alt.hn

4/1/2025 at 1:02:33 AM

Netflix’s Media Production Suite

 https://netflixtechblog.com/globalizing-productions-with-netflixs-media-production-suite-fc3c108c0a22

by MattSayar

4/1/2025 at 2:58:41 AM

I read through that whole article thinking,

   - I wonder what the UI looks like compared to tools I use now
   - I wonder if there will be a free tier, since my video needs are modest
It never occurred to me until I reached the end that this wasn't a "enjoy this tool we made" post, but instead a "look how awesome we are" post. :-/

by gcanyon

4/1/2025 at 7:43:26 AM

For people in within the industry or the tech side of it, Netflix’s engineering blog has always been fascinating and extremely useful because of the insane amount of stuff in this space they have solved or reworked. They have put more into tech side of modern-day TV/film than anybody else, and it's not even close. In a technical/workflow sense, working on a Netflix show is unlike working on any other. I have my issues with Netflix in other respects, but with respect to technology and workflow, they are awesome.

If you’re unable to appreciate a behind-the-scenes look at their engineering because the technology isn't for you or available to you, that's totally valid! But it's a you're not interested thing, not a Netflix is boasting about something that doesn't matter thing. Only a few thousand teams in the world need most of what they do over there, but that doesn't mean they aren't massive technical achievements. Most of them are. The scale, complexity, and cadence of modern production has given rise to some of the biggest technical challenges I’ve ever seen. And for anyone close to that world, this kind of content is of great interest — if not genuinely valuable.

by dkh

4/2/2025 at 3:08:12 AM

I didn't say it wasn't interesting, but I'll take the bait: the article is light on details and misleading.

Light on details: the article is almost 3000 words, filled with vague and low-effort content: a lot more "We're so big and global!" and not nearly so much "Here's the problem we faced because we're so big and global, and here's how we solved it."

Misleading: they use the word "democratizes" twice: "we have crafted a scalable solution that ... democratizes access to advanced production tools across the globe" and "we’ve taken a bold step forward in enabling a suite of tools inside Netflix Content Hub that democratizes technology: the Media Production Suite" -- do you really get to say "democratizes" when you're describing an in-house system?

by gcanyon

4/1/2025 at 11:40:19 AM

Netflix get away with it because they own the result at the end of the process. If you were to suggest these workflows to other studios they'd balk at the idea of having the raw stuff being uploaded to the cloud etc. If they tried selling this as a solution do we think people outside Netflix would buy and use it?

One of the people I worked with that is now at Netflix on this stuff was so violently opposed to not owning his own in office render farm and drive array it verged on ridiculous.

by fidotron

4/1/2025 at 2:08:47 PM

> they'd balk at the idea of having the raw stuff being uploaded to the cloud

Why?

by okdood64

4/1/2025 at 5:09:10 PM

The major studios use cloud services all the time. For example, Paramount uses AWS. Disney has its own internal cloud system but also uses a combination of external clouds like AWS.

The resistance to cloud services is based on preventing leaks, not opposition to technology.

And in specific response to your comment: Netflix's "technology" is just a content management system. They're just reinventing a wheel that many of their competitors already use and bragging about something that Disney, Paramount, etc., did over a decade ago when they began embracing digital-first production.

by gamblor956

4/3/2025 at 5:38:20 AM

“major studios do use some cloud services” is not the issue. The problem being addressed is that the “script to screen” process is typically an antiquated mishmash of offline-first vendors. Netflix reinvented that with a cloud-first process.

“Digital-first production” can mean lots of things, so when you say Disney, Paramount, etc did this a decade ago, you’ll have to be more specific. Do you mean an end to end digital process? That’s not what this is about. Have you worked on a Netflix production? It’s night and day different from the studios you mentioned.

by trunnell

4/2/2025 at 1:13:17 AM

What? Cloud media asset management systems are full of raw stuff.

by staticautomatic

4/1/2025 at 3:18:25 PM

> They have put more into tech side of modern-day TV/film than anybody else, and it's not even close

I feel Disney is up there too they just don't blog about it

by cush

4/1/2025 at 4:07:11 PM

I find it weird that people don't think of the BBC as a tech company, from their work on microphones way back in the day, to launching iPlayer (before youtube, and launching on christmas day iirc) to regular live streaming of huge events in 4k (something netflix has struggled with). But yet they are never recognised for their engineering.

by youngNed

4/1/2025 at 5:17:22 PM

They've done a lot of great stuff and I've always followed their engineering-related tools and content as well! In particular they made some major contributions to media archival and analysis tools, and, yes of course, to web players. Unfortunately they haven't put as much focus on a lot of it in recent years, at least not in the tools they've opened sourced and topics they used to write about a lot

by dkh

4/1/2025 at 4:19:31 PM

I don't think they're not recognized for it, they just don't brand themselves as it.

For as long as broadcasting has been a thing, major broadcasters were involved in pushing the technology forward. For most of it's history the American network NBC was a subsidiary of the Radio Corporation of America. But NBC's brand is not tech, they want to consumer to associate the gliz of the picture.

by finnthehuman

4/1/2025 at 5:10:17 PM

All of the players in this echelon have contributed massively, and all of them have pretty wild workflows and impressive solutions to technical problems. If we were measuring technical achievement across the broader history of filmed entertainment, there’s a strong case to be made for Disney as the most influential. But when it comes to how content is produced and distributed today, Netflix has definitely invested the most into tackling modern challenges and continues to do so, and these efforts feed directly into the meticulous, end-to-end workflow that’s applied across every production.

There are plenty of people who have worked on Netflix and non-Netflix shows and would would argue that Netflix's workflow and high standards are difficult if you're not used to it yet, or more stringent than they'd like, but very few would deny the end results or technical superiority

by dkh

4/2/2025 at 12:15:26 AM

Yeah I really just don't see how you are getting these "Netflix is the most" figures, considering the scale of Disney and how they constantly push technical boundaries in production, vfx, animation, etc

by cush

4/1/2025 at 8:50:32 PM

the disney studios (walt disney animation, walt disney pictures, pixar, Industrial Light and Magic, Blue Sky, 20th Century Fox) contributed a significant amount of research towards technologies used in film and television, much of it in academic conferences like SIGGRAPH

by eccentricsquare

4/1/2025 at 1:47:14 PM

Netflix is case of "nothing succeeds like success". We have at work a lot of Netflix libraries, frameworks etc which are in deprecated / half-assed state waiting to be replaced for years. It all works for Netflix because they can spend ton of money , resources and people and make even dubious shit work.

