Approved Cameras
partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com
partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com
You can see this is some example footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GhbRkoeNb9U
Note the distortion and blurred top and bottom of the image.
In an anamorphic lens the image is squeezed, so the effective aperture is squeezed... well, in most of them. There are anamorphic lenses with the anamorphic part behind the iris, and for those you don't get the oval shaped oof highlights.
My eyes generally wander to look at the surrounding scene or detail but I get the feeling I'm not supposed to be looking there.
In the old days, they would mostly restrict anamorphics to locked off shots/specific compositions to minimize how visible these type of distortions can be.
Edit: grammar
The latest example of a promising series torpedoed by shoddy writing is in my opinion “The Defeated”. I mean, it’s about killing nazis in post war Berlin, how do you mess this up? And yet the characters are boring, cliché and the story is predictable to the point that it feels like a chore to watch.
Maybe I’m not the majority in this opinion but I really feel like Netflix could probably make better series if they spent less on production and more on writing, but now that I’m saying it out loud I guess I am the minority after all. Most people probably prefer a well produced series with a bad script over a well produced, pretentious indie movie or bottle episode.
Any video production goes through a lot of steps from raw studio footage to edited, finished product. This web site says that Netflix processes and people handle a lot of that.
Also it looks like 4K is their minimum standard now. I bet the higher resolution makes it easier, with big*ss GPUs to clean up the raw footage.
(Footage? WTF? Video measured by distance? Maybe we should say "frameage" or "pix.")
log (n.2) "record of observations, readings, etc.," 1842, sailor's shortening of log-book "daily record of a ship's speed, progress, etc." (1670s), from log (n.1). The book so called because a wooden float at the end of a line was cast out to measure a ship's speed. General sense by 1913.*
So it does have a relationship to the wooden log - it was originally a series of measurements from a floating bit of wood.
https://www.mvd.usace.army.mil/Portals/52/docs/regional_floo...
Also, log can refer to the gamma curve which affects how roll-offs in highlights/shadows are saved (rough description).
"Log" is still used daily in production work.
To get to 2nd AC, you had a good sized crew
The fact that a "log" is still a thing in today's productions is not dependant on which crew member is doing it. In fact, with all of the digital f/x, they are crucial.
Film was also sold by the foot. You didn't by film by 15 minutes. You bought film by 1000' rolls (35mm).
But that just makes sense doesn't it? It's only 15 minutes' worth if you run it at 1000'/15m.
Developing your film was also charged by the foot. The soup didn't care about your framerate. Just how much was need to process.
As ingenuous as our mechanical past was, I am so happy to have lived through the transition to 100% solid state everything.
An overwhelming majority of it is total garbage. It's such a bad ratio that I treat the red N as a negative signal when I'm choosing something.
Do you differentiate between content greenlit and produced by the streaming services from those purchased? I'm curious because they are two different capabilities and it seems each service is attempting some amount of both.
It's a moderately rare word in everyday spoken English.
Which historically correlates with commercial success.
It's why Netflix is more than happy to green-light awful shows such as Emily in Paris.
McDonalds grosses a helluva lot more than Wolfgang Puck -- $19.21 billion vs $57.50 million.
Similar to how Amazon Originals now seem synonymous with "we cut the writer's outline from 12 episodes to 6, enjoy the rushed character and plot development!"
This is why I was so surprised by some of the background references Inside Job was able to drop in its first season. (Do they still call them seasons when they release all at once? Either way it's really good)
Even if you don't do any other post-processing, downscaled video looks better than video captured at sensor resolution. This is because you can implement a steeper low-pass filter (closer to ideal brick-wall filter) in software than you can in actual optics. Hardware lowpass filters tuned to block most stuff above nyquist will also block a lot below it.
A 1080p video captured off a good 1080p sensor will have vastly lower amplitude at, say, 500 line pair vertical than a 1080p video captured on a 4k sensor and lowpassed in software with a good filter.
The first use of 4k wasn't for 4k delivery, but for single camera shoot of talking head reframing. Full frame for the wide, cropped in for the MED/CU shots. Larger image also allows for cleaner image stabilization. Allows for more detail on pulling keys in post, etc.
There are lots of benefits from larger image than delivery.
