Netflix believes HDR more important than 4K

groveChuck said:
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?
Click to expand...

The title of the Forbes article seems a bit like clickbait to me, and I think a more accurate title might have been "Netflix Says 4K HDR Trumps 4K SDR - And Expects You To Pay More For It". The CNET article Forbes used as source material states: "Known as Ultra, the new tier would allow four devices to receive Ultra HD video and audio streaming simultaneously." It doesn't look at all like they are running away from 4K.

Rather than being an alternative to 4K, the new Ultra plan appears to be an attempt to move two features (HDR and 4 Screens) of their existing premium plan to a entirely new tier. So if you want to watch your favorite shows in 4K on 4 screens in all their HDR glory it looks like it might cost a bit more soon.

https://www.cnet.com/news/netflix-rumored-to-be-introducing-new-ultra-plan/
 
Jim Feeley said:
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.
Click to expand...

Oh cool, the F35 has 4K+ photo sites. Netflix approved! easy!
 
4k is a future proofing attempt for their original content. I can't say that I blame them. Spend all that money you want your end masters to viable well into tomorrow's standards. The GH5 would almost make the cut and it is only $1,800. HDR just looks better and will continue to improve as more people work with it. So I don't see any discussion here?
 
Bassman2003 said:
4k is a future proofing attempt for their original content. I can't say that I blame them. Spend all that money you want your end masters to viable well into tomorrow's standards. The GH5 would almost make the cut and it is only $1,800. HDR just looks better and will continue to improve as more people work with it. So I don't see any discussion here?
Click to expand...
Exactly!
 
Cary Knoop said:
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?
Click to expand...

I'm talking about delivery. You're now talking about content creation.
 
Bruce Watson said:
I'm talking about delivery. You're now talking about content creation.
Click to expand...
So you would agree that it is a good thing that content creators and providers look at the future and now should record and (be ready to) deliver in at least 4K with a dynamic range large enough to support HDR?

It was my impression that you thought 4k was totally unnecessary while I don't know what your thoughts are about HDR.
 
Last edited:
Sad but true, we needed to go through 4k to get 10bit. “4k” was the easier selling point to the mass consumer, but 10bit is so very exciting! But we never would have gotten 10bit without first going into higher resolutions than 2Megapixels.
 
Cary Knoop said:
So you would agree that...
Click to expand...

Quit trying to put words in my mouth. Please.

Cary Knoop said:
It was my impression that you thought 4k was totally unnecessary while I don't know what your thoughts are about HDR.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why you think that. I was only talking about delivery, and still think that Netflix is correct in thinking that 4k delivery isn't all that, but that HDR delivery is something they might be able to leverage for higher subscription fees. As I said in my first post on this thread.
 
@Bruce,

I would prefer higher bit rate and less compression in 1080, than getting highly compressed 4K.
 
I have it and love it, and yes the difference is quite noticeable.

Watching on a 65 inch LG OLED, Given the choice I too would select HDR over 4k but 4k is not going anywhere. Pretty much, anyone, I know with HDR capable display signs up for the higer bandwidth Netflix service.
 
One of the BBC's biggest audience figures come from re-runs of a mid 70s programme, recorded in standard definition 4:3 screen ratio. People still watch the programme in huge numbers on their 4K ready flat screens, and don't even notice. Longevity is hugely over-rated. Re-runs of any programme are because the audience identify with the product, not it's quality. Collectors are normally happy with DVD box sets, quality wise. I suppose that if Netflix did produce an unexpected mega hit, and had not shot on 4K, in five, maybe ten years time they might kick themselves, but I firmly believe content not technical quality is what people watch. My 86 year old mum has an HD TV and an HD recorder. She watches BBC in SD, because she types in '1', and typing '101' or similar for the HD version is two extra button pushes, so she doesn't. She can see better without glasses than I can with! If the BBC in 1975 imagined that a series would still be popular 43 year later, maybe the couple of episodes shot in B&W would have been accelerated into colour?