I think it will remain fine for Netflix in any case keep or replace. But companies who keep using Netflix OSS, or architecture ideas only because Netflix is so cool are going to have worse outcomes. Case in point is Micro services revolution which is almost invented and promoted by Netflix.

by geodel

4/1/2025 at 5:00:22 PM

They have put more into tech side of modern-day TV/film than anybody else

This is objectively not true. Netflix has put almost no tech into the basic tooling of modern day TV/film (i.e., the cameras or audio equipment) or the software used to produce the content, or even the tech used to create the sets, makeup, CGI, or any of the other actual work that goes into producing the content.

The only place where Netflix has put in more work is on the non-linear distribution side.

Netfix is way behind the big dogs in the live streaming space. Peacock...the smallest major streaming service... livestreamed dozens of Olympic sports simultaneously at HD and 4K resolutions to over a hundred million simultaneous viewers without issue. Netflix couldn't handle half of that traffic for a single boxing match without crashing or degrading the streams to CRT-era resolution. The biggest player in the live streaming space is Disney Streaming (fka BAMTech before its acquisition) which was created to create the technology to stream MLB games and now currently provides the technology for ESPN streaming, NHL, MLB, Blaze Media, and Hulu's live streams.

The difference is that Netflix's competitors don't brag about their technology.

by gamblor956

4/1/2025 at 5:37:05 PM

I should’ve been more specific—I was referring to the modern-day workflow for producing a scripted series, which is what the article was about. In that context, Netflix has the most technically sophisticated workflow and tooling to optimize production of that kind of content, from the perspective of creatives working on those sorts of shows. Certainly they have major blind spots in a lot of user-facing stuff that they only recently started to care about, with live content being a huge one.

I've been a big fan of peaock! The Olympics coverage was massively impressive. Like much of what Peacock does, their success wasn't just about comprehensively covering it (which they did do) but also with how cleverly they packaged it, and all sorts of cool features it had that nobody else does/did, like the "Gold Zone" Red Zone-esque whip-around coverage, the constantly-updating highlights and key moments, etc. My impression of Peacock from the beginning was very good because their design and interface pretty much blows everyone else's away, and then I continued to be impressed after discovering a lot of these "cleverness" features, like when I noticed while watching soccer matches that the key moments/highlights were tagged and timestamped for easy access in real-time as they were occurring. I just wish they had a better catalog of shows to go along with. It is worth noting that while they are the smallest streamer, they do have one of the largest budgets and are probably the least burdened by existential risk because they've got Comcast behind them

by dkh

4/1/2025 at 11:43:10 PM

Netflix's workflow for creatives isn't more sophisticated than their competitors; Netflix simply prefers to re-create the wheel in-house while their competitors are more likely to use off-the-shelf software solutions to the extent that they use software at all.

As others have pointed out on this thread: Netflix's solutions don't scale up or down for others. This means that the technical solution is sophisticated because their unnecessarily complicated internal business process requires it. Netflix could save billions a year if it streamlined their production side like the studios have. Case in point: almost every film Netflix has made in the past few years has gone way over budget, and it's not because of backend buy-outs. (The Electric State cost $320 million, meaning that the base budget before backend buyouts was around $225 million. It doesn't even look like an $50 million movie.)

Netflix can get away with inefficient business processes because it's making enough money right now to paper over those costs, but eventually they'll have to streamline their processes. (For an indirect example, look up the story of Carolco Pictures, the company behind T2, Rambo, and other major hits.)

by gamblor956

4/2/2025 at 7:29:26 AM

I am such a luddite -- I hardly stream (a couple of things per year from Google Play). I know about the book "The Electric State", but I never knew it was made into a film by Netflix. If you Google search for reviews, they are absolutely savage. Just the headlines are enough:

Vulture: Netflix's The Electric State Is a $320 Million Piece of Junk

The Atlantic: How to Make an Instantly Forgettable, Very Expensive Movie

The Guardian: Why are the most expensive Netflix movies also the worst?

EDIT:

Regarding this:

    > Netflix can get away with inefficient business processes because it's making enough money right now to paper over those costs, but eventually they'll have to streamline their processes.
If this were really true, why are the professional stock analyst ratings overwhelming "buy" (instead of "hold" or "sell")? The stock is up 50+% in last 1 year, and 150+% in last 5 years. That is outstanding performance.

by throwaway2037

4/2/2025 at 2:19:54 PM

Because people don't read reviews and do like dumb action flicks. Netflix will put it on the home screen and people will click on it

by mavhc

4/1/2025 at 4:02:44 AM

I’ve sat through a few Netflix talks and they’re all the same flavor of “look what you can achieve with millions of dollars and hundreds of engineers.” They’re somewhat interesting from an architectural perspective, but even scaled down versions aren’t feasible in most environments and it leaves a taste in your mouth that you just sat through a recruiting pitch.

by penultimatename

4/1/2025 at 11:34:06 AM

Until a few years ago most projects at Netflix were done with a handful of engineers ( <= 6 ). A dozen people working on something would have been considered very large. Four dozen would have been considered a company wide effort.

by diab0lic

4/1/2025 at 1:56:03 PM

isn't the TCO for those engineers also something like 400k each? not talking Principle Big-Dick Super-Staff Engineer, but like mid-level.

Netflix was famous for that, too -- no RSUs, just straight cash, and we'll fire you if we think you can't deliver.

100s of devs would essentially be their entire, company-wide, operating budget; it's gotta be like 10-15 people tops on these things.

by red-iron-pine

4/1/2025 at 6:29:17 PM

Netflix is still pretty cash-heavy on average, though with a lot more compensation going towards stock options in recent years. They let the employee choose the ratio. They pay extremely well, but this comes along with very high hiring standards and a very difficult culture.