I'm not sure this is the case. Low-ISO cinema 35mm film (like Kodak VisionT 50D/250D) far exceeds SD resolution. How do you think Star Wars was ever scanned into 4k? Or 2001: A Space Odyssey? Film captures highlight detail logarithmically as well, while digital sensors still haven't really figured out how to render highlights well. This allows greater shadow detail with a skilled cinematographer with no loss of quality in brightly lit scenes. Theoretically, a single 35mm still can be scanned into 4k with no loss in detail, and higher-resolution scans won't lose quality -- there's just dimishing returns and in the end you might just be getting higher-res grain, but it is a far cry from standard definition.
Even 16mm can do HD scans just fine.
There's a reason Tarantino, Wes Anderson, PTA, Nolan, Sam Raimi, Scorsese, Spielberg, and David Lynch still swear by film (even though many of these directors have dabbled with digital). The idea that film is inherently "low-res" is a really frustrating and common misconception among younger generations unfamiliar with the technology. I find it kind of unbelievable that DPs would shoot 35mm just for an SD scan. That type of use case seems better suited for mini-DV or other contemporary video formats.
>That type of use case seems better suited for mini-DV or other contemporary video formats.
You realize that people were shooting film for TV production long long before DV was ever invented right?
Lots of shows were filmed on 35mm. For example, Star Trek: The Original Series and Star Trek: The Next Generation were filmed on 35mm, so in modern times they've been able to re-scan them and make HD Blu-ray releases. I believe shooting direct to video for anything higher budget than daytime soap operas didn't become commonplace until the mid-90's.
They shot 35mm for the big screen.
They weren't doing for screen size considerations. It's just what they had. You shot 35/16 or you shot video (shudder).
This probably was also to deal with period TV cameras. Video cameras of that time couldn’t deal with bright lights and had terrible dynamic range. CCDs improved this a lot. Direct to video productions looked cheap.
When they don't, like the Canon 5D mark ii when used in video mode (which just threw out most of the sensor's pixels to get to 1080p), you get aliasing producing moire patterns like this:
What GP is talking about is the antialiasing low-pass filter used when downsampling video to smaller resolutions, or when initially sampling it at the sensor. This is the same exact concept as the antialiasing low-pass filter used when downsampling audio to lower sample rates, or when initially sampling it at the ADC.
Font hinting is an example of a nonlinear downscaling though most people don’t think of it that way. It preserves line sharpness, which is a non-bandlimited feature since lines are infinitely sharp = made of infinite frequencies.
Overly sharp linear filters produce artifacts like blockiness and ringing; nonlinear ones would try to avoid that but you could still get more difficult ones like moiré.
This is good, because it means we can finally treat computer graphics as properly scalable images without introducing "blurriness".
Note that lines were never infinitely sharp; pixels aren't infinitely sharp, they have a shape and the screen construction determines how sharp they look. They are, however, sharper than what you'd get in a nyquist-limited system.
I assume it's their minimum standard for Netflix Originals as they want more content in 4K rather than making it easier for them, particularly as 4K is an up-charge subscription.
[1] https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/150...
--- StartQuote ---
Why does Netflix require UHD on Netflix Originals?
Answer: In 2014, Netflix made the decision to begin shooting and delivering all Originals in UHD. This decision was made for several reasons, the most of important of which is to future-proof our content. UHD is here, and adoption of UHD in the home is increasing. In just a few years, it will be harder to find an HD television than a UHD television. For this reason, we feel it only makes sense to shoot natively in the format that most of our customers will see for years to come. The experience for customers viewing HD is still fantastic. Our encoding pipeline takes a UHD master and produces beautiful HD (and SD) streams for all those customers who are viewing on smaller or older displays.
--- EndQuote ---
Resolution is far less important than bit color depth. We barely need 4K(Alexa used to be 2K) much less 8K footage for something to look good on a tv.
When I worked in music production a while back, we often had the problem of source material recorded at low amplitude to 16-bit media (e.g. DAT, CDDA, ADAT). While 16-bit is theoretically sufficient, in the real world you need headroom while recording in order to avoid clipping. So we'd often wind up with grungy sound from inadequate bit-depth during capture and intermediate production.
The studio I used to work at was one of the first ADAT studios back in the 90s, and they did a lot of rock. One of the ways they got past the limitations of the medium was to compress and limit to tape. You generally don't want to do that unless you have tons of time to set up and get it right (a la Rudy Van Gelder), which was not in most budgets. But it worked well enough and the ADAT recordings out of this studio sounded way better than most.
