Netflix Originals camera requirements

Mitch Gross said:
Netflix has stringent standards because they are both a producer of content as well as a distributor. As such they have to look at the long term. In general they want 4K in either RAW or 444 Log, and usually at least 12-bit. There's a lot of leeway in this and as I said they evaluate cameras as well as individual production needs, but in general you should expect to use something from their approved list if you want to make product for them. Frankly, unlike other outfits, I find Netflix to be quite level headed and well considered in this regard. There are some places that use old deliverable standards culled from various sources that are actually at odds with one another and don't make much sense.
Click to expand...

Their minimum requirement for log is actually 10-bit.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Netflix has a technology team that evaluates the different gear to be used in production & post on their projects. They have certain minimum standards, many based upon the idea of future needs and continuing return on their library. Netflix does not simply go by specs, but actually tests the products for evaluation in deliverables. VariCam cameras deliver beyond the minimum specs required, and have been very popular for Netflix original production. Some other cameras not so much. Netflix will allow other cameras on a case-by-case basis.
Click to expand...

I have to disagree. Because, why don't high end professionals and studios producing films costing several times a Netflix budget such as 200 million films, which is content that will be shown on a screen 10x bigger than what Netflix customers have at home care about 4k then? The obvious answer is Netflix is looking at something they aren't. Specs.

Because you would think people producing content to be shown on a 50 feet screen would be more worried about resolution than a streaming TV studio. Specially when they invest several times the budget Netflix does. Yet, nope.
 
Mitch Gross said:
Honestly, Netflix requiring cameras that deliver the highest quality output should be something y'all are thrilled about, not complaining on! It's the opposite of the dumbing down, "good enough" attitude of so many production entities. The only reasons I see is if you wish to use a specialty camera (and they can be quite accommodating in such situations) or if you are being cheap and just want to use the camera you already own. And if that's the case then sorry, I have no sympathy.

Back in the day I owned a Super-16 Aaton camera kit that probably set me back a good $60-$70K when I include all the glass and accessories. Sure there was always the desire to get it on every job so that I could charge the gear rental, but then clients would only think of me as "that S-16 guy" and I wouldn't get called for 35 or video jobs. So I offered it up when it made sense but if I had a job that made more sense if it was on a different camera I would absolutely not try to push my gear.

If you love Alexa and are upset you can't use it for a Netflix job, test out a VariCam and you might be pleased. If the budget is low then there are other choices on the list.
Click to expand...

The problem with your line of thought about Netflix requiring cameras that deliver the highest quality output, is that you are putting specs as a proof of highest quality. You are doing that while trying to say specs is not what is playing a role. More resolution doesn't mean better quality.
 
Last edited:
These rules are for Netflix Originals, and it sounds like they are subject to all kinds of exceptions if you can make your case convincingly. As stated before, etflix buys lots of stuff shot on different cameras.
 
GaryinCalifornia said:
lol... yes if I had a sit down meeting with the head of development to pitch a series or a movie. Sure I'm going to shoot it on what they want.

Again, my humble opinion having our last 5 films shown on Netflix if you make something they know they'll make money off of of they'll bend the rules and they're purchase it to air.
Click to expand...

Shown on Netflix is fundamentally different from Produced by or for Netflix. Netflix doesn't own your show. They care about the longevity of their library. These rules are only about the product they own.
 
GaryinCalifornia said:
That's what I'm hearing.

I wonder what would happen for example if you have Jennifer Aniston signed to do a series. I heard once she only likes to shoot film.

It hides her flaws.
Click to expand...

Film is fine as it can be scanned at high resolution. A film negative is a lovely form of archiving. As long as it works for the budget.
 
Samuel H said:
Bummed as I am that I wouldn't be able to shoot a Netflix Original with my RX100 IV, I do like the list, and, apart from allowing the Alexa, I'm not sure I would change anything there. It seems to be well thought out and recently updated. It wasn't that long ago taht some TV channels were requiring tapes, right?

Also: with the FS7 and the BM4.6K there, there's really not that much to argue about in terms of price; the EVA-01 and C200 shoudl join them soon. And am I reading this right that the BM 4.6k is only allowed if shooting RAW, not ProRes?
Click to expand...

ProRes would only be allowed if it was 444, not 422. So no, not allowed.
 