The culture was and still is as you have described, with massively high pressure, "radical candor" taken to arguably very unhealthy levels, and with no hesitation in firing you. This is a major reason why, despite the fact that I am a video engineer with a film background who lives walking distance to 2 of their campuses and has a great amount of respect for their technical achievements, I never apply there.

by dkh

4/1/2025 at 4:39:49 AM

Mostly agree though I find VMAF useful

by LeFantome

4/1/2025 at 3:16:35 AM

Ha! Yes sure, but it does make sense that they’d keep something like this to themselves.

Creating massive amounts of high quality content efficiently, on a global scale, with seamless global distribution is an incredible competitive advantage.

I don’t see why they would provide it to anyone outside of their ecosystem.

It’ll be interesting to see if they translate this to games as well.

by Gshaheen

4/1/2025 at 12:52:32 PM

They've been pretty great about pushing for open standards. In the last article their argument to provide these tools for free was along the lines of "A rising tide lifts all boats".

by persedes

4/1/2025 at 6:19:03 AM

High quality?

by nottorp

4/1/2025 at 9:44:54 AM

The purpose of these articles is to promote the brand among engineers, help hire engineers, and help the careers of the authors both internally ("I'm helping the company hire") and externally (you can point at what you built because it's now public).

by barrkel

4/1/2025 at 10:09:19 AM

Also creates an image that Netflix is a tech company!

by pritambarhate

4/1/2025 at 3:31:25 AM

I've worked at a few different FAANG's (including this one). I've participated in some of these engineering blog posts.

They will never tell you anything that is real-world relevant for you.

At best, you might get some kind of _theoretical_ insight. It's because they're operating at a scale that just isn't realistic for hobby developers.

But they're still engineers just the same as you and me. So they write blogs like this. And it's interesting! I love to read them.

by VWWHFSfQ

4/1/2025 at 5:21:59 AM

I know quite a few people who worked on this and unfortunately this is effectively the product.

It’s a company that prioritizes micro services and enterprise style crud apps internally. I’ve seen so many of their presentations and it’s like an IBM demo.

It’s data , data, data. That’s their approach to everything.

by dagmx

4/1/2025 at 1:57:21 PM

they're streaming fantastic quantities of movies in HD, constantly.

why wouldn't data data data be their approach?

that and churning out design-by-keyword visual media

by red-iron-pine

4/1/2025 at 3:28:16 PM

It’s fine, but it doesn’t make for nice to use tools or even interesting tools, which is what the person I responded to was talking about.

CRUD apps are great for what they are. Exciting they are not.

by dagmx

4/1/2025 at 6:48:04 AM

Hi there, I'm a fellow filmmaker building my own tools and would love to hear your thoughts and needs. If you'd like (and anyone reading this), please email

Studios at weedonandscott dot com

by oDot

4/1/2025 at 8:46:43 AM

At last I've stumbled upon somebody using Gleam without expressly going and looking for it

by dkh

4/1/2025 at 6:30:49 AM

Yeah, I had the same feeling. The tech itself sounds genuinely impressive, but the article reads more like an internal case study than something aimed at engaging the wider community

by MarceliusK

4/1/2025 at 3:41:08 PM

For your first point, you can see it in the videos they have embedded.

by pests

4/2/2025 at 3:16:17 AM

Not really -- the videos have brief glimpses of UI, but are mostly film clips and vague and pointless diagrams.

by gcanyon

4/1/2025 at 2:44:10 AM

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...

by _m_p

4/1/2025 at 2:58:26 AM

> we were backing up, two or three times

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

by progbits

4/1/2025 at 4:35:55 AM

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)

by fezz

4/1/2025 at 8:55:26 AM

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

by dkh

4/1/2025 at 3:06:40 AM

That you don’t film on two or three wheels at a time

by wodenokoto

4/1/2025 at 4:49:30 AM

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.

by progbits

4/1/2025 at 3:26:50 AM

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.

by m463

4/1/2025 at 6:31:51 AM

Back then, it was basically the Wild West with digital cinematography. No wonder studios freaked out at the idea of lost footage

by MarceliusK

4/1/2025 at 5:18:24 AM

Weren't the Star Wars prequels the first big digital productions?

by pier25

4/1/2025 at 6:07:49 AM

Phantom menace used some (pioneering) digital shots but Collateral is fully shot on digital from my understanding

by dmbche

4/1/2025 at 4:13:20 PM

Attack of the Clones (2002) was shot fully digital with an early Cine Alta camera.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CineAlta

by pier25

4/2/2025 at 2:22:29 PM

So early the film isn't even in 1080p

by mavhc

4/2/2025 at 4:37:16 PM

it's not?

by pier25

4/2/2025 at 6:35:45 PM

From a cursory search it was recorded at 1080p but the aspext ratio was 16:9, and the final.movie was to be 2.41:1, which means they had to crop the image, meaning less than 1080p.

by dmbche

4/1/2025 at 8:25:47 AM

Collateral was not the first fully digitally shot feature film. In fact, Collateral was not even fully digital. (The first major, all-digital, HD feature film was Attack of the Clones, but there were other fully-digital feature films before that, just not as major, and/or not always HD. Robert Rodriguez' Once Upon a Time in Mexico (2001) was fully digital.)

But you are right that Collateral did do something very new/unusual at the time, and that was shooting scenes in higher frame-rates than 24, and mixing multiple frame rates in a film. (This might not sound like much, but until this time, pretty much every film was 24fps for the previous eighty years and it had a very specific look that everyone's eyes/brains were conditioned for, unbeknownst to them.)

And the other thing that was very interesting thing about it (though not something very visible to a viewer) was that it was shot on the Thomson Viper FilmStream camera[1], which was the first major attempt at shooting not just digital, but very close to "raw". It was also a huge pain in the ass. The camera itself was massive, but due to the bandwidth, it recorded to an external storage array that had to be pushed alongside it at all times, and that was itself about the size of a shopping cart. (This device was hilariously referred to as the "Director's Friend.")