Mercifully storage has gotten cheaper in the decades since and you really shouldn't capture to 16 bits any more.
If we want the best quality end product, free from low-res artifacting, we need to preserve an excess of resolution all the way through production until the final export. Exactly how headroom much is enough? Enough that artifacts arising from insufficient resolution are not perceivable in the end product.
If you record at 16 bits of depth you are pretty much automatically forcing your engineer to choose between quality and range when they are normalizing the recording.
The most important rule of audio recording is "always be ready to roll tape". What the engineer does is of little consequence compared to the talent. Don't ever fuck up a keeper take.
Recording with some extra bits means that even if your gain staging was bad, you just get some extra uncorrelated noise, not correlated quantization distortion.
As for whether this stuff is perceptible, there are two issues at play. First, differences which are not perceptible during production can result in a perceptible difference in the final product. This is easiest to understand with a visual analogy: if you have inadequate resolution of an image during processing, the end result may be slightly defocused and smeared.
Second, as I described elsethread, quantization distortion is a particularly pernicious form of degradation, poisonous in small amounts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KkS4NSv-0M It is hard to listen for it during production, so we defend against it by giving ourselves lots and lots of headroom.
As for how much safety margin is "enough" during initial capture... We're looking at a stark choice between either 2 or 3 bytes per sample. 2 bytes seems to be borderline, while 3 bytes seems to be plenty. It would be hard to quantify a safety margin more precisely than that.
Recording close-mic'd drums to analog tape is actually a useful technique when maxing out levels because analog tape saturation can be aesthetically superior to digital peak limiting for shaving drum peaks — analog tape saturates high frequencies first. It wasn't uncommon to either record basic tracks to analog then transfer to Pro Tools, or even to track to Pro Tools then bounce the drums out to analog tape and back.
For the record, there were loudness wars back in the vinyl days, since it was seen as important to have your 45 rpm single "compete" with others in the jukebox. It wasn't something new in the aughts.
> If analog recording captured a much more flexible dynamic range
It doesn't, especially not in comparison to modern digital. Dynamic range is not a strong point of analog because of tape hiss.
The issue with low res digital is that truncation distortion is non-harmonic (not an integer multiple of the input frequency) and so is disproportionately aesthetically damaging even in small quantities — in other words, digital grunge sounds worse than tape hiss.
The more you capture, the more you have to play with at later production stages.
I discovered this playing with my scanner, looking for the best settings. It surprised me.
Netflix streams 4K but often doesn’t look so great over internet compared to any cinema in my area which projects only 2K on a huge screen but from bigger files.
I'll start saying one of those when my phone dialer icon stops looking like a Western Electric Model 500 handset.
So many (many) shows with great actors completely let down by terrible scripts....
The king of witless, trite scripts has got to be the recent "La Brea" series. There's such a lack of creativity that the characters recycle each others lines.
They'd also do the usual plot device of splitting up and wandering around alone, for the sole purpose of getting into a fix so everyone else can rescue them.
Although sabre tooth tigers and dire wolves regularly eat the red shirts, the rest never think of arming themselves.
I watched the show out of incredulousness. And because I enjoy snarking on bad shows :-)
> The working resolution must be 1920x1080 or higher throughout the production, including drawing, scanning, background, CG and VFX.
At least a few years ago, there was a belief that most anime were produced at under 1080p, then upscaled if necessary. Therefore 1080p anime didn't offer and advantages compared to 720p releases. I wonder if this is still true to this day.
Before that, I was usually impressed by Ufotables quality (Garden of sinners, Fate Stay / Night stuff).
Anime is computer edited 2D cells drawn on tablets for foreground and background and layered. The 3D work is limited to certain scenes.
3D animation can be scaled up and down, but it's not hand drawn and converted to raster images like the 2D cells necessarily.
I imagine with anime they just agree on a resolution for all the rasters and plug away at it, because they're under insane time/budget pressure.
The painted backgrounds who knows.
Maybe a better way of phrasing my answer is that Arcane was done in vector shapes.
Whilst anime is sometimes done "quick and dirty" by agreeing on a raster resolution and mastering everything in raster.
Every once in a while, they do have a good show. And even that sucks, because you know they will now ruin it by adding 3 seasons where absolutely nothing happens.
