Netflix Originals camera requirements

Sttratos said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, because I was not in the room, I didn't observe their tests, and I don't know what their reasoning was. So it would be baseless speculation, which is pointless.

Why does it matter to you? Are you pitching a series to Netflix and asking them to fund it?
 
Bob Loblaw said:
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.
Click to expand...

I struck out on my class-action lawsuit against the '28 Days Later' Blu-ray. Now I'm really licking my chops over the 4K UHD Blu-ray release that you know is coming! :-P
 
Barry_Green said:
Why does it matter to you?
Click to expand...

Why does his opinion matter to you?

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?
Click to expand...

Your argument contradicts itself. Don't comment on something unless it concretely affects you now? Okay, then: "This forum is for asking questions, commenting on the industry, and general socializing. If Sttratos is putting up the comment, then Sttratos gets to say whatever he wants. Does it matter in any way what his decisionmaking process is?"

Of course, I don't believe that. I think we should either be silent or argue points, reason with each other. But attacking someone personally or telling them to just stop talking just because you disagree with them is mean.
 
Last edited:
Sttratos said:
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?



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.
Click to expand...

No, you are not getting it. They have multiple minimum thresholds. Let's take resolution out of the mix for a moment. What if you were to record in ProRes 422LT? Nope, that doesn't meet minimum threshold. What if you were to capture in 8-bit? Nope, not minimum threshold. The point is that the moment a setup fails ANY of the minimum thresholds it is out as a pre-approved setup, no matter how well it performs in any other area. If there are four minimum thresholds it doesn't matter how well a camera exceeds three of them if it fails the fourth, and that goes for any of those criteria.

The Blackmagic Design URSA Mini 4.6K absolutely does not rolloff highlights as well as the ARRI Alexa. Not even close. But it meets minimum thresholds as long as it is used in RAW capture mode. If the 4.6K camera did not offer either RAW recording or 444 capture then it too would fail the minimum threshold and be rejected even though it has enough measurable resolution. So therefore Netflix is NOT putting resolution above everything else. It is putting a group of minimum thresholds first, and if you don't make the cutoff at that point then that's that.
 
Sttratos said:
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?
Click to expand...

Boy do you guys not seem to see the forest for the trees.

Seinfeld. Great example. Here's a show that was shot on film (16mm for the first mini-season, 35mm after that, IIRC) and originally finished to 4x3 SD. As the seasons went on it switched to 16x9 and HD. And because the library was so popular, the early content was remastered in HD and painstakingly reframed for 16x9. Because the property was valuable in syndication and other continued use markets, so it was worth it.

And it's hardly the only title like this. Star Trek: The Next Generation may have been shot in 35mm and the model work captured in VistaVision, but the entire seven year run was finished in SD 4x3. It was an issue even discussed at the timber the production entity formed inside Paramount. But those guys didn't have the mandate by Paramount to finish in HD, only to preserve the elements for future use. Since there was nothing in the contract there was no incentive to spend that extra money at the time, and ST:TNG was a very expensive show, the most expensive series at the time and several times more than any other non-network series (for those too young to remember, in the US there were only four TV networks at the time, not a lot of money in cable unless you were HBO, and independent stations used to show games shows, Gilligan's Island reruns and old movies). Just a few years ago - interestingly enough, right about the same time the Alexa came out - Paramount bit the bullet and went back to all those old ST:TNG elements and remastered the shows in HD. Even though the models were shot in VistaVision, the effects shots were all composited in SD, so that meant that everything had to be redone. The cost was more than $1M per episode, pushing the cost to somewhere in the neighborhood of $200M for the entire seven year run to be remastered. Would there have been an additional cost to mastering in HD in the first place? Sure, but not $200M!

And people are still wondering why Netflix has these "arbitrary" standards for the shows it will own?

Their standards are pretty simple:
- A minimum measurable resolution
- A minimum bit depth
- A minimum bit rate
- A minimum dynamic range
- Recording in 444 LOG or RAW (in order to take advantage of that dynamic range)

Exceed any of those minimums? Great, thank you. Don't meet any one of those minimums? Sorry, no. Unless you can give us a really good reason we show change our minds.
 
Barry_Green said:
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.
Click to expand...


Well I can say that I have been in some conversations with some of the people involved in this at Netflix, and in fact just a few weeks ago I was on a panel with someone from Netflix for a PGA Produced By seminar on the Fox lot on the topic of production workflows. And I am the US Product Manager for one of the few camera systems that is on that approved list, and in fact it's probably the most popular choice for Netflix original content (I haven't counted up to compare how others may stand, but VariCam is way up there). So there's that. But no, in the end I do not work for Netflix.
 
The C300 XF AVC 4K, LT AVC-Intra4K and FS7 XAVC are all 422. So out there somewhere a test exists where all these outperform 3.2K uncompressed arriraw.
 
I wasn't saying you aren't knowledgeable. I was saying that it is not your responsibility to know every aspect of Netflix's thinking. You were trying to help, trying to share what you know, and if people weren't satisfied with that, then they should take their questions directly to those who made the decisions. That's all.
 
I don't see what the argument here is..... Working for Netflix is no different than any other place with acquisition and delivery standards in place.

All this arguing over who killed who is pointless. If you do not meet a network's minimum standards, then your castle will burn, sink into the swamp, and you will not even be considered as a content provider. End of story!