In 2002, my friend and I, both cinema nerds in high school, drove an hour away to the nearest theater showing a film called Russian Ark[2]. Why were journeying to to see a strange little Russian film where a never-named character walks the viewer through Russian history? Because just like each episode of the recently-released Netflix show Adolescence, this entire film was a single, very long, very complicated, unbroken shot. One shot. No trickery, no cuts that were just hidden to the audience, one shot, through streets, buildings, snow, ballrooms with a couple hundred choreographed actors, it was crazy. This is easy now compared to how it was back then.

As we've now established with Collateral (and this film predates it by 2 years), digital cinematography existed, but the storage was a real problem, the power was a real problem. Since this film was one shot, it needed almost 100 minutes of both, unbroken. And since it was a very complex moving shot, it had to be operated handheld. So essentially they had an incredibly ripped director of photography who operated the camera on a steadicam the whole time while a giant array of daisychained batteries and hard drives were lugged behind him. And they did it something like 100 times until they had a few takes where there were no mistakes.

None of this really means anything to anyone anymore, but at the time, to cinematography nerds at least, this stuff was all absolutely insane!

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20040103133953/http://www.thomso...

[2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Ark

by dkh

4/1/2025 at 8:56:15 AM

Around 2004 I worked for a company in The Netherlands that owned a Viper camera (one of the few in NL, I guess because they were based in Breda and Thomson had an HQ there). The company actually had a big Mercedes van that contained a Quantel iQ system just to record and postprocess the video coming out of that Viper.

In the years after that I worked with them to write a custom application based on a Bluefish444 card combined with some ATTO fiber channel storage just to get the frames to disk fast enough. A lot of custom code, overlapped I/O, that kind of thing. We had a beast of a JBOD RAID setup, must have been about 12 spinning disks.

The only alternative in those days were systems that stored to tape, but could only do so in a compressed format (I think Sony had a solution that did 4:2:0 instead of the 4:4:4 coming out of the Viper). People were scrambling for these storage solutions so much that we even got Arri to lend us their prototype D-20 camera (which turned into D-21 which turned into Alexa) just so we could make sure our storage system worked with their camera. We just had this amazing prototype camera sitting around our office for what must have been a year. They just lent it to us. Wild. I think our only main competitor at the time was Codex, which admittedly had a much slicker system.

We visited the CINEC trade show and got a ton of interest. I think I still have a business card of the DoP that did all the miniature work in Lord Of The Rings. He loved the fact that we would store things uncompressed, which would make things like compositing a lot easier.

Unfortunately, mismanagement caused the whole thing to collapse. Oh well. Nowadays you just use a CompactFlash card :)

by sagacity

4/1/2025 at 9:51:48 AM

A Mercedes van to lug it all around is both hilarious and also probably the coolest way to do it.

While working on set between 2012-2014, we were shooting all RED, and I had a 12-disk ATTO FC RAID10 rig on set at all times borrowed from RED. Not needed for speed of frames by this time of course, but for the ridiculous total storage required shooting 6.5k raw and the time needed to copy it all. On paper this system should've been good/safe enough. In practice, we almost lost it a handful of times within a month, each in a unique way, including the time a stunt driver messed up, veered off course, and plowed directly into video village, striking the RAID and killing exactly the maximum number of disks in one mirror it could tolerate, but thankfully no more. (Needless to say the shoot was a massive learning experience and I have never managed data the same ever since.) By the time the shoot was over, the RAID was alive, but it was absolutely beat to shit, and I was afraid of how the guy from RED would react when he came to pick it up. When he did, he was completely unphased. He chuckled and said, "You should've seen how messed it was after Ridley Scott's crew borrowed it!"

Very cool background though, I was not quite old enough to get into it all quite that early! When the Viper came out, I was still in high school, just exceedingly nerdy. I believe to this day I have PCs with ATTO Disk Benchmark on them

by dkh

4/1/2025 at 8:39:31 AM

I saw Russian Ark! Definitely a piece of art made by film buffs for film buffs; impressive to see, but far more impressive when you understand the amount of work that went into it.

I'm wondering why people would have chosen to do early digital if it was so inconvenient. When did the cost and flexibility advantages start to really kick in?

by pjc50

4/1/2025 at 9:10:49 AM

So in the context of this specific goal—shooting a feature film in a single unbroken shot—digital was a pain in the ass, but this was close to impossible to do on film, and Russian Ark was the first to ever do it, on any medium.

Simply shooting a feature film digitally was not that complicated by this time, or at least it didn't have to be. The Sony CineAlta F900 was the camera developed to shoot the Star Wars prequels, and was revolutionary at the time, became the gold standard for years, and very convenient relative to film. Tons of things started to be shot in 1080p around that time, and it was very nice to work with. Collateral was insane because they wanted to shoot raw and at high frame rates. Russian Ark needed a single unbroken shot in a form factor that one human would be capable of holding for that long. Aside from very specific and/or boundary-pushing needs, the arrival of the F900 in 2000 was effectively when digital was more convenient than shooting film while also meeting the technical requirements of high-end production (though it was many more years before most cinematographers agreed that the image quality was comparable)

by dkh

4/1/2025 at 2:17:45 PM

"But you are right that Collateral did do something very new/unusual at the time, and that was shooting scenes in higher frame-rates than 24, and mixing multiple frame rates in a film. (This might not sound like much, but until this time, pretty much every film was 24fps for the previous eighty years and it had a very specific look that everyone's eyes/brains were conditioned for, unbeknownst to them.)"

Why was certain scenes in Collateral filmed in other frame rates than 24 fps (unless you are doing slow motion of course)? AFAIK it was never projected/shown in anything else than 24 fps.

by tuna74

4/1/2025 at 6:05:47 PM

Correct, theaters at the time could not really been project anything other than 24fps. So there were 2 parts to the shooting style, and one of them is what you describe, shooting at the higher frame rate used in order to have it play back slower when conformed to 24. But they did this in a pretty unusual way. During the action sequences, they would ramp up frame rate from 24 to 30 and back down. They would do adjust during the shot, so the action scenes had these subtle but constantly-occurring increases and decreases in speed that looked very interesting and had not been done before.