And there's the woke thing spreading its wings. Even in the Witcher, where it's perfectly fine to behead people and burn down villages, but one most not engage in acts of "toxic masculinity", by making dismissive remarks at women. This requires a lengthy dialogue to correct.
Yes, I should cancel.
I’ve been at a friends with all the streaming subscriptions. The most used is HBO (been watching Silicon Valley and they got tons of movies), Amazon is second (terrible ads at the beginning, sells movies as well), then Disney+.
The main argument against this is that consumers would find the "soap opera effect" jarring, or that it would add even more strain on traffic for ISPs. These are minor complaints that would go away as more high FPS content is produced, and bandwidth is increased. With the advent of cloud gaming, the infrastructure should already be prepared for these high bitrates anyway. And consumers could always be given the choice to stream at different frame rates if it bothers them stylistically.
I for one would appreciate more detail in fast moving scenes that otherwise become a blurry mess at 24fps.
Unfortunately the list of HFR movies remains rather short, with each grand new attempt at popularising HFR having failed: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_with_high_frame_...
I think that would be less than ideal. I think usually with 24fps, the shutter is open for 1/48th of a second. So you get a certain amount of motion blur, and movie viewers are used to that amount of motion blur. If you shoot at 60fps, the shutter will likely be open for 1/120th of a second. If you then play it at 30fps by cutting out half the frames, the motion blur will still be 1/120th, which is probably not what the viewer wants.
With 24fps and a small "shutter angle" you are capturing wrong information (e.g. resulting in wheels turning backwards) and you get a choppy look. With a large shutter angle you get too much motion blur. 180° is neither really correct nor really sharp, but it's the most commonly used compromise.
These problems are really the result of a too slow frame rate though - with 60fps you can shoot with a 1/60 shutter, and you get 100% accurate playback while still having frames sharper than a 24fps movie (with 1/48 s shutter) and a smooth video.
When you capture with a high frame rate (e.g. 120fps) and a 360° shutter angle (1/120s) you can also easily reduce the frame rate later without any ridiculous hacks like 3:2 pulldown by combining (averaging) frames or leaving them out, depending on the motion blur amount you want.
Applying the "180-degree-rule" to frame rates other than 24 or 30 fps just comes from missing knowledge or misunderstandings from what I can tell.
[0]: https://www.pixelworks.com/en/truecut [1]: https://twitter.com/Vincent_Teoh/status/1479507421546622977
Was shown at CinemaCon years ago and is available within the industry.
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1633519-REG/canon_379...
That said it's entirely possible he needs to record serious footage on it for marketing and stuff and they sent him this because it shoots to their standards. Still, it's funny.
It’s not why I have the gear but… “smoke ‘em if you got ‘em.”
This was really great for me with Zoom because I could get a sharp colourful image even in the low lights I had available, where a standard webcam would have dissolved into a grey mush of noise reduction.
I have very little knowledge in cameras but did have to review all the production guidelines.
Netflix doesn't mention image sensor size (CCD) but ESPN requires 2/3" or more. I'm guessing every camera they list as approved would meet that spec even though they don't specify it.
At the time I was surprised to learn that ESPN wants you to deliver all content in 720p. Wikipedia says that their Digital Center is equipped for 2160p, but they still broadcast in 720p. The archivist in me would want to receive the material greater than 720p even knowing it is to be broadcast in 720p, but I can understand the additional complexity that such a small thing can add, especially when dealing with hundreds of production companies.
I speculate that Netflix wants you to turn in higher quality video because they are factoring in that over time encoding and streaming algorithms and increased bandwidth will allow them to push higher quality feeds to end users, and they want the highest possible raw capture so they can improve the stream as technology improves, whereas ABC is content with airing footage in the future that looks as it did when it aired originally.
Most of Netflix is utterly mindless garbage content for background consumption. I struggle to name even 5 of their originals over the years that you could call good "TV" or Cinema.
Black Mirror is the only one that really comes to mind.
I think you could be pleasantly surprised
The Crown
Bojack Horseman
Lupin
Unbreakable Kimmy Schmidt
Russian Doll
Glow
Narcos
Sex Education
House Of Cards (although, this is less fun to watch now considering Kevin Spacey's real life actions but the show itself was and is quite good)
Dark
The Witcher
Daredevil
The Haunting of Hill House (similarly Midnight Mass and Haunting of Bly Manor)
All of these are award winning as well as just being incredibly good shows. I think Netflix just pumps out so much content. There's plenty of bad stuff, but there's also plenty of very very good stuff.
