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

291–300 of 315 posts

Re: Approved Cameras

#291

Post by Joeboy »

sydthrowaway wrote: post #236
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

I had a quick google and found a set for rent at 13900 SEK per day, which is apparently about $1500.

Re: Approved Cameras

#292

Post by kwhitefoot »

gannonburgett wrote: post #215
cialowicz wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Barry Lyndon was shot with an f/0.7 lens because Kubrick wanted period-correct lighting: candlelight, which required a super fast lens with the film used. To my knowledge he wasn’t going for shallow DoF.

You are correct. This wonderful article taken from American Cinematographer goes over this very topic in great detail: http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/sk/ac/len/page1.htm

I just want to say thank you for that link; it was an inspiring read. I think it's time to watch Barry Lyndon again.

Re: Approved Cameras

#293

Post by mvgoogler »

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

Those prices are likely body-only. By the time you add lenses and other accessories you're probably looking at 2-4x the price of the body.

Re: Approved Cameras

#294

Post by adwi »

jefftk wrote: post #118
wmf wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The original Alexa, yes, but that's from 2010.

The last generation Alexa Mini too.

To OP’s point it’s shortsighted they’d accept a Mark I FS7 vs. nearly any image any Alexa has ever produced. The extra .8k it lacks on paper is more than made up in overall image quality.

Re: Approved Cameras

#295

Post by phiresky »

Thorrez wrote: post #260
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 shutter-open-for-half-a-frame or "180° shutter angle" is commonly recommended as a default for shooting video. It is the result of having to compromise between inaccurate recording and a blurry video when your frame rate is low.

With 24fps and a small "shutter angle" you are capturing wrong information (e.g. resulting in wheels turning backwards) and you get a choppy look. With a large shutter angle you get too much motion blur. 180° is neither really correct nor really sharp, but it's the most commonly used compromise.

These problems are really the result of a too slow frame rate though - with 60fps you can shoot with a 1/60 shutter, and you get 100% accurate playback while still having frames sharper than a 24fps movie (with 1/48 s shutter) and a smooth video.

When you capture with a high frame rate (e.g. 120fps) and a 360° shutter angle (1/120s) you can also easily reduce the frame rate later without any ridiculous hacks like 3:2 pulldown by combining (averaging) frames or leaving them out, depending on the motion blur amount you want.

Applying the "180-degree-rule" to frame rates other than 24 or 30 fps just comes from missing knowledge or misunderstandings from what I can tell.

Re: Approved Cameras

#296

Post by tuankiet65 »

quartesixte wrote: post #282
tuankiet65 wrote: post #116

On their anime production requirements ( https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360... ): > The working resolution must be 1920x1080 or higher throughout the production, including drawing, scanning, background, CG and VFX. At least a few years ago, there was a belief that most anime were produced at under 1080p, then upscaled if necessary. Therefore 1080p anime didn't offer and advantages compared t…

IIRC, the quality concerns in anime has never really been resolution — in all the circles I used to dabble in, the real concern was color bit-depth, with 1080p just being a given. Last time I checked in, 10-bit rips of bluray releases were the holy grail and anyone “serious” about their anime quality made sure to have all the proper media players and codecs to handle it.

You're not wrong, 10-bit depth is essential to avoid color banding. However, I believe that all anime blu-rays are encoded in 8-bit AVC, so the issue is not the bit depth in the source material. Rather, fansub groups re-encode blu-ray releases to achieve smaller bitrate, and 8-bit => 10-bit conversion allows higher compression rate while still avoiding banding.

Re: Approved Cameras

#297

Post by [deleted] »

ricc wrote: post #288
hnarn wrote: post #277

Am I the only one who feel continually let down by the script writing in Netflix Originals? Not all of them, but many of them seem to have a budget that allows for “decent” special effects and scenery, but when it comes to actual writing, which in my mind is what carries or collapses a series to begin with, it sometimes feels like they just grabbed interns or whoever was available for the lowest cost. The latest exam…

My perspective on this is that this happens because they are in the position to afford doing what basically is a "throw everything at the wall and see what sticks" approach, which can lead to some really great stories/writing but will also produce subpar results. I personally like this because I feel like they are able to give chance to a lot more diverse ideas which won't fit traditional "Hollywood".

[deleted]

Re: Approved Cameras

#298

Post by ericbarrett »

hnarn wrote: post #277

Am I the only one who feel continually let down by the script writing in Netflix Originals? Not all of them, but many of them seem to have a budget that allows for “decent” special effects and scenery, but when it comes to actual writing, which in my mind is what carries or collapses a series to begin with, it sometimes feels like they just grabbed interns or whoever was available for the lowest cost. The latest exam…

I agree. My partner is a script writer and there is actually a talent shortage on the writing side. No shortage of writers, of course; there never is! But it's hard to come up with actually coherent stories, on tight deadlines, that can be translated directly into a video shoot and assembled into a movie or series. Clearly Netflix is under-investing here, or perhaps relying on a cabal of existing creative "buddies" on the executive side to pump this stuff out to meet KPIs.

Re: Approved Cameras

#299

Post by matt-attack »

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…

James Cameron’s latest installment of Avatar will be in high frame rate. In fact he’s been advocating for high frame rate for many years now in the industry. Went so far as to shoot a mini movie demonstrating various formats and their pros/cons.

Was shown at CinemaCon years ago and is available within the industry.

Re: Approved Cameras

#300

Post by eropple »

dylan604 wrote: post #132
eropple wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An editor isn't the one who picks the direction of the color grading. A--wait for it--director is. The idea that an editor is "lazy" for doing what they're told to do by the director and DP is pretty offensive.

Some editors are chosen for their creative input. Sometimes it is the editor that convices a director, but it's often a collaboration. Editors are part of the creative team of a production compared to just a grunt level worker. The director, DP, and editor can all collaborate so that the image is conevying the desired feel to match the story and vision. Or so the theory goes.

Absolutely. But within epsilon of zero editors on a real production are just having it dumped in their lap without direction. It's a collaborative thing at best and the post to which I replied is the same sort of sneer-at-the-grunts attitude that makes people lecture the Starbucks worker for company policy.
Post reply on HN