The other major part was the shutter speed. They of course could not actually shoot/project 48/60fps, but they a shot a lot scenes at the high shutter speeds one typically uses when shooting those frame rates, a lot of it had that "ultratrealistic" look that people had weren't used to in films, resembling more the look of video, TV soap operas in 60i, etc.

I feel slightly absurd even writing about this considering how little of this really applies today, and how inconsequential changing the shutter speed on a camera is now. "I hit the '+ shutter' button a couple of times, revolutionary!" But it's crazy how conditioned everyone was to these looks at the time due to how little variety there was. I taught this film class where I would demonstrate to everyone, with nearly 100% success, that they all were influenced by and conditioned for these frame rates, even if they didn't know what a frame rate was. We'd shoot a scene with multiple cameras side-by-side shooting at different frames rates, play it back to the class later, and ask which one looked "more like a movie" to them. Invariably, even if they couldn't explain why, everyone always picked the 24p version

by dkh

4/1/2025 at 6:35:34 PM

"Correct, theaters at the time could not really been project anything other than 24fps. So there were 2 parts to the shooting style, and one of them is what you describe, shooting at the higher frame rate used in order to have it play back slower when conformed to 24. But they did this in a pretty unusual way. During the action sequences, they would ramp up frame rate from 24 to 30 and back down. They would do adjust during the shot, so the action scenes had these subtle but constantly-occurring increases and decreases in speed that looked very interesting and had not been done before."

Wouldn't this just lead to judder? Maybe that was something that had not been seen before in a movie shown at cinemas.

I've heard that sometimes scenes like kung fu fights were filmed in a lower frame rate (maybe 20 fps) and then it got faster when it was projected in 24 fps. If you do it the other way around movement just get slower (which is what you want for slow motion).

by tuna74

4/1/2025 at 6:31:31 PM

"We'd shoot a scene with multiple cameras side-by-side shooting at different frames rates, play it back to the class later, and ask which one looked "more like a movie" to them. Invariably, even if they couldn't explain why, everyone always picked the 24p version"

Isn't this the most expected result? How could it possibly be anything else?

by tuna74

4/2/2025 at 12:27:55 AM

At the time, yes, absolutely, and that's why I did it. It was a lesson that everyone understood intuitively the moment the saw the comparison, even if 30 seconds prior to that they thought it was nonsense, or didn't really have thoughts one way or the other because they never given much thought to frame rates before.

But would this experiment yield the same results today? For people in certain demographics or below a certain age, I think almost certainly not.

I also think that a lot of the people who would've easily identified the 24p clip back in 2004ish when this class took place may no longer do so now. I never would've thought this before 2018ish, but I had experiences with people around and since that time that surprised me and turned me completely around on this view.

Though there is one other alternative that that I wouldn't have difficulty believing. I think it's possible that more people than I just predicted would identify the 24p clip as "cinematic", but that they may not view it as a desirable look, inherently more dramatic, having much impact on the viewer, etc.

by dkh

4/1/2025 at 9:33:18 PM

In the book _In the Blink of an Eye_ by Walter Murch (which is generally about film editing), there's a section that speculates that 24 frames per second somehow resonates with some innate constant of how human vision works, which is wild to think about!

by _m_p

4/2/2025 at 12:40:47 AM

I remember exactly when I learned that, and indeed I found it interesting and thought-provoking at the time. And it's still interesting now, but I personally think it's way less likely true than I did back then

by dkh

4/1/2025 at 2:10:47 PM

> large budget feature

What does this mean?

by okdood64

4/1/2025 at 2:29:38 PM

You parsed it wrong - it's a large budget feature film. A feature film is a theatrical movie too long to be called a short film: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_film

by herculity275

4/1/2025 at 2:17:53 PM

A film that requires lots of resources in order to be made?

by pbalau

4/1/2025 at 5:25:08 AM

15 years ago, the first start up I worked for provided APIs for music streaming in India. One of the founders who managed all infra was in US, and so the servers (bare metal) were in LA. I still find it amusing, that it was cheaper (and faster) just to fly to India, buy bunch of portable hard drives, upload the media, fly back to US and upload the data to the file server, than uploading the media directly from India to the US server. Obviously only applies when data is in order of TBs. Later saw the same thing with AWS Snowball and Snowmobile.

by BhavdeepSethi

4/1/2025 at 5:55:27 AM

"Never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of tapes hurtling down the highway." - Andrew S. Tanenbaum, Computer Networks, 3rd ed., p. 83. (paraphrasing Dr. Warren Jackson, Director, University of Toronto Computing Services (UTCS) circa 1985)

by VectorLock

4/1/2025 at 6:46:37 AM

We had to transfer a few 10GBs, if not 100GBs between Europe and the US back 15yo.

Bandwidth was of 100KB/sec at most, I suggested to do that fly over things if the systems team didn't want to raise the priority of that transfer, after prod tried 3 times over the weekend, sadly, they changed the priority of that flow, it took still like 40h? For the initial load.

by Foobar8568

4/1/2025 at 2:13:57 PM

Mailing hard drives of LARGE amounts of data was relatively common as recently as the mid 2010s.

by okdood64

4/1/2025 at 6:33:11 AM

How much global infrastructure has improved… but also how physical logistics can still beat the internet when you're dealing with massive datasets.

by MarceliusK

4/1/2025 at 9:17:21 AM

The technical requirements always seem to increase at the same rate as the technical advances. I've found this especially true in film/TV. Sure, by 2014ish we were shooting on solid state and had giant RAIDs on set and storage was cheaper than it ever had been, but we easily negated all of that by shooting on multiple RED cameras in raw at resolutions of 6.5k+. Terabytes of new data each day, even duplicating it before leaving took a lot of time! And then storing it at the office while letting more than 1 editor work with it at the time meant building a 36-disk ZFS server with 10GbE to each client. Just playing the footage back on a computer required a dedicated PCIe card

by dkh

4/1/2025 at 10:56:10 AM

> “… automation became imperative. The intricacies of color and framing management, along with deliverables, must be seamlessly controlled and effortlessly managed by the user, without the need for manual intervention. Therefore, we cannot lean into humans configuring JSON files behind the scenes to map camera formats into deliverables.”