Netflix puts out plenty of good stuff, some people just can't distinguish "I don't like it" from "it's bad."
Comments like this are usually just an invitation for someone to put forth what shows they think are decent so you have a chance to dunk on their taste.
A decent outcome nevertheless!
Thing is most studios now do only one mix for theaters and also most streaming providers don't give many fucks about audio. It's not an innovation problem it's a product problem.
This is great if you have one.
However if its downmixed on the fly (ie done on the client side) the center channel is often just played out of both speakers. This means that sound can be muffled, because its drowned out by the incidental noise that comes from the left/right channel.
Well what other option do you have when there are only two speakers? Only play it out of one?
> This means that sound can be muffled, because its drowned out by the incidental noise that comes from the left/right channel.
Consumer hardware can only guess. A sound engineer can know.
As always, it depends on the device. Dynamic range compression seems to be a relatively common feature, usually as an option described (inaccurately) with something like "Reduce Loud Sounds" like it is on the Apple TV.
The defaults for automatic sound mixing will almost always be wrong. And they will differ in how they are wrong from consumer box to consumer box.
OTOH, a lot of the models end up trained on features that are very different from what humans hear.
When you master for 5.1, because you have the centre speaker, you can have dialogue at 100% volume, then out of left and right, you can have incidental noise, be that music or "atmosphere" also at 100%
(its been a while since I've mastered in 5.1) However, two channels of 100% volume (well 0dbu) is louder than just one channel. Which means that if you have lots of music, wind or other foley it'll drown out the dialogue.
It requires artistic choices from the sound team to make work properly.
I also have a hard time believing Netflix would be ok putting up money to capture a picture/series all in 16mm film (or that anyone would suggest the commercial success or artistic vision demanded it).
So it doesn't stifle creativity, it future proofs Netfix for the lucrative high end market, AND Netflix is paying (at least indirectly) for that level of quality. I don't see the problem here.
The problem is that the camera requirements are defined, presumably to try to have some lower bound on the quality of the visuals, there is no requirement for audio such that it sounds good on stereo speakers, which is probably what the majority of consumers are using.
The idea that Netflix have such a strict definition on camera quality is also a bit of a farce, given how woeful the image looks after it goes through their incredibly overenthusiastic level of compression, but that's neither here nor there.
Compare to Disney+. As much as I dislike Disney, they have 4K Dolby vision for no extra cost, and quality is excellent. Prime and Netflix could both take examples out of their book. (Some of the compression in recent Amazon shows has also been very bad. For example, the trees in the background of the wheel of time were often a mess of compression artifacts even at 4K.)
Who in the world only has 2 speakers? /s
The technology is old enough to be long out of patent either way.
Metadata only isn't a panacea
That last point means that dialogue is likely to be quieter than sound effects and music, since dialogue is usually on the centre channel.
Arri was quite proud of their RAW format. I was told that on top of the price of the camera body, it was $20k to license the RAW format for the camera. Their RAW format was a sequence of frames that used the frame number derived from timecode appended to the filename. Had a strange situation with a client's Arri RAW footage. Typically, the camera's timecode is set to time of day. However, this particular day the camera op failed to do this. During one of the shots, the timecode rolled over "midnight" so the 23:59:59:23 timecode had a frame number of 2073599, but the very next frame 00:00:00:00 has a frame number of 0000000. Importing the footage broke this shot into 2 pieces. The last half of the shot showed up as the very first file in the imports, and the first half showed up as the last. RAW formats that are saved into a container format avoids this.
TR;DR camera peeps love Arri, post peeps have other opinions
People are happy to take a Leica camera and then apply the same Kodak Portra colour filter that every influencer seems to use.
The idea that an editor is "lazy" for doing what they're told to do by the director and DP is pretty offensive.
To OP’s point it’s shortsighted they’d accept a Mark I FS7 vs. nearly any image any Alexa has ever produced. The extra .8k it lacks on paper is more than made up in overall image quality.
It’s the only one that’s just a mirrorless camera built with video in mind, while the others are full blown cinema cameras
Panasonic BGH1 - $2k
Panasonic S1H - $3.7k
Canon C70 - $5.5k
Blackmagic Ursa - $6k
NB: BGH1 is literally just a body with sensor and couple of sockets and that's it.
