4K Cameras Approved by Netflix

[Hrvoje Simic]

Really, Hrvoje. If you want to punch holes in this, go ahead, I can't stop you.

I don't punch holes, Mike. I either a) get to fix them, b) think ahead to not have to fix them and c) point them after b)
Some get infatuated with actual hole makers and tend to have a problem with the latter two.

But what I would say is sit down and try to write a spec that everyone likes. It can't be done.

Of course it cannot. Pitchforks and bonfires are likely in any case.
What is possible however is writing specs key players included in huge business deals are comfortable with.

Netflix, to their great credit, is constantly testing new cameras, new codecs, new lenses, and everything else. As both a production studio (they really are that today) and one of the most major distributors, they are very, very aware of all of these things. As a leading technology company, they look at everything in this business in a fundamentally different way than literally everyone else in the industry. As an example, they don't look at archival storage in terms of which LTO format they should use. They look at it as an issue of how quickly they can get every asset into cloud storage and how to best manage that. There is no other entertainment industry entity that does that.

Their "approved cameras" have that designation because they have been thoroughly tested and found to pass their stringent requirements in terms of color fidelity, resolution retention, generational performance, and data robustness. Some of those cameras are on the list because they have proven themselves on existing and past projects (the Canon C300 Mk II, for instance, has been used for the last 2 seasons of "Grace and Frankie" with excellent results). I really wish people here would understand how thorough companies like Netflix are when they put together specs like this. They don't just sit around and say "have you seen this camera? It's pretty good, so let's put it on our list." It doesn't work that way. And it's equally as silly to sit here and debate why something people here happen to own isn't included, and something they don't think is as good is, because a) it's not your choice, and b) Netflix has done their homework whether you think they have or not. Accept it and move on.

I always enjoy your posts with level-headed feedback. Which has not always received warm welcome on these boards over the years but I consider highly valuable for the community nevertheless.

I don't have a horse in this race, Mike. No agendas here or motivations for sensless debates. We use here all sorts of cameras and I find good purpose with many of them, if used properly, respecting creative decisions from the Creatives themselves. Since this is an open forum I can just offer my feedback, based on my experience in different sides of this domain.

For example.... if one chooses a factor of "resolution" where "higher" in mass perception suggests some kind of superiority over "lower", if we put aside matters of aesthetic (fundamental factor in imaging)...what resolution are we really talking about here ? Actual, as in those defining objective scene acuity, or marketing one ?

If it is prior, it is beneficial to add here that 4:2:2 sampling of 4K imager does not really give a full resolution 4K image and there is colour data missing. So those paying for 4K are not really getting a 4K image. They are getting even less with h.264 recording where high frequency detail, textures and shadow data suffer, and even less once the compression hits the master for delivery. That would be if today's sensors were CCD based. Since they are not, we can also add the nature of Bayer sensors, in which case actual resolution is even lower and viewer is not getting full 4K on a 4K imager even with raw acquisition. So even less with 4:2:2, even less with h.264, and even less in home delivery.

So...if full 4K quality was the decisive factor and not just a number stuffed for marketing purposes for the masses, from every camera on that list the only ones which would apply without any question would be Helium, Dragon VV 8K, and DXL. Which give pristine 4K image with a) clean scale and b) every pixel originating from R+G+B data, without software processing re-inventing the missing data. I am sure you and many people here are very well aware of this. Not really a happy notion for some key industry players, is it ? Does that technical factor really mean all other cameras are "not good enough" ? The reason for the latter question is because this exact notion can easily emerge within the community watching the technical specs of a highly influential entity, affecting the group think and indirectly forcing to adapt.

Is it not fair to point the obvious contradiction here ? Shall we be fully fair or "just enough fair" to avoid rocking the Goliath's boat ? Is Netflix now the authority for image quality, more apt than worlds top DoPs, the entity which industry should blindly follow as a reference, hoping to strike a deal because they have billions to spend ? Am I the problem maker here by pointing out this contradiction, and shall I just sit quietly and wait for 240 Mbs h.264 shot in "Log color space" (what ever that is, last time I checked log is gamma encoding), then educate the client after the shoot while watching sour faces why he won't really get that "Alexa look" ?

Also, colour(grade) me surprised for the choice to cover Ursa Mini projects. Not because of the imagery, where Ursa Mini's are very capable and offer amazing value for the money, even surpassing some other cameras in some technical aspects, but to the fact the company shovels out professional usage targeted devices like seasonal sock models, and the brand is not world known by reliability. I've seen a few bizzare cases of bugs myself with these cameras on the shoots. While on a lower budget shoot there is less risk and consequences, not sure through which logic would one make a shooting day costing many times the price of a camera rely on this route. Guessing the testing team had fully reliable models and never ran into the scenario of production crew, actors/telents and shooting day on a standstill with all the related drama due to a camera issue. It tends to happen even with much more serious cameras so those who got burned tent to reduce the variables to a minimum.

Netflix can decide what ever Netflix chooses to. I really don't care. When the creative industry starts valorizing things based on corporate interest criteria, dismissing higher quality routes over lower quality ones due to numbers game extracted and placed out of context, and the inertia starts rolling that becomes my problem as well.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

It's fair to say different people see different things. I can only tell you it's more of a struggle for me to pull usable pictures out of the FS7 than it is (say) the F55 or any recent Red footage.

