Netflix believes HDR more important than 4K

nutmegger said:
There have been a lot of posts on this forum about Netflix requiring their shows be shot in 4K. I came across the below article and wonder if Netflix is changing their mind.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...-expects-you-to-pay-more-for-it/#28714d395cbf

Enjoy
Click to expand...

It will be hilarious if they change their minds. It's stupid requirement anyway. Alexa is not 4K and looks better than any show on netflix. Same for F35. My spectre, blade runner 2049 and real steel blurays look amazing on my 65" UHD tv.
 
For fiction, high resolution is generally irrelevant. 10bit at this point is probably more important.
 
I can't imagine them backing away from 4K, even if they were to stream less of it. I mean, why would you walk away from the extra resolution?
 
There are so many cameras with a 4K sensor, that I think Netflix's requirement isn't a huge burden. Remember, this is for stuff Netflix commissions (fiction series, especially), not for things they acquire (single-episode documentaries and indies).

Here's the public statement of what Netflix wants to see in a camera, along with a list of cameras that they're good with. There appear to be a couple technical typos/goofs (such as saying a Canon C300mkII can record Canon RAW), but there are some reasonably priced cameras listed, and they are clear that this isn't a comprehensive list:

Camera Requirements

4K Resolution:
Camera must have a true 4K sensor (equal to or greater than 3840 photosites wide).

Recording Format:
Minimum of 16-bit Linear or 10-bit Log processing
Bitrate of at least 240 Mbps (at 23.98/24 fps) recording
Recording format must be set to either:
RAW (uncompressed or lightly compressed sensor data)
COMPRESSED (Log Gamma - i.e. S-Log3, V-Log, CanonLog3, REDLogFilm, BMDLog, LogC, etc.)
No looks or color corrections should be baked into the original camera files.
Files must maintain all metadata (i.e. Tape Name, Timecode, Frame Rate, ISO, WB, etc.)

It appears those specs and the camera list were last updated in June. Check it out:
https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/360000579527-Cameras-and-Image-Capture

But you know, tech advances. If Netflix really wants to commission something, they'll let you know what their near-future plans are for HDR, etc.
 
markoconnell said:
I can't imagine them backing away from 4K, even if they were to stream less of it. I mean, why would you walk away from the extra resolution?
Click to expand...

Because of the higher bandwidth required to transmit it. Because of the larger file size and associated costs of storing bigger files on their servers. And the fact that just because you send a higher resolution doesn't mean the viewer can see the higher resolution. The human visual system is limited.

For a 55" TV, the average person has to be sitting just 3' away to be able to see all the available detail from a from 4k signal. To put my eyes just 3' from the screen means my knees are just 9" away from the TV. Very uncomfortable, very claustrophobic. For 1080p, 7' to see all the available detail.

Since I sit 10' from my 55" TV, why would I pay Netflix a dime extra for a 4k signal? Yet, I probably would pay extra for HDR. I'd pay extra for Dolby Vision and uncompressed Dolby Atmos audio. But I would not pay anything at all for 4k by itself.
 
Bruce Watson said:
Because of the higher bandwidth required to transmit it. Because of the larger file size and associated costs of storing bigger files on their servers. And the fact that just because you send a higher resolution doesn't mean the viewer can see the higher resolution. The human visual system is limited.
Click to expand...
I think that a few years from now those statements will look silly.

Furthermore video transmission resolution adapts to the available bandwidth.
 
I don't think Netflix is backing away from UHD at all since the CNET article that Forbes quotes states these new plans are also UHD. If anything I think this is about Netflix saying UHD with HDR is worth more than UHD alone. Given that Netflix has chosen to master their original content in DolbyVision vs the less expensive HDR10 format it seems reasonable to ask if their customers are willing to pay extra for that feature. As a recent LG OLED convert, they will definitely get my money since I want to see my shows in all their glory.

I think this test is also about Netflix asking the question how do they continue to deliver on revenue growth as their increased subscriber penetration makes it harder to get new customers. Not only is this plan more expensive than their existing offerings, it also cuts the number of screens you can use simultaneously in half to two. I suspect Ultra customers will be less likely to share their password with friends and family if they can only have two screens in use. If that's true then that is also a win for Netflix.

https://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-rumored-to-be-introducing-new-ultra-plan/
 
Last edited:
Jim Feeley said:
Here's the public statement of what Netflix wants to see in a camera, along with a list of cameras that they're good with. There appear to be a couple technical typos/goofs (such as saying a Canon C300mkII can record Canon RAW)...
Click to expand...

The C300 Mark II can record Canon RAW (not CRL, which is the C200's)...just externally, which is implied as they say the same thing for the C500, which of course has no internal 4K option.

