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.
Black mirror was originally a channel 4 production (uk).
It moved to Netflix on the 3rd season, so I wouldn't quite call it a Netflix original.
> I bet the higher resolution makes it easier, with big*ss GPUs to clean up the raw footage. Even if you don't do any other post-processing, downscaled video looks better than video captured at sensor resolution. This is because you can implement a steeper low-pass filter (closer to ideal brick-wall filter) in software than you can in actual optics. Hardware lowpass filters tuned to block most stuff above nyquist wil…
What does low pass filter mean in the context of video (i understand in audio)?
Downscaling or blurring - these are the same thing if you pretend it’s bandlimited. Which it isn’t of course.
> The stuff with the red N on the poster -- some of it is REALLY good An overwhelming majority of it is total garbage. It's such a bad ratio that I treat the red N as a negative signal when I'm choosing something.
The streaming services are in strong competition for original content. Sometimes buying exclusive rights to completed work off the shelf. This content seems to get labeled as an "XYZ original," be it Apple, Netflix or something else. Do you differentiate between content greenlit and produced by the streaming services from those purchased? I'm curious because they are two different capabilities and it seems each servi…
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.
Industry holds Arri color science above all others. Even when Red and others were shooting higher than 2k images, people preferred to shoot Arri for the color. Arri was quite proud of their RAW format. I was told that on top of the price of the camera body, it was $20k to license the RAW format for the camera. Their RAW format was a sequence of frames that used the frame number derived from timecode appended to the f…
All that color science just for some lazy editor to drop a blue LUT over it and make everything nice and drab and samey.
Definitely not unique to video.
People are happy to take a Leica camera and then apply the same Kodak Portra colour filter that every influencer seems to use.
When you used actual film it was long lengths of the stuff, hence footage. Lots of words have weird no longer relevant sources. Like “logs”.
Not what I expected at all: log (n.2) "record of observations, readings, etc.," 1842, sailor's shortening of log-book "daily record of a ship's speed, progress, etc." (1670s), from log (n.1). The book so called because a wooden float at the end of a line was cast out to measure a ship's speed. General sense by 1913.* So it does have a relationship to the wooden log - it was originally a series of measurements from a…
"mark twain" means 12 ft. Samuel Clemens adopted it as a pen name.
Unless you're the camera operator. Shooting motion on a stills camera in a cinema environment is absolutely attrocious. While the small form factors are attractive for various reasons, they are notoriously hated to actually operate. Tiny tiny buttons. The most actively used button start/stop tends to be in a difficult location to access when not being used as point-n-shoot style camera. Mounted on gear, it becomes di…
Yeah I guess I should have narrowed my statement to the “capturing frames” aspect, surely the interface is better adapted to specific use case like you say. Though you definitely hear about productions using them anyway.
When the desire to make content is greater than your budget, you find a way. I know, I've been there. Graduating to using "real" gear is like a spotlight from heaven beaming down on you with a choral of angels singing as you suddenly realize how much nicer it is using "real" gear. In the mean time, you make do with what you got. The great thing about these newer gear is that it doesn't look like as obvious as lower gear. Fake it till you make it
> the center channel is often just played out of both speakers Well what other option do you have when there are only two speakers? Only play it out of one?
The next sentence explains why this is a problem. > This means that sound can be muffled, because its drowned out by the incidental noise that comes from the left/right channel.
Yeah I read the same comment you did, but if you're taking a signal with 6 channels, and only have two channels out, you don't really have any option but send the middle channel to both outputs, else it'll sound far too intense in a single ear.
Industry holds Arri color science above all others. Even when Red and others were shooting higher than 2k images, people preferred to shoot Arri for the color. Arri was quite proud of their RAW format. I was told that on top of the price of the camera body, it was $20k to license the RAW format for the camera. Their RAW format was a sequence of frames that used the frame number derived from timecode appended to the f…
All that color science just for some lazy editor to drop a blue LUT over it and make everything nice and drab and samey.
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.