The implications here are amazing.
Say someone wants to like film a mountain bike scene on a GoPro. Someone has to realize how this is going to work in advance. Then they have to tell someone to write Netflix an email to ask for permission. Someone writes that email. Someone at Netflix receives the email, and asks their team whether or not to approve the exception. A meeting is scheduled and it's discussed. They decide yes! They make a note of the approval in their project planning system. Or rather, try to... the system doesn't support that. They file a bug report. The engineering team's product manager takes a look and decides it's important, so they have a short call with the team's manager to get it prioritized. It gets prioritized. The product manager tells the Video Camera Approvals department that it will be looked at in the next couple weeks. Meanwhile an engineer picks up the ticket, decides it makes sense, and adds a new column to the ongoing_production table 'boolean unapproved_camera_exeception_granteed default false'. Some glue is put together to make this a checkbox, and in just a week, the feature is launched! The camera exceptions department is informed. They say they actually wanted it to be a list of camera models that were approved, the date that that camera model was approved, and the user who approved it. Also can you add a button to client-facing UI so that production companies can make a request there? The project manager says this is a great idea and prioritizes it. The engineer that added the checkbox is on vacation, so the more complicated version of this feature is given to the new-hire as their starter project. The new-hire puts together a small document with an overview of what they plan to do; a database migration to add a new table to store approved cameras, the UI work, a messaging system to tell the video cameras approvals team that there is a request to review, etc. A design review is scheduled for next Thursday. Don't work on it until then, we'll do the rest next sprint. Meanwhile over in the video camera exceptions approval department, the production company writes in "hey, we're running out of time, should we just use a GoPro?" The exceptions manager writes "This is approved. We're having some trouble adding a note to the CRM, but that should be fixed in the next couple months. For now, if anyone asks, this email is the record of your approval." Unfortunately, right before they press send, a cat picture is posted to Slack. Slack makes a loud sound to notify everyone of this, and the email window is closed as everyone goes over to check out the cat picture. As it turns out, this email just lives in the Drafts folder for the rest of eternity. It was the Exception Manager's last day; turns out Hulu is paying Video Camera Exceptions Managers twice as much, and in theory have better software. Meanwhile, over at the video production company, they are frustrated that they can't get ahold of anyone at Netflix to approve the camera, so they decide to just strap a Sony F65 to the rider's handlebars. There is no off-the-shelf-mount for this, so they shop around the idea to local machine shops. One offers to design and build it over the weekend so they can start using it on monday. $20,000 for the design and first prototype; $10,000 for the rush job. Approved. On Monday morning, they attach the F65 to a bicycle in the studio and pedal it around. A little wobbly, but nothing our stunt rider can't handle. They book her for a shoot tomorrow. She inspects the bike and says "whoa, this is weird" but gets used to it after a while. They head out to location and begin the technical descent. So far so good, even with the very wobbly cockpit. She hits a huge jump and get higher up in the air. The bike unexpectedly pitches downwards. The landing is not good! CRUNCH! She's off the bike. The camera flies into a ravine. The chase crew stops and throws their bikes away as quickly as possible to check on the stunt rider. She's conscious. They quickly call 911 to get a medical team out here to assist. Broken neck? Broken back? They don't know what to do. Unfortunately, there is no cell reception. Someone volunteers to hike to the summit to call. 20 minutes later, they're talking to 911. They can't get an ambulance out there, so they're sending a helicopter. Do you have the GPS coordinates? They don't, but offer to signal to the helicopter when they hear it. Someone probably has a mirror that they can signal with, right? 20 minutes pass, and the helicopter is overhead. The rest of the team doesn't know that one is coming, but someone has the bright idea of using one of their cheaper lenses as a mirror. They attract the helicopter pilot's attention. A paramedic descends through the trees, attaches a back brace to the stunt rider, and they're off to the hospital. The rest of the crew descends the slope on their bikes, reaching the production van and telling them the news. They're weeks behind schedule at this point, they might have to just cut this technical scene.
Some time passes. The stunt rider makes a full recovery. It looked worse than it was, and she's back in the saddle within a week. The scene is cut from the film, and it's delivered in time. The film gets amazing reviews. Subscriptions are at an all time high. The CRM software is modified to support the video camera approval workflow, and it works great. The junior engineer is promoted. A quarterly business review shows that the processes are working great, and that the scrappy Netflix is out-innovating all of the competition. High fives all around. Their share price increases and all the employees are richer.