I for one sold my F65 last month, so I no longer have to worry about crap like renting additional SR fast cards for HFR 120 work that a producer thinks they need but really doesn't. Or the expense of a DIT who works her ass off transferring full SQ raw when raw lite would have been easier on the clients limited post budget. I could go on, but you know what... It doesn't matter. I'm sitting on the deck feeling the cool breeze, and watching the sun shimmer off the water of lake Hamilton, while enjoying a really good cup of coffee.

All the best!

Dave
 
I think the thread started off wrong... where most thought someone was saying Netflix wouldn't except shows shot on cameras not on the list rather than Netflix produced shows or it could be I need to read things off of my 27' imac instead of the 5' inch (half kidding) laptop with my bad eye.

Having learned on film (yeah I'm getting old) I love the changes. I like the fact that I can shoot, edit and do post on my farm instead of living in crowded So. CA.

And I have no issues with making money. But sometimes I feel its keeping up with the Jones' and to always keep you buying the newest latest thing. lol
 
Sttratos said:
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.
Click to expand...

And would have shooting it on Alexa made a difference in the ratings?

As they say, "Content is King". Crap is crap, no matter what it was shot on. I just saw The Mummy several days ago. It was shot with Alexa 65 and Panavision Millennium XL2(35mm). Two of the gold standards for acquisition and that sure didn't save it from stinking. Wonder Woman: almost exactly the same, except throw in some extra Arri 435's and 235's, but it rocked.
 
Last edited:
Mitch's example of ST:TNG is interesting stuff and it brought me back to the early aughts where the rumblings of 16:9 television and HD broadcast were being felt in the industry. Our groundglasses with the 4:3 "pumpkin" were replaced with ones that overlayed a 16:9 aspect ratio on top of said pumpkin and every show had a different mandate about protecting the extra room on the sides. If you were a dayplaying operator as I was for much of that era, one of the first questions you asked when walking on a set was "how are you guys dealing with 16:9"? I remember the showrunner of Scrubs telling us not to worry about it as it would "never happen in my lifetime" (he was mostly being facetious...or was he?). Most of the time we would be told to protect the sides as long as it didn't slow us down too much, which meant that we'd allow the odd stand leg or edge of set to creep in there from time to time. We were told that when and if the time came, everything would be cleaned up digitally. I recently saw a remastered 16:9 clip of "West Wing" where you could clearly see the edge of a 12x bounce and stands outside the window of the Oval Office. Oh well.

With that all in mind, Netflix's adherence to their camera standards does seem extra rigid when it comes to denying the Alexa based on the spec of its sensor, but I think overall they have the right idea. Early last year I decided it was time for me to figure out what my Netflix-approved camera of choice would be when the call came (and it did indeed come, last summer) so after looking through the possibiities I decided to give the Varicam a try. I'm shooting my third series on Varicam now and there's a good chance that I wouldn't have gotten around to trying it after so many years with the Alexa, so I think of all of this as a good thing.
 
"you could clearly see the edge of a 12x bounce and stands outside the window of the Oval Office"
Heh..even in 4:3 SD, there was the underscan/overscan button on the external monitor to sneak production elements into the sides...revealed later when converting to DVD ;) I'm thinking specifically about finding a grip's leg sticking into edge because he felt the need to sit while on set;)

So Charles, thoughts on the Alexa vs Varicam?
 
Gweilo66 said:
"you could clearly see the edge of a 12x bounce and stands outside the window of the Oval Office"
Heh..even in 4:3 SD, there was the underscan/overscan button on the external monitor to sneak production elements into the sides...revealed later when converting to DVD ;) I'm thinking specifically about finding a grip's leg sticking into edge because he felt the need to sit while on set;)
Click to expand...

Well, there were all kinds of groundglasses out there but generally the ones we used had TV safe and TV transmission--we had to keep the critical elements like signage contained within the safe lines, but ALWAYS protect transmission just for the reason you listed, so that is surprising to hear! Someone was slacking there...

Gweilo66 said:
So Charles, thoughts on the Alexa vs Varicam?
Click to expand...

Don't want to thread-hijack here but suffice to say, I like and use them both. The high ISO "trick" of the Varicam is incredibly helpful when working fast and lean. Just last night I had to chase the dying light outside the windows--started shooting a single shot at 800ISO, when the lens was wide open we quickly switched to 2000 (down from 5000) and dialed/scrimmed down the lighting, and increased the ISO from there. I think we got the keeper at 3200 or 4000.
 
So, what were the "approved camera lists" in the 00's? 16mm and 35mm on hour dramas and analog tape on sitcoms?
 
DLD said:
So, what were the "approved camera lists" in the 00's? 16mm and 35mm on hour dramas and analog tape on sitcoms?
Click to expand...

Something like that, but actually the broadcast standards were in many ways more stringent than they are now. Broadcast engineers would analyze material and reject it if it didn't pass their specific guidelines, whereas today you can include footage that doesn't behave itself on a scope. An example is the below sketch we shot for Key & Peele using an 80's era camcorder. I couldn't say what the actual resolution of that camera would be. The VHS spec was 240 lines--we captured the video off the camera via composite out and an outboard recorder, so perhaps the camera output slightly higher than spec but certainly not the full 480 lines of broadcast NTSC. The show itself was 1080 delivery. We sent a camera test to network beforehand and it was given the green light, we never heard anything from QC. Fifteen years earlier, it most certainly would have been rejected.

 
Has anyone done a study on how long digital will last. One of the reasons many say I Love Lucy is still around because Desi insisted they shoot on film not video like many of the other shows switching over then. The tapes of the video shows from that period did not last.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top