Your last paragraph is very interesting. I think it's a victory for Arri that they have to be artificially locked out for people to even consider other cameras. Otherwise most of Netflix would be shot on the Alexa as is the case with Hollywood movies. I mean, Sony tries and forces their cameras into DPs if the film is being made by Sony pictures or Sony television. I have seen DPs saying as much on American Cinematographer articles.
Netflix Originals camera requirements
- Thread starter Terry_Lasater
- Start date
Your last paragraph is very interesting. I think it's a victory for Arri that they have to be artificially locked out for people to even consider other cameras. Otherwise most of Netflix would be shot on the Alexa as is the case with Hollywood movies. I mean, Sony tries and forces their cameras into DPs if the film is being made by Sony pictures or Sony television. I have seen DPs saying as much on American Cinematographer articles.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
At some point 4k becomes a requirement and if you wish Netflix to pick up your production as a Netflix original you better learn to play by the rules.
I have clients that have very specific needs and as silly as those needs may be it really isn't up to me to make that call. It's arrogant to think I know better than my clients and I'm here to provide a service to them.
The Alexa is a great camera but it will always be a 3k camera and those that invested in the camera need to be ok with the fact that eventually 4k will take priority. No matter what the reasoning is behind the decision to limit productions to 4k the fact is it is their decision and if you want to play with Netflix you play along or you take a hike.
I honestly don't see what the big deal is here. If I hire shooters for a corporate project I make sure they can fit within the rest of the production. Even wedding producers have their own personal standards and will hire shooters based on specific formats and gear. Kids can complain that a 4k company will no longer accept HD DSLRs but it's a reality. It isn't up to the shooter to decide what format is best, it is the company hiring you that gets to make that call. You either deal with it or find a new line of work.
Netflix wants to accurately claim they provide 4k streaming with real 4k content. I don't see anything wrong with that if they want that to be a part of their business model. Again that is their call and not the call of those producing content. It is not up to us to tell clients or distributors how to run their business. If Netflix wants to suddenly require 5k or 8k that is entirely their call. if you want to have them pick up a production as a Netflix original you either play by their rules or go find something else to do. why is that so hard to understand? Netflix needs to compete with broadcast and cable and part of that competition means being a true 4k service. I also laugh when I see 4k Blu-rays of movies I know where edited and masted in 2k. Netflix is being honest to their customers who are expecting 4k streaming and content. Who are we to judge that?
I have clients that have very specific needs and as silly as those needs may be it really isn't up to me to make that call. It's arrogant to think I know better than my clients and I'm here to provide a service to them.
The Alexa is a great camera but it will always be a 3k camera and those that invested in the camera need to be ok with the fact that eventually 4k will take priority. No matter what the reasoning is behind the decision to limit productions to 4k the fact is it is their decision and if you want to play with Netflix you play along or you take a hike.
I honestly don't see what the big deal is here. If I hire shooters for a corporate project I make sure they can fit within the rest of the production. Even wedding producers have their own personal standards and will hire shooters based on specific formats and gear. Kids can complain that a 4k company will no longer accept HD DSLRs but it's a reality. It isn't up to the shooter to decide what format is best, it is the company hiring you that gets to make that call. You either deal with it or find a new line of work.
Netflix wants to accurately claim they provide 4k streaming with real 4k content. I don't see anything wrong with that if they want that to be a part of their business model. Again that is their call and not the call of those producing content. It is not up to us to tell clients or distributors how to run their business. If Netflix wants to suddenly require 5k or 8k that is entirely their call. if you want to have them pick up a production as a Netflix original you either play by their rules or go find something else to do. why is that so hard to understand? Netflix needs to compete with broadcast and cable and part of that competition means being a true 4k service. I also laugh when I see 4k Blu-rays of movies I know where edited and masted in 2k. Netflix is being honest to their customers who are expecting 4k streaming and content. Who are we to judge that?
Piszkos Fred
Active member
Yes, I totally got that when I read the linked page, thank you very much. And you really can't argue with "banning" sub-4K camera rule - unless they accept 422 and 6:1 "lite" lossy compression shouting image quality, image purposes and archiving. I guess everyone demanded a refund after the prores! Game of Thrones IMAX screenings.
Maybe not yet. B&W TV shows from the 1950's-1960's were getting dumped left and right from syndication because they weren't in color. The content did matter but the visuals mattered too. Productions saved a little money with the B&W in the 60's and lost oodles of it in the 1980's and 1990's. Besides, Netflix's criteria allows a sufficient number of 4K cameras to be on it for the DP's to have a wide choice.