I’d often thought (critically) about the lack of visual diversity in Netflix output - and this is something I often see stereotypical film-enjoyers complain about.

I’d never considered it as a consequence of Netflix’s sheer scale. It’s always really interesting when I discover that something I’d previously put down as an (unimaginably unimaginative) aesthetic choice might in fact be an operational choice. It makes me check myself!

It sounds an incredibly complex and clever system; I can’t help but feel that applying such a strong vertical to the more creative aspects of film and tv production - such as colour grading - will ultimately prove short-sighted.

by gabriel666smith

4/1/2025 at 11:22:37 AM

This. “the medium is the message” Marshall McLuhan.

The actual content is invariably a result of the infrastructure behind it. And it’s not just the image, it’s also what kind of scripts are written, what kind of audience insights are passed on to creative producers, what kind of creative teams are selected.

Is it proving short-sighted? If you’re optimizing for cinematic art, then yeah. But they’re optimizing for subscriptions and global reach. That vertical will likely move to live-streaming, sports and other forms that retain subscribers. And on multiple global markets at the same time (not just U.S.)

It’s a weird vertical, they’re quite sophisticated in their approach, but it’s surprising how they sometimes contract entire chunks out. I’ve read academic papers talking about how Netflix is a very strange disjointed thing.

by scyzoryk_xyz

4/1/2025 at 12:57:54 PM

That’s interesting. I’d love to read those papers, if you remember what they were.

I do wonder if an in-house aesthetic can become ‘tacky’ in the age of global media - can trends ‘die’ when there are still billions more people to reach? And will a creative org structure like this be able to move fast enough should that happen? I don’t think we know the answer to that yet.

I personally believe (maybe optimistically!) that this will be an important question even though Netflix’s natural conclusion is to move towards the subscription-retaining, low-creative products like sports that you mentioned.

The problem with those entertainment products is that they have intrinsic value: if the provider is adding little value besides distribution, some (or lots) of users will pirate that content. Super apparent in sports media.

Maybe it’s a naive hope, rather than a belief, but I hope / believe that because of this, companies like Netflix will be ultimately forced by users to have more idiosyncrasy in their production pipeline and output. It’ll be really interesting to find out!

by gabriel666smith

4/1/2025 at 8:21:38 AM

With the asset sizes they are talking about (hundreds of terabytes), how does it make it feasible to do this over the wire? Even with 1Gbps connection, it will take ~10 days to upload a single 100TB original camera file. And there could be several.

by shubhamjain

4/1/2025 at 11:03:59 AM

Wouldn't surprise me if they had something like this in a few cities with big production teams. There must've been pipelines in place from when 35mm was the standard for movies, and crews needed to get hours of footage developed and over to various people for review each day.

https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-physical-aws-data-trans...

by chedabob

4/1/2025 at 1:02:56 PM

A single file isn't 100TB - an entire production of OCF is ~200TB. A single take is typically 10-200GB depending on a variety of factors.

by ancientworldnow

4/2/2025 at 6:44:21 AM

>Netflix has been spinning up ingest centers around the world, where drives can be dropped off, and within a matter of hours, all original camera files are uploaded into the Netflix ecosystem.

Netflix is looking to sell shovels to as many people as possible, it seems.

by Jean-Papoulos

4/1/2025 at 1:32:08 AM

Having a dozen different VFX departments using different file transfer methods like FTP seems like a nightmare. But then I realized that the banks do this, and probably worse.

There's one that uses Gmail to exchange documents (not financial, but important nonetheless) and uses the read receipt to determine if it has ingested the data. Replaying ingestion is marking unread.

by echelon

4/1/2025 at 7:52:10 AM

I've seen people in healthcare send patient data through whatsapp to other doctors in the same hospital.

It was not allowed and they had reliable corporate tools to exchange patient data, but the UX probably felt so cumbersome they'd rather face legal risks than doing it the right way.

by prmoustache

4/1/2025 at 9:26:56 AM

It doesn't make it any less worse, but that was my takeaway from the Signal scandal. Of course more secure channels exist, but I'm sure the UX sucked big time!

by ahmedfromtunis

4/1/2025 at 1:38:38 AM

The only part of that that seems crazy to me is the Gmail part. I’d want to control the mail server.

by alabastervlog

4/1/2025 at 1:34:10 AM

This is a sign they need deep reform and good management. Many such cases in technology these days.

by nimish

4/1/2025 at 6:33:57 AM

It's amazing how often critical workflows rely on duct tape and hope

by MarceliusK

4/1/2025 at 5:36:04 AM

What part of this makes good stories?

by nimish

4/1/2025 at 7:42:17 AM

The time and stress saved for users.

by poisonborz

4/1/2025 at 1:29:31 PM

Doesn't seem to be working that well tbh

by nimish

4/1/2025 at 7:36:20 AM

I can see this evolving into something like AWS — a platform that offers high-end production tools to anyone willing to pay. That would democratize access to cutting-edge tech, effectively solving the tooling problem. But it still wouldn’t address the real bottleneck: compelling storytelling.

by alwinaugustin

4/1/2025 at 10:55:11 AM

> But it still wouldn’t address the real bottleneck: compelling storytelling.

The problem is, storytelling is risky. Either you stick to something bland (adaptations of popular books, cartoons or videogames) and it usually gives decent returns, or you go for something completely original - at the risk of it either going boom or going bust.

As your average cinema movie is a triple-digit million dollar business these days just in pure production and actor cost and double that in promo cost, it's hard to find banks to finance the production, and so the banks prefer to go with something "proven and bland" over something risky.

by mschuster91

4/1/2025 at 5:32:45 PM

Netflix doesn't make "stories" or "films" or "art" or anything that impressive.

They make "content", and the distinction is super important.

by mrguyorama

4/1/2025 at 6:25:44 AM

The part that struck me most was how much manual, error-prone work is still common in the industry. Still, I wonder how portable this is outside Netflix. It sounds like a very vertically integrated solution.

by MarceliusK

4/1/2025 at 9:31:54 AM

There is still a lot of manual, error-prone work, even at Netflix. Netflix just has workflows that ensure so many passes are of each task are done, with so many failsafes, fallbacks, tests, checks (both human and automated), and they start doing them all earlier in the production process than most other studios so they can handle things they still didn't account for.

