Netflix Originals camera requirements

[Eric Coughlin]

Eric, you wrote this nonsense,



You keep going on about Arri's Highlight Roll-Off like it's a fact. I have asked you (and Strattos) how much highlight roll-off there is in an ArriRAW file or in a LogC file and you fail to answer.

The whole myth of Arri having a magical highlight roll-off stems from a lack of understanding. The Arri highlight Roll-Off is done by a LUT, a very good LogC.REC709 LUT but nevertheless a LUT. This LUT combined with a good number of stops of overexposure and a codec that doesn't posterise these highlight data provides an aesthetic highlight which Arri has become synonymous with.

I'll happily take everything back if anyone can prove that Arri compresses their highlights in ArriRAW or LogC. I don't see any highlight rolloff in the LogC only an extra stop of DR compared to SLog3.

How is that nonsense, though? All I was saying is that if a project is being graded by a non-professional colorist, it is beneficial to the project to have a camera which grades easier and has a good image right out of the camera to make up for the lack of skill on the colorist's part if the non-professional colorist is incapable of making an inferior camera look as good as the Arri. How can you even disagree with that?

I'm not a professional colorist, but I still grade a lot of my projects since I don't want to spend the money for a professional (like, if I'm getting paid $5,000 for a project, I'm not going to spend $5,000 to have it graded, or even $1,000, when my client will be quite happy with the quality of my own grading). I own a C300 Mark II and find the Arri Amira a lot easier to grade, and thus easier to get better end results with. Perhaps if I hired a professional colorist, they could make the C300 Mark II look as good as the Amira. But, I'd rather spend money on the camera than the colorist if I had to choose between the two, particularly since money spent on a camera (and in turn my clients renting it from me) is more profitable for me than me spending my money to hire a professional colorist. I don't have any aspirations to become a dedicated professional colorist myself (while I of course continue to learn color grading to some extent on the side of doing camera work).


Highlight roll-off isn't a quantifiable number like dynamic range, so there isn't really a specific answer to how much there is, hence why you haven't received an answer to that question. It's like saying, "How much image quality does a Hasselblad camera have?" Uhm, a lot? We've already said it's generally considered better than the competition. Highlight rolloff is a matter of gradation, how smoothly it transitions into being blown. Perhaps someone with more technical knowledge on the subject could explain why and how Arri's rolloff is better, and to what extent.

I'm not sure what you mean by there isn't highlight rolloff in the Log-C or ArriRaw files. Highlight rolloff is essentially how the highlights transition into being blown out, and since you can blow out Log-C and ArriRaw, there would of course be highlight rolloff in that footage before any LUT is applied.

The Canon XH-A1s was the first camera I bought. It had terrible highlight rolloff. You think those terrible highlights can be made to look like an Arri just by a LUT?

I kind of hate to jump back into with this thread because it seems strange to me that a lot of people are arguing passionately about theoreticals and mandates that may never even affect them. But hey, message boards will be message boards.

On the subject of highlight rolloff and Varicam: I've personally had good results. Below are two uncolored REC709 frame grabs from "Mary & Jane", an MTV series I shot last year. These were shot on stage at 2000ISO down from 5000, which on paper lops off a stop or more of dynamic range from the camera. The background outside the small window was a flat, about 8 feet away. Outside the patio doors was a practical balcony (where the bikes rested) and a few greens, and beyond that a backlit translight.

I got everything I needed out of the camera to make what I felt was convincing daylight in this situation, and I'm happy with the way the highlights rolled off and blew out. I stretched the lighting budget further using half the wattage instruments, which helped with our location package.

This was a 1080p mastered show and I could have used Arris if I wanted to. I was more than happy with my choice.

Just to clarify I'm not exactly saying Arri has better highlight rolloff than the Varicam. I haven't done tests or looked at enough footage to state that. I'm more so generalizing based on people generalizing that Arri has better highlight rolloff than most or all of the competition.

I note you say you've had good results which you were happy with, but not equal or better highlight rolloff compared to an Arri. So my questions is, do you find it as good or better than an Arri? It seems to me what you like most about the Varicam is the higher ISO capabilities (and 4K, I guess to meet mandates) and not that you actually find the colors and highlight rolloff to be better than an Arri.

 

[Nirv]

I'm not sure what you mean by there isn't highlight rolloff in the Log-C or ArriRaw files. Highlight rolloff is essentially how the highlights transition into being blown out, and since you can blow out Log-C and ArriRaw, there would of course be highlight rolloff in that footage before any LUT is applied.

The Canon XH-A1s was the first camera I bought. It had terrible highlight rolloff. You think those terrible highlights can be made to look like an Arri just by a LUT?

But there ISN'T any highlight roll-off in those files! That is the whole point of recording ArriRAW or LogC. Can you not understand this?

Comparing a REC709 recording XH-A1 to an Arri just takes this ridiculous conversation into further absurd territory. It's like Stephen Hawkings talking to his pet hamster.

 

[TheDingo]

LOL. It's published on Panasonic's site. It's being used for marketing.

The Bobby Shore article was first published in the June Issue of Canadian Cinematographer before it appeared on the Panasonic Varicam blog.

