This is topic Netflix fooling with run speeds and pissing filmmakers off in forum Film-Yak at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=007693

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-29-2019, 03:19 PM:
 
The quote from the Netflix rep at the end tells it all.... they don't give a shit what their content providers think, it's all about the "feedback."

Nice job, content providers. You got in bed with the devil, now this is the result. More to come!

Netflix Plan to Test Varying Play Speeds Meets Filmmaker Backlash

Netflix said Monday it is introducing a new test feature to allow viewers to either speed up or slow down content on their smartphones, a move that quickly gained criticism online from Judd Apatow and other filmmakers.

Android Police first reported the new feature, showing a screen grab that allows a viewer to choose to slow down a show or film as much as 0.5 times the normal speed, or increase the speed up to 1.5 times the normal runtime.

Apatow, who co-created the Netflix series Love, slammed the feature, tweeting, "No @Netflix no. Don’t make me have to call every director and show creator on Earth to fight you on this. Save me the time. I will win but it will take a ton of time. Don’t fuck with our timing. We give you nice things. Leave them as they were intended to be seen."

He added in a follow-up tweet, "Distributors don’t get to change the way the content is presented. Doing so is a breaking of trust and won’t be tolerated by the people who provide it. Let the people who don’t care put it in their contracts that they don’t care. Most all do."

"We’re always experimenting with new ways to help members use Netflix. This test makes it possible to vary the speed at which people watch shows on their mobiles. As with any test, it may not become a permanent feature on Netflix," a Netflix spokesperson told The Hollywood Reporter. The feature would apply to all of the streamer's content.

A rep for the streamer later added that the test was only available to mobile Android users.

In a blog post, Netflix added that the feature "has been frequently requested by our members," saying the tool "has long been available on DVD players."

Viewers might want to use the feature if they were "looking to rewatch their favorite scene or wanting to go slower because it’s a foreign language title," Netflix wrote.

"We’ve been sensitive to creator concerns and haven’t included bigger screens, in particular TVs, in this test," the streamer added. "We’ve also automatically corrected the pitch in the audio at faster and slower speeds. In addition, members must choose to vary the speed each time they watch something new — versus Netflix maintaining their settings based on their last choice."

Netflix said it doesn't plan to "roll any of these tests out in the short term."

"And whether we introduce these features for everyone at some point will depend on the feedback we receive," it added.

Super Troopers filmmaker Jay Chandrasekhar and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse helmer Peter Ramsey also echoed Apatow's sentiments, and The Incredibles director Brad Bird tweeted, "Whelp— another spectacularly bad idea, and another cut to the already bleeding-out cinema experience. Why support & finance filmmakers visions on one hand and then work to destroy the presentation of those films on the other???"

Oct. 29, 9:35 a.m.: This story has been updated with Netflix's blog post about the playback speed testing and an additional spokesperson's note that the test was just for mobile Android users.

[URL=https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/netflix-plan-test-varying-play-speeds-meets-filmmaker-backlash-1250533?utm_source=Sailthru&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=THR%20Breaking%20News_now_2019-10-28%2013:36:40_jkonerman&utm_term=hollywoodreporter_ breakingnews]Hollywood Reporter[/URL]

quote: Judd Apatow

---

Leave them as they were intended to be seen.

---

Yeah....on a phone, right?

quote:

---

The Incredibles director Brad Bird tweeted, "Whelp— another spectacularly bad idea, and another cut to the already bleeding-out cinema experience. Why support & finance filmmakers visions on one hand and then work to destroy the presentation of those films on the other???"

---

quote: Bobby Henderson

---

BTW, the writer must not have noticed that higher speed playback modes don't change the pitch of actors' voices into chipmunk territory. Digital audio doesn't work like that. The actors just sound like that guy in TV commercials back in the 1980's who could speak ridiculously fast.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Truth be told, I knew one exhibitor that changed the pulleys on their projectors to speed up the movie so they could get an additional show in or, at least, shorten the work day (saves money on payroll as well as electricity). It wasn't a huge shift but enough that you would shave minutes off of a day. Multiply that out by 365 days and you are shaving quite a bit of money. Nobody ever called him out on it either.