PS. And, if ARRI wants to come on board, it could, you know, release a 4K camera too.
Run&Gun
Veteran
Whoa Mitch. I'm on your side here, brother. I was covering tech specs and story. I was trying to illustrate a point, because both movies were shot with Alexa 65's, which cover the bases of 'Alexa' and '4K'.
I get the frustration. It's Netflix's field and their rules. To borrow from a Ron White bit, it's like trying to explain to a dog that likes to kill chickens, not to kill chickens.
Last edited:
Like I said I don't work for Netflix and my problem is not that they require that. The problem is that the requirement is nonsense and baseless. The only argument which makes sense is the they can ask whatever they want because it's their money argument. And I already agreed with that argument. But people are trying to technically justify it and there are no technical justifications that hold water. So if you can't justify it technically and surely can't justify it artistically, because on that side most prefer the Alexa, what esle is left? The they can ask whatever they want because it's their money argument. That's the only real argument.
See. This is part of the problem. Real 4K, right? Except the FS7, F55 and Blackmagic are not real 4K.
The inconsistency in their requirements is appalling. It's all over the place.
Their page says:
4K Resolution:
• Camera must have a true 4K sensor (equal to or greater than 4096 photosites wide).
Don't they know a camera with 4096 pixels wide does not produce a true 4K image? Don't they have people in their expert team to tell them that?
See the problem?
And there is more.
They approve the FS7 and disqualify the F5???
They are basically the same camera. Except the F5 is better.
A theory in the Sony forum is because the F5 needs an upgrade or extra bits to do 4K. So they might have looked at the spec sheet and not seen 4K and disqualified the F5. But we are being told Netflix test the cameras. If they do, surely they would find out the F5 is capable of 4K? Doesn't make sense.
This the problem. Their requirement is nonsense. If they are going to establish rules they should at least make sure these rules don't break their own rules. Otherwise it looks like it's just bias or they don't know what they are doing.
There is nothing wrong with it per say, if you look at it from the they can ask whatever they want because it's their money argument. It's weak, but nothing wrong with it. Where it gets strange is trying to technically justify it while their rules are full of holes. They have all the right to ask for 8K, 16K, 20K. But they need to be consistent and need to be technically correct. Otherwise it looks like a mess and make no sense.
Last edited:
And they will. But it's clear that they want to do it right. If all they wanted was to stick as many pixels as they could in a 35mm sensor and call it a day, they would have done it already.
And please. The B&W argument is even more weak than the SD argument. The difference between 10-bit 444 1080/2K log and 4K is insignificant compared to the difference between B&W and Color HD or SD and HD. Not apples to apples.
Thomas Smet
Veteran
Yes a bayer sensor is never true resolution but the Alexa is also a bayer sensor which means it isn't even true 3k. At best the Alexa is a 2k camera in terms of resolved detail. a 4k bayer camera may not be true 4k but it is the starting point Netflix requires which is why they happily suggest using a 4.6k, 5k, 6k or 8k camera. That bayer sensor argument goes both ways. If a 4k bayer sensor camera isn't true 4k then the Alexa isn't true 3k either. Semantics aside the point is a bayer sensor can create unique pixels that are 4k or 3k depending on the camera we are measurbating over here. The resolved detail may not be as high but you have 4096x2160 unique interpolated RGB values per pixel.
Netflix didn't list the Sony f5 for that exact reason you mentioned, because it needs extra gear to pull off 4k. Listing a camera doesn't mean it isn't possible with added gear just that on its own the f5 will not live up to the 4k requirement. If Netflix listed the f5 then they would need a detailed side not saying only when using an external device. Well then what device? Netflix doesn't care. They just list the camera as is to avoid confusion. Out of the box as is the f5 doesn't do 4k so there you go. Seems like a pretty basic and simple concept to me. If you really must use a f5 then contact Netflix and explain to them you will use XYZ recorder to capture 4k in a log or raw format and they will very likely approve it. Netflix isn't dumb. They just are not going to list a camera that out of the box doesn't fit within their requirements.
This decision has absolutely nothing to do with tech specs but a business decision for their customers. You are blowing this up into some sort of money grab or convoluted spec snobbery but really it is 100% about promoting 4k streaming content and actually providing said 4k content unlike movie studios that master at 2k and then try to BS customers into thinking they are buying a UHD Blu-ray.
https://backlothelp.netflix.com/hc/en-us/articles/229498668-Can-I-shoot-on-the-ARRI-Alexa-Amira-
From the horses mouth and it really doesn't get much clearer than this.