Either way, Panasonic did NOT fund either of these shows, so AGAIN both of these cinematographers were free to choose ANY camera and in the end chose Varicam over it's competitors. You may not be too happy about this, especially that both DPs tested and rejected ARRI cameras, but Varicam was the winner in the end. End of story.

 

[Eric Coughlin]

But there ISN'T any highlight roll-off in those files! That is the whole point of recording ArriRAW or LogC. Can you not understand this?

Apparently I don't understand it. Can you explain?

So when a Log-C image clips, what do you call that? Is that not the highlights rolling off?

 

[Nirv]

Apparently I don't understand it. Can you explain?

So when a Log-C image clips, what do you call that? Is that not the highlights rolling off?

When a camera clips it clips, the pixels turn full white.

Roll-Off is when a LUT or a colourist reduces the contrast in the highlights to smooth the transition to over exposure. This actually reduces DR but looks better to the eye.

The thing is with all the modern camera recording 14+ stops of DR they all handle highlights so well it's only specular highlights of the sea and shiny cars that cause them any bother. The real issue is how do you get all that lovely 14+ stops of data into REC709 for broadcast. The colourist has to make a decision of how much black to crush and highlights to roll-off to have an appropriately contrasty gamma. Arri made an excellent LUT to bring LogC into REC709 which does a brilliant job of rolling off the highlights.

Go to the LUTCalc page,
https://cameramanben.github.io/LUTCalc/LUTCalc/index.html

Run LUTCalc Online version.

Click on Preview on the right to see the test image.

In the top left where it says Rec Gamma select Arri, LogC (Sup 3.x & 4.x), Rec Gamut select Arri, Alexa Wide Gamut.
Below in Out Gamma select Arri, Amira709 and in Out Gamut select Arri, Amira709.

In the graph to the right you can see the red LogC curve and the blue REC709 curve, you can see the Arri Amira LUT rolling off the highlights. Try selecting different Out Gammas and compare and contrast the Amira LUT curve to say Sony STD1 gamma and see how much less DR is maintained in the image, it blows much earlier and there isn't much in the way of roll-off.

If you shoot with a Log recording camera then buying LUTCalc is one of the best investments you can make as you can build your own LUTs based on Arri's gamma curves or even the Varicam's etc.

I hope that helps.

 

[Paul F]

... I just came back because this thread now is irrelevant. It is meaningless. Because Martin Scorsese is shooting a 100 million dollars project for Netflix called The Irishman. It will be shot on 35mm and guess what else? Alexa XT! Most likely 35mm for day scenes and Alexa for night I would guess. Neflix picked the production up after Paramount decided to not go ahead with it. The movie will premiere on Netflix. It's a Netflix project. Big movie with DeNiro, Pacino, Pesci, Keitel and others. ....

Now THAT is entertaining. After all these pages of people moaning about the Netflix camera list, which will have zero impact on most if not all of them personally, we find the list doesn't matter anyway.


The Irishman (2018)
Technical Specifications:
Color: Color
Aspect Ratio: 2.35 : 1
Camera: Arri Alexa XT
Arricam LT
Negative Format: 35 mm (Kodak)

 

[DLD]

If Scorcese decided to make the project using the 1930's AGFA film, Netflix would play along.

 

[GaryinCalifornia]

If Scorcese decided to make the project using the 1930's AGFA film, Netflix would play along.

Years ago I was given about 2,000 feet of old 16mm b&w... had the lab test do a snip test and it was still good. Shot a music video with it for a friends band and everyone thought we spent a ton on the transfer. When it was just the old stock.

One of these days I'm going to have to pull out the digibeta copy of it and see if anyone can transfer it to a hard drive for me. Just like to have it for my own use now.

But your right Scorsese would be allowed to shoot whatever he wanted. lol where I'd have to stick to the list...

 

[Mitch Gross]

I won't go into specific responses as I'm pretty busy right now. I'm glad to hear that people consider me enough of an adult to post what I really believe. There are some things I cannot or will not say due to my position. That includes attacking other manufacturers, because that's just rude.

There seems to be a lot of confusion about rolloff. Highlight rolloff generally only happens in video curves, not in Log or RAW. There is a sensor-level performance right at the very top as a photosite bucket fills and the exposure hits clip point. That is a pretty narrow band. Different camera signals can be massaged differently, so no, all cameras do not look alike. But this is a lot different from what some people appear to be saying here. As far as noting how well Arri does it and how well VariCam does it, well they're famous for it and we feel we do a really nice job of it as well.

On any articles featuring cinematographers talking about any camera, if it's a real production of any scale then no camera maker has any sway (unless your making something for a Sony-owned studio). These DPs make their own choices, sometimes based on technical requirements from their clients. For the most part we all have to chase them to participate in these stories because they're just too busy. If they choose to do them then it is entirely their choice. If a magazine publishes an article it usually happens completely outside us and often we discover these articles on the day they're published, or maybe when someone contacts us to check some info. We might republish an article because, well, we liked it, but it doesn't mean we originated it. On occasion we do because we think there's a nice story there, but there is really no great conspiracy here and no one is putting wordsin any DPs' mouths. If they're uncomfortable with anything then that thing is cut. Let's not be so cynical.