Sttratos said:
The problem with your line of thought about Netflix requiring cameras that deliver the highest quality output, is that you are putting specs as a proof of highest quality. You are doing that while trying to say specs is not what is playing a role. More resolution doesn't mean better quality.
Click to expand...

Netflix doesn't just go by specs. They test. I know this firsthand.
 
Sttratos said:
I have to disagree. Because, why don't high end professionals and studios producing films costing several times a Netflix budget such as 200 million films, which is content that will be shown on a screen 10x bigger than what Netflix customers have at home care about 4k then? The obvious answer is Netflix is looking at something they aren't. Specs.

Because you would think people producing content to be shown on a 50 feet screen would be more worried about resolution than a streaming TV studio. Specially when they invest several times the budget Netflix does. Yet, nope.
Click to expand...

They are playing two different games. One cares more about short money and the other cares more about long money. It is fundamental to their business models. Do not try to interpret their actions from your perspective. Instead try to understand theirs'.
 
Mitch Gross said:
They are playing two different games. One cares more about short money and the other cares more about long money. It is fundamental to their business models. Do not try to interpret their actions from your perspective. Instead try to understand theirs'.
Click to expand...

I am trying to understand theirs. They are putting resolution before so many other things. It doesn't make sense. Your short money and long money justification doesn't either. Sorry.
 
Sttratos said:
I am trying to understand theirs. They are putting resolution before so many other things. It doesn't make sense. Your short money and long money justification doesn't either. Sorry.
Click to expand...

This I understand they want to keep making money off of their original programming as long as they can. Nothing wrong with that.
 
Sttratos said:
I have to disagree. Because, why don't high end professionals and studios producing films costing several times a Netflix budget such as 200 million films, which is content that will be shown on a screen 10x bigger than what Netflix customers have at home care about 4k then? ...
Click to expand...
Because a 4K 50" TV delivers a lot more detail than a 4K 50 foot movie screen. Like a lot more. Like in feet-to-inches more.
 
Talk to Netflix. I haven't worked on any Netflix Original shows but my friends who have say their people are particular but flexible, deeply get the whole 4K advantage/hype ratio, pay attention to HDR, and all that. I heard a few times statements along the lines of, "They're not like PBS QC."

And geez, even on that list you have the FS7....not slagging the FS7, just that there are a couple and will soon be several sub-$10K cameras that can do the job for Netflix Originals.
 
Sttratos said:
So they tested a Blackmagic and a FS7 and thought they looked better than an Alexa???
Click to expand...

They believe that 4K resolution is an important minimum requirement. After that they tested the camera to make sure they meet other needs. There are many cameras that have the spec of 4K that are not accepted. There is the spec and then there are measured tests. They perform measured tests.

Alexa can look lovely, but if it does not deliver a measurable 4K resolution and they consider that a minimum spec, then no, the camera is not accepted.
 
Sttratos said:
I am trying to understand theirs. They are putting resolution before so many other things. It doesn't make sense. Your short money and long money justification doesn't either. Sorry.
Click to expand...

They are not putting resolution before many other things. They have a set of minimum thresholds. A camera must deliver above these to be considered. Even after the minimums, some cameras do not perform well enough as they only have a "paper spec," meaning that the spec says they can do something but in practice they do it in such a poor way that it is not acceptable to Netflix.

A camera can be fantastic, but if it flunks a minimum spec test then it flunks. One of the minimum specs is 4K resolution. There are others such as signal to noise, compression levels, dynamic range, color response, and so on. And to make it easier for the companies that produce content for Netflix, Netflix goes to the trouble and great expense of testing and pre-approving various cameras and workflows.

And they are not the only ones who do this. Just one that noticeably makes the information fairly public.
 
^ Exactly. They have decided 4k is a must, and 10-bit is a must, but there are lots of 4k 10-bit cameras that are not on the list. For example the BM 4k is there but only shooting RAW, not prores, which means they found something in that prores that they didn't like (I would love to know what).
 
My guess is that Netflix insists on 4K simply so they can turn around and use it as a bullet point in their advertising: "Our stuff is 4K!"

The idea that a movie must be 4K to be "future-proof" is shaky. Future-proof against lingo-swinging producers and gullible customers? Sure. Future-proof in actually how it looks? Movies that were shot on an Arri Alexa will look just as good a hundred years from now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top