There are plenty of VFX related reasons to require 4k but really the big part of the decision is Netflix's promise to customers to provide a 4k streaming service. Whether or not a customer can actually tell the difference between 4k or 2k is not up for debate here. It is all about delivering what the company promises and that is 4k content. Nothing is a mess here and it makes 100% logical sense to me. if a camera out of the box can handle 4k or higher and record a robust format like raw or low compressed log then it is good. If a camera is less then 4k then anything produced by said camera can't stream 4k to viewers. No mess at all and it makes perfectly logical sense.
Look I understand if you are heavily invested in a 2k world. A lot of people are which is why 4k has dragged its butt in terms of distribution. Netflix is trying to change that and actually be honest to their customers and deliver 4k. What is so wrong with that? I absolutely despised when Hollywood sold Blu-rays that were up converted SD masters. Hollywood assumes consumers are dumb and Netflix wants to be honest and deliver on their promise. I read through all the Netflix specs and as somebody who worked in VFX they are really well thought out and spot on. If I was in charge of the requirements for a production I would likely pick most if not all of the requirements laid out in great detail by Netflix. No confusion at all and they all make 100% perfect sense.
The idea is the same - set the minimum standard that is more likely to protect the archiving into the future. It is wholly arbitrary and selective but such is the nature of the beast. As the camera technology leaps forward, what was the top of the pops half a decade ago is down among the dregs of the pile now. And half a decade from now, the Netflix list may barely resemble the list from 2017. That's how it goes and there's no reason to fight these trends.
PS. B&W footage can be colorized, as has been the case with a few "I love Lucy" and "The Dick van Dyck Show" episodes, but that's an unneeded fuss.
That's right. Compares apples to apples, at least.
combatentropy
Veteran
Can someone explain to me any benefit of 4K delivery? I can see a very slight advantage, in special circumstances, to 4K acquisition.
You cannot see beyond 2K on the TV in your living room. Even if it is a home theater, where it's a big screen. I have read tests, and I have run the tests myself. Even at THX-recommended viewing distances (30-40 degrees) you cannot see beyond 2K. In my own test, my own eyes topped out at 1.8K.
There may be a few amazons whose eyesight is slightly better. But that doesn't mean 2K looks bad to them. It means 2.3K would look 1% better to them. Quadruple the bandwidth is a lot to pay for 1% improvement for a fraction of the populace, plus the aforementioned ruling out of the Alexa, plus more fuel for the fire for producers who insist on 4K just because 4 > 2, ruling out other cameras elsewhere.
Second, given that there's little to no benefit for 4K delivery, why is it a good thing that a company like Netflix should encourage laymen to pay for it? It's like selling snake oil. I don't understand how you can think it's okay, especially since you already say that consumers are misinformed when it comes to technical things.
You cannot see beyond 2K on the TV in your living room. Even if it is a home theater, where it's a big screen. I have read tests, and I have run the tests myself. Even at THX-recommended viewing distances (30-40 degrees) you cannot see beyond 2K. In my own test, my own eyes topped out at 1.8K.
There may be a few amazons whose eyesight is slightly better. But that doesn't mean 2K looks bad to them. It means 2.3K would look 1% better to them. Quadruple the bandwidth is a lot to pay for 1% improvement for a fraction of the populace, plus the aforementioned ruling out of the Alexa, plus more fuel for the fire for producers who insist on 4K just because 4 > 2, ruling out other cameras elsewhere.
Second, given that there's little to no benefit for 4K delivery, why is it a good thing that a company like Netflix should encourage laymen to pay for it? It's like selling snake oil. I don't understand how you can think it's okay, especially since you already say that consumers are misinformed when it comes to technical things.
Nirv
Carbonite Member
You're only considering TV, when you consider handheld devices like an iPad Pro stuck a few inches from your nose you'll get the benefit of 4K. I know iPads don't have 4K screens now but I wouldn't rule it out in the future. I can see the benefit of 4K in my studio on the monitors and I watch 4K YouTube videos on my iMac when the option exists. Netflix is ensuring new modes of reception are catered for going forward and to use the cliche, future proofing their acquisitions because their business model relies upon the long tail, they will be streaming their content for many years.