This is the American economy in a nutshell, and I'll be honest -- I don't fucking get it.
The collection of documents seems to be guidelines and templates to begin from if seeking to partner with Netflix.
It doesn't seem like requirements for the film from being considered for inclusion in the catalogue, but at least offers a relative standard that can be deviated from as necessary.
For example, the general safety and guidelines document they provide for the US includes guidelines on weapons handling and stunts.[1] Having documents like this to start from might remove some of the administrative overhead to creating art in film.
To offer a comparison, YC has the SAFE investment template, an enterprise sales agreement template and recommendations for organization of startups. Using these might make a new company an easier fold into the portfolio but if the startup is successful enough, many things likely can be seen past.
Regarding iPhone specifically, the device has been able to record in 4k since the 6S and 6S Plus, which was one generation later than Tangerine which used the 5S. That said, I don't know the details of video capture to say if anything up through the 13 Pro compares with these other cameras.
[1] https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gs6n32bMC_2zLGp2jI4U3JA7k7q...
To clarify, I believe this is for original Netflix content (partners) where Netflix does the production. 3rd party studios licensing their content would be exempt from this (ABC/NBC/CBS/FOX). The big issue is that you have to get pre-approval for non-approved cameras.
I suspect that Netflix/Apple/Amazon is trying to make their name in content beating out cable and movie production studios. High quality 4k video is what people are clamoring for. I've seen a lot of cable/broadcast 1080p (The local CW station comes to mind) that's been recompressed to a lower bit rate. Effectively giving you 720p resolution in 1080p format -- it's not nearly as enjoyable.
Pretty sure some of their other original stuff was shot on film too, which obviously wouldn't meet these requirements. At least, I know the non de-aged scenes for The Irishman were done on film. But again, maybe the big guys get more leeway here.
Any company that produces something will have similar type of "specs".
I think there’s a good mix between rent and own as there’s a lot of diversity in creators.
Arri puts out a new Alexa and you can maybe get one if you have a hundred grand in your pocket, but there are some master primes or legacy sets that are simply not for sale.
We can make microchips for a few quid but a metal tube with a few small lumps of shaped glass costs 10,000 times as much? Seems unlikely.
Is it a fashion thing, like unless it has the right logo on the lens body then the producers reject it?
And the reason you want one of these expensive lenses, is that they can do things that other lenses physically cannot and can never be persuaded to do.
The famous Carl Zeiss Planar 50 mm f0. 7 lens used in Barry Lyndon is special because it can physically let more light into your camera than any other lens. That’s why nasa commissioned a set of them from Zeiss to use in filming the moon landing.
Don't remember the sources for the anecdote, sorry. But the wikipedia page corresponds:
Note that even then they had to use brighter candles (they had 3 wicks instead of one).
As for quality, the highest of high end lenses are much sharper for a given f-stop, and sometimes have higher t-stop ratings, than cheaper lenses you can get. They will look consistent through all focus settings, and won't "breathe" (zoom while focusing). The lenses also come as a matched set, so you can switch between focal lengths and the images look the same -- no color shift or aesthetic change. This puts a huge number of constraints on the lens designer, requiring different materials and manufacturing processes. Cinema lenses aren't irrationally priced, even if the demand is driven by aesthetics.
And yes, modern lens designers could probably recreate classic lenses. No, it's not economically viable, even at outrageous prices. (Because you can digitally fake most of the obvious artifacts, and the few people who really care about the in-camera look aren't enough to justify the engineering cost.)
There may also be a minor materials issue; some of the glass used in very old lenses was pretty exotic, some were even mildly radioactive. It's possible those glasses are not available since there are better replacement options in glass catalogs now. But this is just speculative, I haven't tried to source thorium glass. (Yet?)
However, in feature film work, some lens collections can easily cost $250,000 for a set of 6 lenses (Leica Sumicron-C). Cooke lenses could reach $100k. So, not many people owned these either. You just rent. You then get to write all of it off as an expense on the budget of the production. Camera gear used to be so expensive that few owned.
They rent cameras too, not just lenses. The RED Raven model (one of the NetFlix approved models) rents for $490/week. That's just for the "body" (what RED calls the "brain"). A full kit with accessories is $850/week. Lenses are on top of that.