But ironically or coincidentally, I think the typo is for the C700, which I don't think has Canon RAW, but its own proprietary CODEX RAW recording.
 
Here's what I see right now:

Screen Shot 2018-07-05 at 11.58.10 AM.jpg

Perhaps they mean you can connect a C300mkII to an external recorder from Convergent or someone, but that's not clear. Not a complete game changer, but just that their guidance pages are guidance; worth checking in with Netflix for conformation & clarification.
 
Cary Knoop said:
I think that a few years from now those statements will look silly.

Furthermore video transmission resolution adapts to the available bandwidth.
Click to expand...

I was hoping those statements would look silly back in 2010. Yet, they are still valid. Only a smallish part of the US is served with sufficient bandwidth to support Netflix 4k bandwidth requirements today. For a single device and a single 4k video stream. For the large majority of households, multiple 4k streams aren't possible at all.

So while I hope your idea that "a few years from now those statements will look silly" comes to pass, I'm not seeing any evidence that this is any more than wishful thinking.

As to the rest -- the human visual system isn't evolving at anything like the rate that our bandwidth infrastructure is growing. I see no hope for improvement there, near or far term. 4K is still mostly worthless for delivery and unless our eyes mysteriously get sharper, that's always going to be the case.
 
Last edited:
Bruce Watson said:
Only a smallish part of the US is served with sufficient bandwidth to support Netflix 4k bandwidth requirements today.
Click to expand...
So by analogy you think that content providers on the brink of the color TV era should not have worried about recording in color because at the time there were not enough homes that had a color TV?
 
Jim Feeley said:
Perhaps they mean you can connect a C300mkII to an external recorder from Convergent or someone, but that's not clear. Not a complete game changer, but just that their guidance pages are guidance; worth checking in with Netflix for conformation & clarification.
Click to expand...

They are simply stating the formats they accept...Canon RAW is a format the camera produces. It's super clear, IMO.

The people that are looking at that chart (at least they probably hope, ha) should be very tech savvy so it's just implied as mentioned.

Meaning they don't need to separate it:

Internal Recording:
XF-AVC (4K)

External Recording:
Canon RAW
 
The tech savvy presumably don't need that chart at all, just a list of cameras; and the chart should be as accurate and informative as possible, regardless. Doesn't need to be exhaustive, though. The C300mkII doesn't output a format called "Canon RAW." It outputs 4K RAW, which, the manual says can then be "developed" into Cinema RAW, DPX, OpenEXR, etc. IIRC, the files are tagged as .RMF files. Again, only IIRC, there was a Canon RAW codec plug in that worked with still images from Canon cameras (or something). So again, offering such specificity without accuracy isn't great.

Key point: use the chart as no more than a starting point in discussions with Netflix.
 
nutmegger said:
There have been a lot of posts on this forum about Netflix requiring their shows be shot in 4K. I came across the below article and wonder if Netflix is changing their mind.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/johnar...-expects-you-to-pay-more-for-it/#28714d395cbf

Enjoy
Click to expand...

From the article:

The nature and cost (it’s around 20% more expensive than the current Premium tier) of the 4K/HDR Ultra trial tier reveals that Netflix is pretty decided now about whether offering a 4K resolution or high dynamic range support has more impact on the quality of its video streams.

Even a small price hike for HDR would have been telling in this respect, but betting on people being willing to pay substantially more for HDR shows how important the technology now is to Netflix’s strategy.
Click to expand...

Some speculation from the article:
As a result, I’d imagine we can expect pretty much everything Netflix makes from now on to launch in HDR (provided they can get access to the TV industry’s currently much-in-demand mastering facilities).
Click to expand...

Another intriguing aspect of Netflix’s on-trial new pricing approach is that in some ways, at least, delivering 4K is actually tougher than delivering HDR. Netflix stated when it first introduced HDR that adding the industry standard HDR10 HDR format, at least, added precious little to the bandwidth of its video streams. Adding Dolby Vision HDR, with its extra layer of scene by scene data, may require a bit more bandwidth. But even Dolby Vision won’t be anything like as data hungry as 4K is. And that’s helpful to Netflix at every stage of its content creation process, from capture, editing and effects through to final online distribution.
Click to expand...

This combination of 4K’s relatively challenging production and distribution issues and HDR’s seemingly much higher perceived picture quality value raises the possibility of Netflix gradually phasing out 4K production. Star Trek: Discovery was notably made in 2K HDR, in fact.
Click to expand...

I'm wondering if the end of Net Neutrality, and the ability of competing ISPs to throttle the competition, makes 4k more difficult and less desirable for Netflix?
And the delivery of HDR a more desirable option?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top