Netflix Originals camera requirements

[Barry_Green]

I don't understand what the confusion is, or what the argument is. This list is for when you're asking Netflix for production money. If Netflix is putting up the budget to shoot the production, then Netflix gets to decide whatever they want, on whatever terms they want, and it makes zero difference whether I or you or anyone else thinks an Alexa is just as good, or if you're miffed that they don't allow you to use a GH5 to shoot your fifty million dollar series on... Does it matter in any way what their decisionmaking process is? They're following the golden rule: he who has the gold, makes the rules. They're saying if you want their money, you have to abide by their rules. If you don't like their rules, then go ask someone else for the production money, right?

If you're pitching a series (or film) to Netflix and asking them to bankroll it, then -- budget in for rental of one of their accepted cameras.

If you've already shot your film or series and are asking Netflix to buy it, then this list doesn't apply as that's an entirely different business model, and presumably they'll decide based on the merits of the finished production and their evaluation of how much they think it's worth to them, and the question of what you shot it on may never even come up (depending on how badly they want your production).

So this list is only relevant if you're asking Netflix to fund your proposed production. If you're not doing that, then it has no bearing on you whatsoever.

 

[abreu-canedo]

I don't understand what the confusion is, or what the argument is. This list is for when you're asking Netflix for production money. If Netflix is putting up the budget to shoot the production, then Netflix gets to decide whatever they want, on whatever terms they want, and it makes zero difference whether I or you or anyone else thinks an Alexa is just as good, or if you're miffed that they don't allow you to use a GH5 to shoot your fifty million dollar series on... Does it matter in any way what their decisionmaking process is? They're following the golden rule: he who has the gold, makes the rules. They're saying if you want their money, you have to abide by their rules. If you don't like their rules, then go ask someone else for the production money, right?

If you're pitching a series (or film) to Netflix and asking them to bankroll it, then -- budget in for rental of one of their accepted cameras.

If you've already shot your film or series and are asking Netflix to buy it, then this list doesn't apply as that's an entirely different business model, and presumably they'll decide based on the merits of the finished production and their evaluation of how much they think it's worth to them, and the question of what you shot it on may never even come up (depending on how badly they want your production).

So this list is only relevant if you're asking Netflix to fund your proposed production. If you're not doing that, then it has no bearing on you whatsoever.

+1

And as has been stated, shows like House of Cards, Stranger Things, amongst others not shot on Alexa, seem to support their cost/benefit analysis. I found most of the backlash on social media coming from DPs who only use the Alexa and get nervous about learning a new system, and from folks who's cameras are not included there. And I get both of those points. But Netflix business model is not the traditional box-office and DVD, short-term recoup strategy where it just has to look good now, and for this year or so. Netflix plan on recoupping their costs of production largely through membership across years...so I understand their concerns.

I see that list, and I'm just ambivalent. I guess it's because I'm not getting top[paed to DP anything for Netflix any time soon.

 

[GaryinCalifornia]

A better discussion. What is the shelf life of a film now?

I know that Disney puts out their classics every 7 years figuring that's a new generation of kids.

How long is the Marvel phase going to last?

 

[Sttratos]

They are not putting resolution before many other things.

How are they not putting resolution above everything else? The only real difference between the Alexa 65 and the Alexa is the resolution. Their images are basically identical and that is Arri's whole point. Apart from the DOF of course. But that shouldn't count for Netflix since they have no requirement for 65mm only. So the only reason the Alexa 65 is approved and the Alexa is not is resolution. How can you say they are not putting resolution above everything else?

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.

Exactly! And the Alexa would beat a Blackmagic camera in pretty much all of the above. The only thing is doesn't beat a blackmagic is resolution. So if that single requirement disqualifies the Alexa and nullifies all the other several things the Alexa is better than the Blackmagic, Netflix is indeed putting resolution above everything else. I don't understand how you can continue to insist they are not putting resolution above everything else, when your posts keep pointing exactly that. At least the people saying it's Netflix money so they can do whatever they want, even if it doesn't make sense have a point. Trying to justify Netflix arbitrary bias for resolution makes no sense. It has no grounds other than because they think it's the most important. Even when it's not the most important and most of Hollywood and Oscar winning and nominated DPs agree it's not.

 

[Sttratos]

This I understand they want to keep making money off of their original programming as long as they can. Nothing wrong with that.

I understood what Mitch meant. It just made no sense with the whole short money and long money justification. Because are you guys saying people are stopping watching Siefield because they now have 4K TVs? Is that why Hulu paid $180 million for the show? Or that people will no longer watch the first 6 seasons of The Big Bang Theory because it was shot in HDCAM 1080?

 

[DLD]

... If you've already shot your film or series and are asking Netflix to buy it, then this list doesn't apply as that's an entirely different business model, and presumably they'll decide based on the merits of the finished production and their evaluation of how much they think it's worth to them, and the question of what you shot it on may never even come up (depending on how badly they want your production)...