---

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Truth be told, I knew one exhibitor that changed the pulleys on their projectors to speed up the movie so they could get an additional show in or, at least, shorten the work day (saves money on payroll as well as electricity). It wasn't a huge shift but enough that you would shave minutes off of a day. Multiply that out by 365 days and you are shaving quite a bit of money. Nobody ever called him out on it either.

---

quote: Mike Blakesley

---

With DTS, if you gave the film a little extra slack going into the reader and then let it out, the sound would "WOW" just like an audio tape.

---

Yeah, DTS but also SRD was known to simulate "analog behavior" when compensating for synchronization differences, which was quite a feat given the fact that DTS had to do this all in a single 486 CPU for all channels simultaneously.

I have too little experience with SDDS, but what I've heard from people operating it, it was far more picky when it came down to synchronization.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 11-01-2019, 11:32 AM:
 
I've never actually shown a 24fps movie at 25fps in order to get home early, but I'm sure that it has been done. I have certainly been tempted.

More insidiously, there is something called "Time Tailor" that is used by television stations in order to trim a few frames here and there from movies to be broadcast. The idea is to allow extra commercials without requiring the stations to remove entire scenes.

As mentioned above, this all probably goes back to silent films, when theatres would re-edit the films and/or have the operators crank faster than usual in order to decrease show length.

I certainly get why filmmakers would be upset about this, but I also like having the option to rewind, fast forward, and pause when watching movies at home on a television set. This is not the same as the cinema experience, and I accept the limitations when I choose to watch movies this way. It's sort of like seeing a postcard of a famous building versus actually seeing it in person.
 

---

Posted by Harold Hallikainen (Member # 5405) on 11-01-2019, 01:02 PM:
 
Back when I worked in radio stations, the DJ's had fun editing songs with a splicing block and razor blade. An example is at 59:10 at http://kcpralumni.org//wiki/uploads/GregGolden/KCPR_Anderson_and_Cuddeback_6_Dec_1970.mp3 .

Stations would also put tape around the capstan on the turntables to speed them up so other stations sounded like they dragged in comparison.

Later, 25/7 introduced the Audio Time Manager ( https://www.telosalliance.com/25-Seven/25-Seven-Systems-Legacy-Products ) that reduced the run time of programs mostly by reducing the space between words. From the brochure: "Imagine a longer hour. You could run more local news, promos, ad-libs, whatever you need! …a 10% speed-up with no pitch change,
glitches or artifacts, so smooth that listeners won’t even know it’s in use, even on stereo music. Audio Time Manager’s proprietary algorithms are designed for today’s radio needs. Depending on program material, you will be able to add several minutes an hour with complete intelligibility."
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 11-03-2019, 04:01 PM:
 
Even worse is how the interface breaks into the end credits to promote something else- it's done by a program that actually senses credits too, not even by an actual human. This is what they did to Schindler's List, you wouldn't even bring the lights up this early:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiiC-2gwuyo

I shot that and uploaded it before cancelling. I loved Netflix when they started even though their quality wasn't the greatest, they were a great value but this is entirely unacceptable. They refuse to even respond to complaints about it. The "Skip Intro" display that appears during intros is unacceptable also- they could make that skippable without showing any crap on the screen for those who actually want to see it.
 

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 11-03-2019, 04:12 PM:
 
So why didn't you just log into your account and disable auto-play? Just uncheck it in playback settings and it'll stop doing that.
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 11-03-2019, 05:13 PM:
 
I had auto-play disabled, but it still does that. The only thing Auto-play turns off is playing the next episode in a series automatically. You would THINK if a user turned that off they also wouldn't want the end credits cut off.
 

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 11-03-2019, 05:31 PM:
 
Then use the arrow keys on your remote to highlight the box and push enter. I just checked it on Schindler's List and it worked fine. I take your point, but there are ways to defeat this short of cancelling your account.
 