Yes, it's pretty vertical, but essentially every big streaming platform or production company is. There's a very specific Netflix way that governs how all Netflix shows are produced. There is a very different but still meticulously standardized way that governs how all Hulu shows are produced, one for all Warner Bros. shows, etc. This is an area where being vertically integrated is totally fine. It not only makes enormous sense for these studios, but nobody outside of those environments wants or needs these workflows. Netflix's workflows are there to aid Netflix even more than their shows, and while there's a lot of excellent stuff in their workflows that most productions should utilize for efficiency/safety/whatever, there's also a ton of stuff that would make no sense to use independently.

by dkh

4/1/2025 at 6:42:21 AM

What languages are used? The screenshot of the desktop app looks native.

by perfmode

4/1/2025 at 6:50:20 AM

I know some of the folks who worked on this and a big chunk is Java with some Python afaik.

by dagmx

4/1/2025 at 2:41:08 AM

Isn't this what Frame.io does just without the markup tools? They have had camera to cloud for a while.

by jfountain2015

4/1/2025 at 3:05:49 AM

I wonder if Netflix will offer MPS as a service in the future for shows that are not on Netflix.

by thecybernerd

4/1/2025 at 4:01:48 AM

Probably not. One reason is that this is a competitive advantage for Netflix but I suspect the larger reason is that they created this to optimize their primary business, while operating it for other productions would be a secondary business and not mission critical. Another reason is that productions not on Netflix have other commercial options for camera to cloud production workflows (Frame.io for example).

This workflow and tool set is tuned for Netflix and is probably opinionated in a variety of ways to conform with Netflix production standards and requirements. If your production is being funded by Netflix then you're incentivized to learn and use their provided tools.

by mrandish

4/1/2025 at 9:23:18 AM

> I suspect the larger reason is that they created this to optimize their primary business

Wasn't this how AWS started at Amazon as well?

by ahmedfromtunis

4/1/2025 at 1:24:05 AM

The tech is cool, but it seems like the main result of having such a pipeline is that Netflix has been able to produce an incredible amount of low-effort schlock that mostly lacks soul and artistic merit.

by fastball

4/1/2025 at 1:44:21 AM

I barely even remember the last one that I watched let alone enjoyed. I guess it was Arcane which is a total fluke.

by sepositus

4/1/2025 at 2:10:30 AM

Arcane is one of the most expensive Netflix series. Not that budget is a panacea.

by klodolph

4/1/2025 at 1:46:50 AM

That was probably the plan. Except they probably expect a higher fluke rate.

by theWreckluse

4/1/2025 at 3:41:08 AM

Using faster, easier or cheaper production workflows aren't significantly correlated with end product quality, other than perhaps in the obvious sense that investing a large amount of money/effort into a production might cause the investing party to take more care to ensure ROI. However, there are so many counter examples of very expensive, high-effort productions lacking artistic merit that the correlation is weak at best.

by mrandish

4/1/2025 at 8:51:13 AM

Thinking about this, and the reasonable argument below that Netflix have also produced a number of prestige films and series that are genuinely great, I wonder if the production pipeline has a side effect: flattening the quality signal.

That is, it used to be (80s/90s) a lot more obvious what the prestige/not prestige boundary was. Cheap TV content (soaps etc) was shot on video, expensive content shot on film. Now everything looks the same. Perhaps the one remaining effort signal was lighting, but Netflix seem to have chosen very flat bright lighting styles for everything now. Bad news for us chiaroscuro lovers. And even when directors do try to do that, they've often over-estimated the HDR so you get the opposite: an entire series which is too dark.

by pjc50

4/1/2025 at 2:08:29 AM

Some C-levels have gone for the "quantity has a quality all of its own" philosophy of media production.

My personal experience with netflix has been that a good filter for 'quality' is what specific TV series and documentaries various 'scene' groups in the warez/torrent community consider worth ripping and properly encoding.

There's a certain amount of manual effort that's required to properly encode a ripped netflix or amazon prime series. People who do this strictly for street cred in the piracy community generally don't waste their time on schlock.

by walrus01

4/1/2025 at 2:03:51 AM

Yes, strange to have so much and still feel like you'e lost something.

by mpalmer

4/1/2025 at 1:41:38 AM

I remember reading once how all Netflix content is really meant for phones or smaller screens. Simple shots, not much background detail, lots of face closeups etc.

I remember when being made by Netflix was a unique and cool thing, it didn’t last long until it meant probably-slop.

by pests

4/1/2025 at 1:47:14 AM

A lot of them are also meant to "second screen worthy" where they run in the background while your attention is mainly focused on some other task like playing a video game.

by ksynwa

4/2/2025 at 8:03:49 AM

the importance of picking a fight you'll never win

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h-vWRLGnTGg

A filmmaker discusses their experience with Amazon, who bought the rights to their movie and decided to release it on their streaming service instead of in theaters. The filmmaker explains why they feel this is unfair and why they are fighting for their movie to be seen on the big screen.

by nthingtohide

4/1/2025 at 6:36:29 AM

I have never been able to second screen, I just can't focus on my PC while listening to something. It's literally white noise to me. I do understand people do this though. When I do watch media seriously, I pay attention and keep off my devices.

by pests

4/1/2025 at 7:07:09 AM

Yeah my attention during second screening is split such that I'm now doing two things _terribly_ instead of one thing well. I've decided to only have music or something equally non intrusive in the background instead of second screening a show/video/podcast.

by whatevertrevor

4/1/2025 at 5:17:10 PM

I use music too but it can't have too many vocals. I will start to pay attention and get distracted. Similar to how I can't fall asleep with a TV on, I'm still going to listen to it.

by pests

4/1/2025 at 2:40:33 AM

Having worked on both quality and junk film productions I assure you the editing workflow is not the determinant of artistic quality. No film or TV program has ever been improved by the editor(s) trying to build their own NAS or hack a version control system together.

by anigbrowl

4/1/2025 at 2:58:07 AM

It's not just editing though, right? This whole system makes it more viable to just film tons of b-roll quality footage without worrying about the end result. As they say, necessity is the mother of invention, and this system makes it much less necessary to worry about what you're filming and why.

by fastball

4/1/2025 at 3:29:54 AM

I mean you could say the same thing about video cameras making it too easy to shoot footage compared to film.

by anigbrowl

4/1/2025 at 3:52:36 AM

Yes, and it is arguably true, right? That doesn't mean digital shouldn't exist, but everything is a balance. The quality and effort put into the "average" movie has almost certainly gone down over the decades since the normalization of digital cameras.