Right and the outside purchase is likely to end up a very short term acquisition for Netflix, less of a purchase than a temporary rental. In which case, it's a "good enough for now; it's not going to stay on for long anyway".

A better discussion. What is the shelf life of a film now? ...

Netflix is obviously aiming toward the "evergreens", where the value of the company itself is heavily tied into not only its subscriber base but into the size and quality of its film and TV library.

 

[Barry_Green]

How are they not putting resolution above everything else?

Because their list doesn't consist of solely the F65 and an 8K Red.

Trying to justify Netflix arbitrary bias for resolution makes no sense. It has no grounds other than because they think it's the most important. Even when it's not the most important and most of Hollywood and Oscar winning and nominated DPs agree it's not.

What makes no sense is for someone like Mitch to try to interpret and defend Netflix's thinking, when clearly the question you're asking should be directed to Netflix themselves... they're the ones who determined their own standards, and they're the ones who conducted their own tests, and they're the ones who, for whatever reason, decided not to include the Alexa on that list. Mitch is trying to help, as he has apparently some insight into what tests they conducted, but the only ones who can accurately answer your question is Netflix themselves.

 

[Barry_Green]

I understood what Mitch meant. It just made no sense with the whole short money and long money justification. Because are you guys saying people are stopping watching Siefield because they now have 4K TVs? Is that why Hulu paid $180 million for the show? Or that people will no longer watch the first 6 seasons of The Big Bang Theory because it was shot in HDCAM 1080?

Nobody's saying that. What they're saying is that in 2017, nobody is going to front the money for a Seinfeld-style show and then shoot it on an old Betacam. Nor would anyone put up a hundred million dollars and decide to shoot a new series on a 1997-era HDCAM camera. Who would do that? That would be insane.

You bring something as popular as Seinfeld to Netflix, and they'll buy it -- regardless of what it was shot on. You go asking Netflix for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and tell them you're going to shoot on a GH5? Expect them to kick you out.

 

[Jim Feeley]

Like I said...my friends who have needed to get direct input and feedback from Netflix about the requirements for Netflix Originals have been able to get that.

 

[DLD]

"Seinfeld" is exactly what I described as a "rental" for Hulu. IIRC, the contract is at about $35 M/Y for all 130+ episodes. Once this deal expires, it may or may not return there. Besides, Hulu and Netflix have totally different MO. Netflix Original series like the "House of Cards" costs them over $6M/episode with the latest pay hikes but it is mostly a Netflix property in every market.* Hulu mostly buys the OTA networks reruns - which makes sense, since it's owned by them - with a fairly small original programming investment.

* I believe, Canal+ in France was one of the investors in the HoC and has the French language rights.

 

[Run&Gun]

Let it F****** go. Nobody is saying that Alexa doesn't look good. It arguably set the bar for digital cinema cameras. Hell, how many cameras have "Alexa-like" LUT's and scene files that have been designed for them? I just received a Vari LT demo unit today and it has an Alexa mimicking scene file loaded in it.

But here's a question: Would shooting on Alexa instead of RED, V35, or F55 made Stranger Things, Narco's, 13 Reasons Why, or The Crown look any better? Or did the non-Alexa cameras in anyway limit them in what they could do?

 

[Sttratos]

Let it F****** go. Nobody is saying that Alexa doesn't look good. It arguably set the bar for digital cinema cameras. Hell, how many cameras have "Alexa-like" LUT's and scene files that have been designed for them? I just received a Vari LT demo unit today and it has an Alexa mimicking scene file loaded in it.

But here's a question: Would shooting on Alexa instead of RED, V35, or F55 made Stranger Things, Narco's, 13 Reasons Why, or The Crown look any better? Or did the non-Alexa cameras in anyway limit them in what they could do?

And here is another question: Is House of Cards being shot in 4K saving it from the plummeting rates of the latest season?

The fact that the Alexa is the clear industry standard with most manufacturers having a LUT to try to imitate and fake its looks ,although unsuccessfully, exposes the whole Netflix standard even more as nonsense.

The point is nobody is going to stop watching a good show because it is not shot in 4K. Not today not in the foreseeable future.

 

[Sttratos]

Nobody's saying that. What they're saying is that in 2017, nobody is going to front the money for a Seinfeld-style show and then shoot it on an old Betacam. Nor would anyone put up a hundred million dollars and decide to shoot a new series on a 1997-era HDCAM camera. Who would do that? That would be insane.

You bring something as popular as Seinfeld to Netflix, and they'll buy it -- regardless of what it was shot on. You go asking Netflix for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars and tell them you're going to shoot on a GH5? Expect them to kick you out.

Barry, sorry but nowhere I said shows should be shot on Betacam in 2017. My point is nobody is stopping watching Seinfield in 2017 because it is not 4K. I think that point was very clear.