---

Posted by Jesse Skeen (Member # 586) on 11-03-2019, 05:45 PM:
 
That's still an interruption, and unacceptable. When you're at the end of a movie about the holocaust, you shouldn't see a still from a Stephen King horror story pop up. When I'm into a good movie I often forget where my remotes even are.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 11-03-2019, 07:23 PM:
 
I'm not as bothered by it as Jesse. But the "skip intro" stuff and butting into end credits of movies and TV shows is very annoying. Those "features" get into the way of the presentation. I understand why the option is there. Around 90% of users are into skipping opening title sequences and end credit sequences -basically because 90% of people are dull as fuck.


At the very least, Netflix could perhaps update its app and include additional options next to that Auto-Play setting. I don't mind watching opening title sequences. My remote has a fast forward button that still works. I can hit the "back" or "stop" buttons to exit out of an end credits sequence at any time (or, again, use fast-forward).
 

---

Posted by Marcel Birgelen (Member # 6801) on 11-04-2019, 10:35 AM:
 
I think that the Skip Intro functions primarily applies to series and not so much to movies.

I've used it myself, when watching a series on Netflix. I've seen the intro countless of times, no need for a repeat.

But many movies don't have a clearly lined "introduction", especially lots of more modern movies. It's cool to go all wild with those kind of things, like half your movie actually being an introduction or even putting the title card at the end of the movie...
 

---

Posted by Mitchell Dvoskin (Member # 751) on 11-04-2019, 01:03 PM:
 
As of late last week, the Netflix app for my LG tv (WebOS) mysteriously stopped shrinking the credits into a small box that I have to actively select to watch them. Now the credits are playing full screen with noting covering them.

Unfortunately, Netflix now starts auto playing on the app screen where I can read the description of the episode, but only the first time I access that screen for a given show for a given viewing session.

Now I wish that Amazon will follow suit with their play next episode box. While not as bad as what Netflix was doing, the play next box still covered any credits underneath.
 

---

Posted by Mark Ogden (Member # 43) on 11-04-2019, 03:08 PM:
 

quote: Mitchell Dvoskin

---

Now I wish that Amazon will follow suit with their play next episode box

---

quote: Jesse Skeen

---

Even worse is how the interface breaks into the end credits to promote something else- it's done by a program that actually senses credits too, not even by an actual human. This is what they did to Schindler's List, you wouldn't even bring the lights up this early:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiiC-2gwuyo

I shot that and uploaded it before cancelling. I loved Netflix when they started even though their quality wasn't the greatest, they were a great value but this is entirely unacceptable. They refuse to even respond to complaints about it. The "Skip Intro" display that appears during intros is unacceptable also- they could make that skippable without showing any crap on the screen for those who actually want to see it.

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

I won't watch a movie on TV, cable or streaming in which a widescreen film is presented at 16:9. It's the primary reason I won't give HBO my money. The day they start presenting all films at the proper aspect ratio, they'll get my money again.

---

quote: Justin Hamaker

---

Don't a lot of film makers today shoot with a 16:9 frame regardless of the intended theatrical aspect ratio?

---

quote: Justin Hamaker

---

Don't a lot of film makers today shoot with a 16:9 frame regardless of the intended theatrical aspect ratio?

---

Most professional D-cinema cameras have image capture chips with a roughly 16:9 aspect ratio (either exactly 16:9 or a little off of that). Many movies are shot using the full area of the camera's imaging chips. Then they crop into the image, re-compose shots and do all sorts of other crap that reminds me of panning and scanning.

The Arri Alexa65 is an exception to the norm. It has an image sensor roughly the same size and aspect ratio of a 5/65mm film frame. That would seem to be a better choice for shooting 'scope ratio movies. But, like most d-cinema camera systems, the "filmmakers" end up bastardizing the output anyway. The anamorphic look is all the rage. And they even use anamorphic lenses on the Alexa65 cameras when they don't really need to do that. To make the absurd joke even worse the fuckers will stick "Filmed in Ultra Panavision 70" on the Goddamned end credits. Assholes.