Depends. Some of the gear mentioned on the Netflix page can be afforded even by ambitioned hobbyists, others - especially the lenses - are way too expensive for anyone sans big studios.
Major studios will have a selection of their own equipment, but rent from companies like ARRI (who, coincidentally or not, make their own cameras of which some are rent-only) for projects requiring more than that - or anything on location in foreign countries. It's easier to call up Arri and have them and their local offices deal with cameras, lighting equipment and the likes than to ship all that stuff around the world, deal with customs etc.
> Is there an aggregated marketplace where I could be able to put my camera for rent if I do eventually get one?
In Germany there's gearo, no idea about any other.
The bigger rental houses make all their money on other things -- the ROI on sandbags, sound blankets, even consumables is ridiculous compared to cameras. (Granted I'm blending grip and camera, but some houses do both.)
You're also competing with owner/operators, and even in-house studio operations. It doesn't scale -- relationships matter and it's highly regional. Compared to other ways to put your capital to work, it's not a great investment.
Gotta re-read Rodriguez' "Rebel without a crew" (and try to forget his way subpar episode of the next Disney Star Wars humiliation).
https://partnerhelp.netflixstudios.com/hc/en-us/articles/214...
and here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1_bwbUs4NaF7Y-07_NHwQqsL5L6z...
Was it just the resolution available for the price point at the time? How did the company achieve it, and why weren't any of the major camera manufacturers able to do that up until that time?
The only projects that use them in my experience are low budget music videos (I'm talking very low budget - typically sub $10k) and documentaries. Occasionally you'll see them as a C cam for higher end jobs.
Is it that they don't record the same bit depth (?) What aspects of the output or format of a camera make it suitable for pro use?
An overwhelming part of society has lost the essence in everything and went full-on meta, some 10 years ago one could find wonderful album reviews on Discogs, as example, but not anymore - the vinyl press quality is the topic 99% of comments over there now. The only feeling music seems to be inducing in those people is that of annoyance at clicks, pops and scratches.
6-21-3-11-ing metaworld.
[0] http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/scotland/commissioning/TechnicalD...
You can’t even buy some of the stuff here even if you wanted to either. Studio-grade camera equipment is like trying to buy a Ferrari.
the Canon EOS C70 looks most consumer still.
The next generation of cameras should move away from SD cards. I can’t wait until you can stick NVMe on one, it’s a shame they don’t even make any emmc SD cards. Even the iPhone has had that for half a decade now.
Digital cameras really suck, they’re all horrible proprietary hardware devices, basically expensive locked down computers with large sensors that attach to lens through proprietary mounts.
For Netflix Originals, I would assume most productions are done on rental gear. The difference between renting an FX3 and an FX6 isn't going to be significant at production-budget scales. (And if you had a real burning reason to use something off-list I would bet they can write you an exception.)
The quality of global shutter cameras is simply nowhere near the quality of rolling shutter cameras, though there are more acceptable options showing up these days, they still typically have lower dynamic range and generally worse specs.
The big reason all high end cameras aren’t video cameras are mostly taxes in some regions and lazy product differentiation.
If you're a youtube creator, these cameras can make you look "pro" for a small budget. The price points to entry because of this type of gear brings the creation market to a much wider market, which can be a good thing. Bringing this gear to a full camera crew with DP, AC, etc makes integration harder. Good times!
Though you definitely hear about productions using them anyway.
- Cine zoom lenses must provide a fixed point of focus when you are zooming. This leads to a more complex mechanism.
- Different cine fixed lenses in one project usually must have identical image quality. That is why they are produced in series (for example 'XEEN PRO Cinema Lenses') with the same technologies.
- Anamorphic lenses... They should exist. They complicate lens production because a stable quality (for series) of an aspherical lens can be achieved only from a central part of a large glass.
- Focusing is the process that often requires a separate person (focus puller) and additional machinery (follow focus system). All cine lenses have exactly the same standard focus wheel. There is no such standard for a photo lens focus wheel.
Nikon F has very few cine lenses and has no series of lenses. Nikon Z has nothing. Thanks to the closed very secret, unique, perfect, bla-bla specification of Z mount and zero collaborations with other manufactures.
centralized platforms strike again!
So disgusting seeing big square macroblocks, esp.on dark scenes.
Cancelled it months ago.
You could use an “unapproved” camera and just overwrite the metadata. Nobody would know (unless you’re using an iPhone or something).