←back to thread

Netflix’s Media Production Suite

(netflixtechblog.com)
256 points MattSayar | 7 comments | 01 Apr 25 01:02 UTC | HN request time: 0.211s | source | bottom
Show context
_m_p ◴[01 Apr 25 02:44 UTC] No.43542301[source]▶
I was reading about the cinematography of _Collateral_, possibly the first large budget feature film to be shot digitally, and one of the issues back in 2004 when it was made was the amount of storage required for digital video and the risk of not being able to retrieve the images from the data stores:

> “We did massive testing with the hard drives, and everything was great, and then we had an experience where we shot, and when we sent in the material, they couldn’t get the information off the hard drive,” said Cameron. “So the studio went ballistic and was like, ‘There’s just no way we can we can let you guys do this.’”

> The compromise was the production would record to hard drives as well as SRW tape. And unlike today, verifying the digital footage was equally cumbersome and tension-filled.

> “We recorded everything two or three times on decks that we carried with us,” said Beebe. “So we were backing up, two or three times.”

https://www.indiewire.com/features/interviews/michael-mann-c...

replies(5): >>43542366 #>>43543089 #>>43543484 #>>43544193 #>>43547000 #
1. progbits ◴[01 Apr 25 02:58 UTC] No.43542366[source]▶
> we were backing up, two or three times

So they just rediscovered what IT world knew for decades, or what am I missing?

replies(3): >>43542413 #>>43542527 #>>43542893 #
2. wodenokoto ◴[01 Apr 25 03:06 UTC] No.43542413[source]▶
That you don’t film on two or three wheels at a time
replies(1): >>43542954 #
3. m463 ◴[01 Apr 25 03:26 UTC] No.43542527[source]▶
probably 20 years and the switch from hard disks to flash drives.

I remember when hard drives started getting big that it took a long time to get data on and off them. They got bigger faster than interfaces could keep up.

I think about 2004, a "big machine" would be an aluminum powermac G5 with an 80gb sata hard drive. Or a powerbook G4 with a 60gb ATA drive.

4. fezz ◴[01 Apr 25 04:35 UTC] No.43542893[source]▶
When Data/File based workflows started in movies (around 2004), 2-3 copies was the standard from the get go and ideally this was with MD5 checksums (currently xxhash is more common because it's alot faster). LTO backups are also generally part of the copy chains as the 3rd or 4th copy. Before that, duplication with tape was while recording wasn't as common, but it was more common to duplicate after recording. Although you'd have some amount of generation loss depending on the format, not so with recording to multiple decks with the same source video. With film it obviously wasn't possible but original negative (o-neg) was much more cautiously handled. You'd have copies made going to an interpositive for editing and dailies process. Those wouldn't an identical quality so to get a negative copy, you'd be 2 generations of loss. By the time you're seeing a print in a theater, it would be 3 generations. (one->IP->IN->print)
replies(1): >>43544389 #
5. progbits ◴[01 Apr 25 04:49 UTC] No.43542954[source]▶
I mean they should, film can get damaged too. The reason they don't are probably because it would be too expensive, bulky and film is single-use so also wasteful.

Even hobby level DSLRs have two card slots with option to write to both.

Professional cameras have tons of gear strapped to them, a second drive or some link to external storage is a no-brainer.

replies(1): >>43553524 #
6. dkh ◴[01 Apr 25 08:55 UTC] No.43544389[source]▶
3 different copies driven to 3 different places by 3 different people before you leave set for the day continued to be how it was when I was working on set. And believe it or not, there was still one incident in 2015 where Murphy's Law negated all 3 and I spent about a week file-carving the $60k worth of footage we didn't have the ability to reshoot again if we had to
7. ◴[02 Apr 25 03:54 UTC] No.43553524{3}[source]▶