 

[Sttratos]

Because their list doesn't consist of solely the F65 and an 8K Red.


What makes no sense is for someone like Mitch to try to interpret and defend Netflix's thinking, when clearly the question you're asking should be directed to Netflix themselves... they're the ones who determined their own standards, and they're the ones who conducted their own tests, and they're the ones who, for whatever reason, decided not to include the Alexa on that list. Mitch is trying to help, as he has apparently some insight into what tests they conducted, but the only ones who can accurately answer your question is Netflix themselves.

Ok then. So Netflix is not putting resolution above everything. Will you be the first one to actually address my point and tell me what else a Blackmagic camera has over an Alexa besides just more pixels then?

 

[Piszkos Fred]

The point is nobody is going to stop watching a good show because it is not shot in 4K. Not today not in the foreseeable future.

And that's because nobody can tell the difference, not now, not ever.

 

[Nirv]

I got several down votes in the Sony forum for what I'm about to say...

Netflix requirements have a lot to do with litigation as well...

Netflix charges a premium for 4K streaming, now imagine the size of the class action law suit brought by mischievous lawyers if Netflix's advertised 4K content were all shot on a camera that could not shoot in 4K? Subscribers could be forgiven for asking why they're paying the premium. Subscribers are not necessarily camera buffs or pixel peepers but would certainly understand paying for something they're not getting i.e is it 4K or not 4k?

When Sky TV transitioned to HD in the UK there wasn't a heck of a lot of HD content around at the time so they uprezzed a lot of SD footage on their HD channels. Sure enough a case was brought against Sky for misadvertising.

It would be a slam dunk for any case against Netflix if they didn't ensure their original content was recorded on 4K approved cameras and lenses. Does the Alexa record 4K? Er, no. I find for the complainant...

One thing I've wondered, do Netflix ban the use of diffusion filters during production?

 

[Sttratos]

I got several down votes in the Sony forum for what I'm about to say...

Netflix requirements have a lot to do with litigation as well...

Netflix charges a premium for 4K streaming, now imagine the size of the class action law suit brought by mischievous lawyers if Netflix's advertised 4K content were all shot on a camera that could not shoot in 4K? Subscribers could be forgiven for asking why they're paying the premium. Subscribers are not necessarily camera buffs or pixel peepers but would certainly understand paying for something they're not getting i.e is it 4K or not 4k?

When Sky TV transitioned to HD in the UK there wasn't a heck of a lot of HD content around at the time so they uprezzed a lot of SD footage on their HD channels. Sure enough a case was brought against Sky for misadvertising.

It would be a slam dunk for any case against Netflix if they didn't ensure their original content was recorded on 4K approved cameras and lenses. Does the Alexa record 4K? Er, no. I find for the complainant...

One thing I've wondered, do Netflix ban the use of diffusion filters during production?

See. I can see that as a reasonable reason. But that's very different from trying to pretend resolution matters or putting it above everything else. Not to mention trying to justify that position with arguments that make no sense. But even based on that, their list seems arbitrary and baseless. Allow the FS7 and don't allow the F5 which are basically the same camera for example.

 

[Bob Loblaw]

I got several down votes in the Sony forum for what I'm about to say...

Netflix requirements have a lot to do with litigation as well...

Netflix charges a premium for 4K streaming, now imagine the size of the class action law suit brought by mischievous lawyers if Netflix's advertised 4K content were all shot on a camera that could not shoot in 4K? Subscribers could be forgiven for asking why they're paying the premium. Subscribers are not necessarily camera buffs or pixel peepers but would certainly understand paying for something they're not getting i.e is it 4K or not 4k?

When Sky TV transitioned to HD in the UK there wasn't a heck of a lot of HD content around at the time so they uprezzed a lot of SD footage on their HD channels. Sure enough a case was brought against Sky for misadvertising.

It would be a slam dunk for any case against Netflix if they didn't ensure their original content was recorded on 4K approved cameras and lenses. Does the Alexa record 4K? Er, no. I find for the complainant...

One thing I've wondered, do Netflix ban the use of diffusion filters during production?

Does that we can sue over the 4K UltraHD Blurays? Mad Max Fury Road was shot in 2K & 1080p, yet its for sale as a 4K UltraHD Disc.

 

[Sttratos]

Does that we can sue over the 4K UltraHD Blurays? Mad Max Fury Road was shot in 2K & 1080p, yet its for sale as a 4K UltraHD Disc.

I would think there is some loop hole that would let them get away with it. Because otherwise they will be in the poor house soon. The majority of movies that are not film is Alexa. I'm sure many of these movies are being released or re-released in 4K. So many big movies that shot on the Alexa like Avengers and others which if they haven't been released in 4K, they for sure will. So I guess studios must have checked and be protected against that somehow.

 

[Gweilo66]

As always..more to the picture (pun absolutely intended) than pixel count. I mean, what will be the compression chain for them to deliver "4k"?