I was at a Sony UHD training day at their UK Pinewood Studios base - and what we could see on the broadcast monitor could NOT be resolved by their domestic 4K TVs. My Chinese GoPro copy shoots in 4K and cost me the same as a round of drinks in the pub - but it's 4K, isn't it????
 
I've been saying 4K and greater are unnecessary specs solely designed to sell gear for as long as they have existed. It's a fact we have to accept because the industry brainwashed itself into thinking we all NEEDED UHD and now 6k and 8k but it's lost on 90% of image makers and about 95% of the audience. Techno nerds with a big TV and a good eye can see the difference but to the average person, it's just a number that they've been told they need.
 
paulears said:
One of the BBC's biggest audience figures come from re-runs of a mid 70s programme, recorded in standard definition 4:3 screen ratio. People still watch the programme in huge numbers on their 4K ready flat screens, and don't even notice.
Click to expand...

That is a HUGE presumption on your part. To say that even the average, casual viewer wouldn't notice the difference between an SD 4:3 presentation and an HD/UHD 16:9 presentation on an UHD/4K screen is, at the very least, naive. Now if you said they don't care, because the content is more important(they really like the show) than the tech specs, I could go along with that.

You're also talking about classic shows that do not exist in any other form. The viewers don't have a choice of watching it in SD or HD or UHD.
 
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...

NetFlix is looking at the long tail, the revenue that they can make from these videos over the next decade plus and not just today.
 
IronFilm said:
NetFlix is looking at the long tail, the revenue that they can make from these videos over the next decade plus and not just today.
Click to expand...

It's true, Netflix is in the business of making as many cultural touchstones as possible, before competition heats up and there are other rival streaming services that are on par and they're less of a unicorn.
 
puredrifting said:
I've been saying 4K and greater are unnecessary specs solely designed to sell gear for as long as they have existed. It's a fact we have to accept because the industry brainwashed itself into thinking we all NEEDED UHD and now 6k and 8k but it's lost on 90% of image makers and about 95% of the audience. Techno nerds with a big TV and a good eye can see the difference but to the average person, it's just a number that they've been told they need.
Click to expand...

That sounds like a blanket statement.
 
I think this really comes down to visual and perceptible impact to the viewer and not just profit margin. Netflix has a paid membership no matter what they do so really their profit only comes from members wanting to continue that membership. Do members continue that membership due to 4k, HDR, or how interesting that content is? Would people continue to pay for Netflix to watch season one of Stranger Things if it was HD or SD? The majority of people probably would. People don't love Stranger Things because it was shot in 4k. They love it because it is the ultimate 80's homage and a really awesome fun show to watch.

Netflix likely just views HDR as a more significant impact to 4k since more people can actually notice the difference. Resolution is resolution and the same content with more pixels. HDR opens up a new way to view the content and people can see it. Its more tangible and in their face. I don't think that means Netflix is going to abandon 4k but that they feel HDR can have more of an impact on the wow factor with viewers.

4k may not have a deep impact on the overall user experience but that doesn't mean it is not useful to shoot in 4k or that it even has to cost more to produce in 4k. 4k cameras are pretty common today and to me the only group the 4k requirement hurts are those married to Alexa. Even then it only matters if Netflix hires you to produce their original content. While I am a huge fan and supporter of 2k delivery I honestly don't understand the reluctance of going 4k for Netflix. If Netflix is paying you to produce their movie or series and you have the budget to support a 4k production supplied in full from Netlifx then what the heck is the problem? If Netflix wants to waste the money on the production then let them. Its not your problem. If you feel you can only deliver results with the Alexa thats your problem you need to find a cure for very quickly.

Honestly I would buy a HD HDR TV long before I buy a 4k non HDR TV when I am ready to upgrade my TV. I of course will get a 4k HDR TV since thats the only way I can do it but my desire to upgrade my 60" HDTV will be a lot more for the HDR than it will be for the 4k. Blu-ray, Apple TV content and stuff I shoot looks stunning on that TV when I veg out on my couch. I'm not going to hate 4k as it comes along for the ride however and will gladly accept it. Minor or not its still a thing and an upgrade and not a downgrade so we should embrace it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top