The ARRI fanboys should untie their knickers and put pressure on ARRI to deliver a 4K s35 Alexa if it means so much to them that Netflix makes content with their preferred camera system.
fboonzaier
Well-known member
+1...I also, do not for a second believe, these decisions were based on a group of executives/managers sitting around and Googling criteria...the specs cover too broadly for that....these decisions were certainly made in consultation with experts in the field, be it DPs and or editors, colorists and perhaps for Netflix most importantly, attorneys...Netflix is a business rapidly turning into one of the largest production studios, which is great for anyone in the business...their success did not come by accident...they are not a company sitting on the hands, and this is just another aspect of how thorough they are...but finally really....their money....their rules.
combatentropy
Veteran
Believe it or not, I have measured it. Normally tablets and laptops are also too far away to fill 30 degrees of your field of view.
I sat at my desk with my 24" monitor and moved about as close as was comfortable. It turned out to be about 30 degrees. Normally, I'm farther back. I had to lean forward from my chair. 30 degrees is broader than maybe it sounds. That angle feels "immersive."
With my laptop in my lap, the screen is 2 feet from my eyes. It is a 13" laptop, so that's 21° (you have to do some trigonometry).
If my laptop were 15", then it would finally be 30°.
You're right that people watch their tablets and laptops closer than their TVs. But most people I think have their TV at like 10 or 15° (again, it's closer than it sounds).
I sat at my desk with my 24" monitor and moved about as close as was comfortable. It turned out to be about 30 degrees. Normally, I'm farther back. I had to lean forward from my chair. 30 degrees is broader than maybe it sounds. That angle feels "immersive."
With my laptop in my lap, the screen is 2 feet from my eyes. It is a 13" laptop, so that's 21° (you have to do some trigonometry).
If my laptop were 15", then it would finally be 30°.
You're right that people watch their tablets and laptops closer than their TVs. But most people I think have their TV at like 10 or 15° (again, it's closer than it sounds).
Last edited:
For Netflix and others it "future-proofs" their content. Some of these shows are going to have a very long life-span, so in 20 years when people are watching old Netflix content on their 120+ inch "display-window" the image might still be watchable.
combatentropy
Veteran
Go to a movie at the theater, shot on a camera that records less than 4K, like the Alexa. Sit as close as feels comfortable, as close as you would ever want to sit in your living room of the future. How unwatchable is it going to be?
Barry_Green
Moderator
With all due respect, I think we have a classic case of a tempest in a teapot here. Or a mountain out of a molehill.
There is one underlying, overarching, undeniable, and undefeatable rule in business: you give the client what they want. Not what you want, what they want. Not what you think is "better" for them; you give them what they want, what they asked for. When you're doing a Netflix Original, Netflix is the client. So you give them what they want.
Arguing with the client that they're "stupid", or "contradictory", or "unreasonable", is a very very very good way to get your rump handed to you on the way out the door.
You do not have to agree with the client. You also do not have to take the job, you can boycott them on artistic merits or whatever. But if you're going to take their cash and commit to doing the job, you give them what they want. It does not matter to anyone that the Alexa is a clearly, obviously, and eminently superior imagemaking tool as compared to a BMD anything (and it is, nobody with a functional cerebrum would argue against that point); it doesn't matter. The Alexa is not on the list, for a very clearly stated reason:
That is their reason. And viewed in that reason, the lack of the Alexa makes sense on that list, and really that's all there is to it.
If you really want to make a difference by voicing your opinion, the only people on earth who can make that difference are the Netflix technical review staff. That's why I asked why it was so important to you that this argument has raged on for as long as it has -- if you want to change it, you have to take it up with the few people who are on that technical review board. Complaining here will result in absolutely nothing changing.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
Talked about it way back then. I recall someone saying that 6K should be the goal but then settled on 4K because the math was apparently easier for when we were scribbling the concept down on notepads.
At some point in time our current HD content is going to be viewed the same way we think about SD content today, and it's just not going to cut it.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
One can light and expose appropriately to deal with poor highlight rolloff. You can't light your way to higher resolution.
Mitch Gross
Veteran
Right now no one feels the need to remaster Seinfeld in 4K, but I bet they're sure happy it was shot on film so that they could revisit the masters as needed. Ask the guys who have libraries of shows shot on video instead of film how well they're doing in syndication. How well does black & white content do in the marketplace compared to color from the same period and of the same caliber? You may say that the difference between formats is not nearly as great, but someone has to draw a line in the sand and this is where Netflix chose to do so after careful and congoing consideration. Does it make a big difference to audiences now? Maybe not. Will it make a bigger difference to audiences in the future? History shows yes.