Some cameras have image sensors the same size as a VistaVision film frame. I think Red has at least one or more camera models in that category (even with 8K capture). I guess we should be looking forward to blurbs like "Filmed in Super Technirama 70" pretty soon for movies using these cameras.


Just about all Hollywood movies are CROPPED to 'scope ratio. None of these "digitally filmed" movies are shot the way a real 35mm film shot in 'scope is photographed. Given how ubiquitous the 'scope format is with movies why doesn't any cinema camera companies (like Panavision, Arri, etc) create a proper d-cinema camera to shoot movies in 'scope with the anamorphic look? All they need to do is develop an imaging chip the same size as a 4-perf 35mm film frame. It would probably deliver far better image quality than those tiny "Super35" image sensors yet cost less to produce than a VistaVision sized sensor. They might achieve a more faithful 'scope look combining that square-ish shaped sensor with anamorphic lenses meant to expose the same shape of frame on film.

I don't know. It just seems obvious to me. The approach might be better than this dopey Digital TechniScope bullshit that's all the tyranny now. A 3K tall by 4K wide resolution image sensor might work really well.

quote: Martin Brooks

---

If a film was intended for 2.4:1 theatrically that's how I want to see it on a TV. And in the cases I've seen, it's not that the 16:9 version opens up the top and bottom - it's that the sides are cropped off. As far as I'm concerned, the theatrical version is canon.

---

quote: Martin Brooks

---

Somewhat strangely, I have seen shows that were always intended for TV presented in 1.85, not 1.78. The most recent season of Stranger Things comes to mind and there have been others.

---

There are TV series now being presented in 'scope aspect ratio. Netflix has plenty of movies that never played in theaters cropped down to 'scope.

To repeat what I've said before, I think one valid reason why the 'scope aspect ratio is so popular is cost cutting. Fewer pixels to render. D-cinema 'scope has fewer pixels than the flat format. Scope is the lowest resolution format. Hence the Digital TechniScope insults to digital 'scope movies.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-02-2019, 01:08 AM:
 
Let's face it -- and while I am only guessing at this -- but in the long run, my gut tells me that more people are going to watch a filmmaker's movie on a digital display at home than the number of people who will see it in a movie theatre. Theatres are not the filmmakers' and film financiers' primary concern. They are going to tailor the end product to have the look they want on the display device on which the majority of their paying viewers will watch it -- and that's a TV screen. And no matter what it looked like on a cinema screen, today they don't particularly use that as the benchmark -- it has to look good on their primary outlets -- VIDEO.

Years ago we used to call anything other than the theatre as the ancillary markets. I venture to say that today it may very well be reversed. Is it any wonder few on the filmmaking side are kvetching that the images on the cinema screen are pillard or letterboxed...as long as when the movie is released on video or plays on Amazon or Netflix, it looks good.

And not for nuthin, but this idea that what is seen by the camera lens is the alpha and omega of what is going to wind up on the movie screen with the least amount of cropping has long been tossed out-- long before Super 35, that same principal of extracting whatever aspect ratio the studio wanted from the ONeg was standard operating practice over at Paramount with VistaVision. They could play go from 1.66 all the way to extracting a scope ratio out of the original image, applying anamorphic squeeze and releasing it as a scope print. No one seemed to be worrying about preserving the cinematographer's and director's composition by jacking with the image that way.

With respect to hard and fast aspect ratios on exhibition's side, al la SMPTE specifications -- it seems like they are more like suggestions rather that absolutes, which is probably why the idea of movable masking seems pretty much an exercise in futility to Mr. Exhibitor. Best have a borderless screen and just let the image fall wherever it may.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-02-2019, 06:10 AM:
 
Filmmakers RARELY see their films in actual cinemas. Where they watch them (screening rooms) are masked properly, lit properly...etc. The "horror" only happens when they rarely venture into the world of the commercial cinema.

The studio may put more emphasis on the home release but I don't believe that is the same for the director/producer types.

Masking, if you don't use it, you are part of the problem and the demise of cinemas. If all you aspire to be is home-theatre level of quality, you've already lost.
 

