFR) it was jarring for the first 10 minutes, but after that I really enjoyed the look, and wished it would become the new standard.

Unfortunately the list of HFR movies remains rather short, with each grand new attempt at popularising HFR having failed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_high_frame_...

Re: Approved Cameras

#258

Post by tshaddox »

rectang wrote: post #254
tshaddox wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Say that I need a 300x400 image for a webpage. Does it make sense to set my camera to take 300x400 pictures? What happens when we crop and postprocess? If we want the best quality end product, free from low-res artifacting, we need to preserve an excess of resolution all the way through production until the final export. Exactly how headroom much is enough? Enough that artifacts arising from insufficient resolution a…

Yes, I understand the reasons to have enough dynamic range and enough headroom. My question is about what specifically is enough.

Re: Approved Cameras

#259

Post by supernova87a »

ancientworldnow wrote: post #250
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 se…

Oh interesting, thanks for the reply!

Is it that they don't record the same bit depth (?) What aspects of the output or format of a camera make it suitable for pro use?

Re: Approved Cameras

#260

Post by Thorrez »

imiric wrote: post #255

I would like to see the film industry focus on not only increasing resolution, but frame rate as well. 24fps has remained a standard for too long mostly because of legacy and stylistic reasons, but with the switch to digital productions and projections, and internet bandwidth increases across the board, there's no reason why shows and movies couldn't be produced and delivered at 60fps and beyond. The main argument ag…

>stream at different frame rates if it bothers them stylistically.

I think that would be less than ideal. I think usually with 24fps, the shutter is open for 1/48th of a second. So you get a certain amount of motion blur, and movie viewers are used to that amount of motion blur. If you shoot at 60fps, the shutter will likely be open for 1/120th of a second. If you then play it at 30fps by cutting out half the frames, the motion blur will still be 1/120th, which is probably not what the viewer wants.

Post reply on HN