F5: F5 gets the boot from NetFlix… or do they?

Harry Lime said:
I get it, but it's silly. If an Alexa is good enough to shoot a $200 million dollar blockbuster that's projected on a giant movie screen, it's good enough to handle anything from an iPhone to a 70 inch TV. It just sounds like something that was cooked up by some middle manager who knows a lot of buzzwords and little about actually making images.

Besides, there's probably not a lot left of that +4k after they compress the living daylights out of it to squeeze it across our archaic internet here in the US.
Click to expand...

It's not about how it looks today, it's how it will look in 10 or 20 years.
 
Almost always agree with you, Mitch, but have to say "future-proofing", when it comes to technology & specs is still a guessing game at best.
 
markfpv said:
Almost always agree with you, Mitch, but have to say "future-proofing", when it comes to technology & specs is still a guessing game at best.
Click to expand...

Ain't that the truth... and will it always be a guessing game or really a catch up game. That way we always have to keep buying. lol
 
Mitch Gross said:
It's not about how it looks today, it's how it will look in 10 or 20 years.
Click to expand...

I understand that point, but I really don't think that +99% of viewers can tell the difference between native 4k and Alexa 3.2k blown up to 4k. You certainly can't see it on a TV or theater at normal viewing distances. I did notice a difference between normal Alexa and Alexa 65 on The Revenant at the theater, but that's a much bigger leap (and I may have been one of the few who noticed).

I'd much rather have good skin tones and smooth highlights than a marginally sharper picture.
 
Harry Lime said:
I understand that point, but I really don't think that +99% of viewers can tell the difference between native 4k and Alexa 3.2k blown up to 4k. You certainly can't see it on a TV or theater at normal viewing distances. I did notice a difference between normal Alexa and Alexa 65 on The Revenant at the theater, but that's a much bigger leap (and I may have been one of the few who noticed).

I'd much rather have good skin tones and smooth highlights than a marginally sharper picture.
Click to expand...

Their team feels otherwise, and I can tell you from having met with them it is not just about 4K hype, meeting a number on a page or company marketing. These are people making careful, considered decisions based on actual testing.
 
Harry Lime said:
I understand that point, but I really don't think that +99% of viewers can tell the difference between native 4k and Alexa 3.2k blown up to 4k...
Click to expand...
That's not the point. They're advertising the 4K content and Alexa ain't 4K.

They also don't have GH4, RX10II/III, RX 100 IV/V, Nikon D500, 1DC, D5, 1D XII, 5D MKIV on that list. All of them are 4K but fail in other areas.
 
icarusfilm said:
This is why it's so volatile to invest in a camera that costs more than 20k the halflife is really short.
Click to expand...
If you're doing the Netflix originals, chances are you can afford a $20,000 camera. Or a $30,000 camera. Or Alexa65 (provided Netflix pays for it).
 
icarusfilm said:
Tell that to someone who invested in an Amira or mini alexa in last year.
Click to expand...

How is that relevant?

Presumably someone who bought their own Amira or Alexa Mini had a business plan that supported the payments of the purchase, and they're not planning on pitching themselves to Netflix Originals. There are tons and tons of clients, producers, and companies who are very glad to have you shoot on an Amira or Alexa Mini, and those are that person's target market.

If someone bought an Alexa specifically because they intended to pitch a project to Netflix Originals for funding, then they made a very bad mistake. Not the least of which is that personally owning one camera or another has zero to do with making a successful pitch for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in production commitment from Netflix Originals.
 
icarusfilm said:
Tell that to someone who invested in an Amira or mini alexa in last year.
Click to expand...

Netflix shows aren't being produced by owner/ops (I'd be very surprised if there were even one, although I suppose I could be wrong to some extent). They are renting from rental houses who can provide multiple cameras and can provide service/replacement in case anything goes wrong. Anyone who bought an Alexa/Amira and is using it on productions is likely operating on a indie feature, music video and lower budget commercial spots/content...again, because top tier work is renting. And I'm assuming those owner/ops will be just fine for the years ahead.
 
It is relevant because people who invest in a top of the line camera want to assume that it will cover them for all "high end " jobs in a foreseeable future.
I know a DP who owns an Amira and got a a deal to DP a Netflix series and now has to get a c300II to shoot it. What I am saying is that its tricky on the high-end.


Barry_Green said:
How is that relevant?

Presumably someone who bought their own Amira or Alexa Mini had a business plan that supported the payments of the purchase, and they're not planning on pitching themselves to Netflix Originals. There are tons and tons of clients, producers, and companies who are very glad to have you shoot on an Amira or Alexa Mini, and those are that person's target market.

If someone bought an Alexa specifically because they intended to pitch a project to Netflix Originals for funding, then they made a very bad mistake. Not the least of which is that personally owning one camera or another has zero to do with making a successful pitch for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in production commitment from Netflix Originals.
Click to expand...
 
Back when changing a camera's sensor was as easy as changing a roll of film, investing in a camera body could make long-term sense. But these days, it's hard for a camera to last two years as the current hot model. So when I need a camera different from what I own, I rent.

The Alexa is still a great camera, but it's not what I need (or the production/client can afford) for everything.
 
People who bought an Alexa/Amira to shoot indie features or music videos are not people who need to earn a living they usually come with a trust fund.
I am talking about real people.


abreu-canedo said:
Netflix shows aren't being produced by owner/ops (I'd be very surprised if there were even one, although I suppose I could be wrong to some extent). They are renting from rental houses who can provide multiple cameras and can provide service/replacement in case anything goes wrong. Anyone who bought an Alexa/Amira and is using it on productions is likely operating on a indie feature, music video and lower budget commercial spots/content...again, because top tier work is renting. And I'm assuming those owner/ops will be just fine for the years ahead.
Click to expand...
 
icarusfilm said:
People who bought an Alexa/Amira to shoot indie features or music videos are not people who need to earn a living they usually come with a trust fund.
I am talking about real people.
Click to expand...

Dang! Seems like a very pejorative statement!? Why?

You're in NYC. Lot's of indie productions with budgets of like $150K or less headed for festival acclaim and potential distribution deals getting produced by owner ops getting decent rates in NYC. And many owner ops getting good rates for music videos and "content" for local and national brands.

My statement about Netflix was indeed a generalization. But that is just my opinion...no need to throw shade
 
Last edited:
I just talking empirically.

abreu-canedo said:
Dang! Seems like a very pejorative statement!? Why?

You're in NYC. Lot's of indie productions with budgets of like $1500K or less headed for festival acclaim and potential distribution deals getting produced by owner ops getting decent rates in NYC. And many owner ops getting good rates for music videos and such.

My statement about Netflix was indeed a generalization. But that is just my opinion...no need to throw shade
Click to expand...
 
Mitch Gross said:
Their team feels otherwise, and I can tell you from having met with them it is not just about 4K hype, meeting a number on a page or company marketing. These are people making careful, considered decisions based on actual testing.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, it's their company. I just feel there are more important factors than sheer resolution.

But they actually tested an Ursa /4.6k against an Alexa and decided it delivered superior or equal IQ?
I can see their point with most of the RED, Sony and Panasonic cameras, but the BM cameras on the list are a head scratcher.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top