---

Posted by Frank Angel (Member # 248) on 12-05-2019, 10:46 AM:
 
Absolutely. Exhibition has been riding their own demise train since they forgot that the product they are selling is NOT the movie -- that's the studio's product. Exhibition's product is the total cinematic experience -- everything from the physical ergonomics of the plant, from the time the patron walks in the door to the quality of the presentation. Cut corners on any aspect of that, ESPECIALLY on the presentation and, as you put it, he's flirting with the demise of cinema...his demise. Scoffing at the need for masking tells you how fast that exhibitor's train is going.

And you know me, I was crying foul when they scoffed at the need for screen curtains...you know, old school (and proud of it).
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-05-2019, 12:55 PM:
 
I've said it before and I'll say it again. To have a 1st class show, you HAVE to have curtains...without them, you are, at best, 2nd rate.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-05-2019, 01:26 PM:
 
I've said this before too... I really really wish we had curtains. I priced them out a couple of years ago... in order to do them right, would cost over $24,000.

If I wasn't staring at the notion of buying a new projector in the next few years, I'd be saving up for the curtains instead of that.

At least we have screen lights, so the audience is never staring at a blank screen. I hate blank screens more than I hate not having curtains. (And we do have masking!)
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 12-05-2019, 03:16 PM:
 
Doesn't your theatre have some physical limitations on curtains, as well?

Yes, curtains cost money, they are also a potential point of failure. They also properly finish out the presentation. Some would say there should be, at least two drapes...the grand and the title curtain but I'm good with just the one.

Curtains are hand made for the location and anything hand sewn is going to cost...plus all of the rigging. And, if you don't do it right, they will look poor or fail.

I've said it elsewhere that I think a problem with the DCinema life-cycle is that this industry has not had to live with short-life equipment (under 3-decades). Projectors used to last the life of the theatre. This 5-15 year equipment, that costs a LOT more is going to be more than most exhibitors can afford based on the revenues a cinema can take in. I can appreciate your financial struggles there. Curtains remains a MUST for me though.
 

---

Posted by Bobby Henderson (Member # 840) on 12-05-2019, 08:34 PM:
 
I prefer movie theaters to have curtains along with proper masking. The Ziegfeld in NYC (RIP) had a nice curtain setup (at least it did 30 years ago when I was visiting the place). It had a 2 layer setup, an opaque main curtain set and a mostly transparent second curtain.

Regarding the limited life span of D-Cinema gear, I certainly griped about it here plenty of times over 10 years ago when the industry-wide conversion was getting underway. Big theater chains might be able to stomach the high cost and relatively short life span of a digital projector. It can be a make or break equation to smaller, independent theaters.

Just about anything "digital" is going to have a limited life span. At the sign company where I work we got about 8 years of life out of our first large format printer (a thermal inkjet model); it cost about $25,000. The laminator we bought at the same time is still working just fine; it's a lot less computerized. Now we have two Latex-based printers (nicknamed "Cheech" and "Chong") and a new flatbed printer, all of which cost considerably more. We still don't expect to use any of those expensive devices any more than about 10 years tops. Even if the hardware can survive past 10 years the manufacturers will make replacement parts and "consumables" (such ink cartridges) for only so many years before the product line is EOL'd.

The cost of a new projector can really hurt an independent theater in a smaller city or town. Theaters in urban centers are getting hit with a different threat: keeping their lease. Landlords don't give a damn about shutting down a popular entertainment landmark if they can make more money converting the property into something else, like a luxury condo tower. Here in Lawton, when medical marijuana became legal in OK, a popular local bowling alley was closed. Its owner converted the bowling alley into a large grow house operation and pot dispensary.

I worry we could have a lot fewer high profile "flagship" theaters in big cities and a lot fewer small town theaters in the years ahead. That might do more to erode the length of the already short theatrical release window and maybe force more people to watch movies only on home TV screens.
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 12-06-2019, 09:15 AM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Doesn't your theatre have some physical limitations on curtains, as well?

---