If our ability (as a society or as individuals) to filter out the slop from the rest increases in lock-step, this is a non-issue. But it seems that this not what has happened, and instead we are inundated with mind-numbing content that absorbs our time and does little to impact us in any positive way.

by fastball

4/1/2025 at 4:14:53 AM

If you think something is bad, all I can advise is that you stop watching it. Of course if it's easier/cheaper to make content, more content will be made, and there will be proportionately more crap around. My point is that quality is not specifically a function of the technology or workflow.

by anigbrowl

4/1/2025 at 9:44:12 AM

That's just your avg elitism. The idea that the world is better by making the creation of art expensive so that only a small group of elite people is nonsense.

Effort of course went down that's clearly a good thing. As for quality, before you needed to get enough return to pay for the expensive equipment and process, so likely you only do it for very few project. So on some abstract sense maybe 'quality' did go down, but that isn't bad as the total amount of high quality goes up far more.

See the massive amount of great TV that have happened since digital cameras.

> slop

What's slop for you is somebody else's favorite show.

Art doesn't have to 'impact us in a positive way' whatever that means. You are not a better person for having watched "Lawrence of Arabia". And in the past most people didn't watch "Lawrence of Arabia" but generic TV shows.

Personally I can easily filter the 'slop' (ie thinks I don't care about) so given how much better the ability is to select what to watch. On demand media libraries, recommendation systems, digital word of mouth and so on. In the past there were few TV channels and only a few movies in theaters at the same time.

So the total access to high quality content has gone up exponentially.

by panick21_

4/1/2025 at 2:22:32 AM

Are you serious? Have you watched Adolescence? It's got more soul and artistic merit than practically anything else I've ever seen. And that was just last week.

Maid? The Queen's Gambit? Baby Reindeer? The Crown? Ripley? BoJack Horseman?

Sure they make a lot of schlock too, because they're a business and that's what most of their audience wants.

But I don't see how you could possibly criticize them for that when they continue to put out some pretty astonishingly artistic and soulful stuff.

by crazygringo

4/1/2025 at 3:02:46 AM

You don't need this pipeline to produce 6 shows over a decade. Said another way, they almost certainly would not have bothered to build this system if the purpose was mainly to produce the shows you mention. The reason these systems exist is to enable the creation of hundreds or thousands of productions.

by fastball

4/1/2025 at 12:59:54 PM

Those were just six examples. There are many more.

But OK yes, Netflix produces a lot of volume because that's also what its viewers want. Are you saying that's a bad thing?

Sometimes people get home from an exhausting stressful day at work and they just need to relax with some mindless entertainment. And that's OK. Not everything has to be art.

by crazygringo

4/2/2025 at 7:07:15 AM

Two problems with this argument / framing:

1. Consumers frequently don't know what they want, and will consume whatever is placed in front of them. Implying the consumption of Netflix shows (or other media) is a conscious choice they are making seems disingenuous to me. You see the same with doom-scrolling TikTok or Twitter (or even HN). Frequently it is less of a choice and more of a compulsion.

2. Even when they are making conscious choices, sometimes the things people choose to consume are objectively bad. e.g. sometimes people get home from an exhausting stressful day at work and just need to shoot up heroin. While you can respect the agency of those people to make those choices, most societies do various things to discourage such behavior. A drug dealer whose entire defense is "selling crack isn't bad because my customers want it, actually" is not gonna get exonerated.

by fastball

4/2/2025 at 12:15:28 PM

No, because people usually do know what they want in terms of TV and movies. They've been watching their whole life and know exactly what they like generally and what they don't and what they're in the mood for tonight. This is precisely why Netflix's personalization is so key, because people won't consume whatever is in front of them. People even rotate between streamers precisely to watch the specific shows they love. You're denying people's agency. Streaming isn't IG or TikTok.

And no, TV isn't heroin or crack. And who on earth are you, or me, to judge what other people want to watch on TV? That's paternalistic and insulting. Next do you want to censor which books I can read?

by crazygringo

4/2/2025 at 3:13:09 PM

So on the one hand you admit that IG or TikTok are things where people literally consume whatever is in front of them, but when it's Netflix this no longer applies? Why?

And I never suggested preventing people from watching what they want to watch.

by fastball

4/1/2025 at 7:31:08 AM

House of Cards, The Diplomat, Kaleidoscope, Lincoln Lawyer, The End of the Fucking World, etc etc

by sofixa

4/1/2025 at 8:04:04 PM

So you're their target audience, enjoy.

by stackedinserter

4/1/2025 at 2:36:16 AM

Lincoln Lawyer?

by blinded

4/1/2025 at 2:37:23 AM

I mean if we go by volume of awards nominations it seems like they're fine in the artistic merit department

by duped

4/1/2025 at 1:46:57 AM

This is exactly how I'd imagine the dreck on netflix is made :).

by alpineidyll3

4/1/2025 at 1:52:34 AM

[flagged]

by henriquez

4/1/2025 at 1:55:17 AM

[flagged]

by Grosvenor

4/1/2025 at 1:56:06 AM

[flagged]

by henriquez

4/1/2025 at 2:12:16 AM

I looked to see if this is normal behavior for the account thinking they got hacked... but they have troll comments from 10 months ago too. Missing required medications?

by unethical_ban

4/1/2025 at 9:46:52 AM

So.. it is just a NAS with transcoding?

by i5heu

4/1/2025 at 1:51:37 PM

A NAS with ffmpeg :D

by Thaxll

4/1/2025 at 12:35:54 PM

To be fair, it's a really, really big NAS with an interesting use case.

by ryukoposting