On the other hand: I disliked the Canon C300 for a long time, and then I ran into a DP who used it for a project and every frame was a Rembrandt. He knew exactly where the camera's week points were, and managed to expose it absolutely perfectly. So... as always, great DPs can get great pictures out of damn near anything.

The comment was not opposing your findings, I doubt you imagined things, it was referring to conclusions.
I could list a number of possible reasons for what you stumbled across and most are not camera related. Camera is always the easiest to blame.

Who knows...perhaps the DoP/Production just took Netflix tech specs at face value so expected the same results with 10 bit h.264 as with 16 bit raw.

 

[M Most]

Outside of RedUser, nobody generalizes the Netflix spec to be anything more than the Netflix spec. Amazon has a different set of specs. So does Hulu. So does Fox, Warner Bros., Sony, Universal, and every other production studio. We all get specs from whatever production entity is funding or distributing every single project we work on. They all have their own unique view of the world, their place in it, what they value in terms of their archival assets, and what they feel they need to require to produce elements that suit those needs and their own particular infrastructure. And they don't arrive at those conclusions without a great deal of consideration and practical testing. I'll say it again, it's rather silly and very presumptuous for people on RedUser to sit here and debate any of this because for one thing, the opinions here are almost always based on complete loyalty and belief in one particular camera manufacturer (as they should be given whose site this is) and also on what many people here happen to be invested in, both emotionally and financially. Everything the industry does is taken very personally by people here, but the fact is that the companies putting up the money to make movies and television productions have the right to demand anything they want. And it's everyone else's responsibility to conform to that, regardless of their personal feelings on the subject.

 

[Marc Wielage]

Outside of RedUser, nobody generalizes the Netflix spec to be anything more than the Netflix spec. Amazon has a different set of specs. So does Hulu. So does Fox, Warner Bros., Sony, Universal, and every other production studio. We all get specs from whatever production entity is funding or distributing every single project we work on. They all have their own unique view of the world, their place in it, what they value in terms of their archival assets, and what they feel they need to require to produce elements that suit those needs and their own particular infrastructure. And they don't arrive at those conclusions without a great deal of consideration and practical testing.

I think all this is very true. People who are overreacting to the chart should read the actual document, which kind of implies that if you use any other cameras not on the charts, it needs to be approved by Netflix first. The bottom line is that if Netflix is paying for the show, they get to dictate how it's shot. Period, end of discussion.

But if it's just a movie they're buying, or an older show they're distributing, then they're not nearly as demanding as long as it meets their minimum quality requirements and passes QC.

It's fair to say anybody who sells a show to Netflix or Amazon or Hulu or whoever will go through a series of meetings where all this stuff is hammered out in back-and-forth discussions and contracts. The fact that the Netflix 2.1 specs are in writing and very specific tell you pretty much everything you need to know. There's still a lot of room for variation, and the fact that the Netflix shows all look wildly different from each other tells me that they give all their creative people a very long leash.

 

[Prahlad Strickland]

no Arri alexa mini?,
I understand the push for 4k, but when you approve a c300 which is not a true 4k image.... Considering the arri mini can shoot native upres'd to 4k.... Netflix has to be off their heads to approve, c300 / 500 and not arri mini.

 

[Phil Holland]

no Arri alexa mini?, Considering the arri mini can shoot native upres'd to 4k....

I've bolded, italic'd, and underlined the key word and reason why.

 

[Eric Oliver]

There are dozens of shows and films on Netflix that were shot on non-4K sensor Arri Alexas.

 

[Brendan H. Banks]

There are dozens of shows and films on Netflix that were shot on non-4K sensor Arri Alexas.

Totally, remember these are guidelines for original content....not hard rules for content distribution. And as many have mentioned before, if you're doing a Netflix Original and want to go outside their guidelines, that can be a part of the conversation.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Outside of RedUser, nobody generalizes the Netflix spec to be anything more than the Netflix spec.

Respectfully and according to my experience...I'd say this is overly optimistic.

They all have their own unique view of the world, their place in it, what they value in terms of their archival assets, and what they feel they need to require to produce elements that suit those needs and their own particular infrastructure. And they don't arrive at those conclusions without a great deal of consideration and practical testing.

I'll say it again, it's rather silly and very presumptuous for people on RedUser to sit here and debate any of this because for one thing, the opinions here are almost always based on complete loyalty and belief in one particular camera manufacturer (as they should be given whose site this is) and also on what many people here happen to be invested in, both emotionally and financially.

So...Netflix is not biased whatsover and professionals on Reduser are ?

Only Netflix tests cameras ? This is a camera forum.

Everything the industry does is taken very personally by people here, but the fact is that the companies putting up the money to make movies and television productions have the right to demand anything they want. And it's everyone else's responsibility to conform to that, regardless of their personal feelings on the subject.

They can demand what ever they please and everyone is free to comment on the reasoning and effect to the community. Without the community feedback decision makers get stuck in a reality bubble.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

My main question would be if they actually made an error in listing the "RED" cameras or they left some out in purpose.

Why not the Scarlet-W & Raven, which both have DRAGON sensors and both can shoot at required compressions.

But most important, do they mean to also leave out the RED EPIC-W with Helium 8k sensor out?!?

& the RED EPIC DRAGON?? Or they put the wrong picture.

Because as it shows it seems that they are only allowing Weapon cameras even so the list should read:

RED WEAPON DRAGON 6K
RED WEAPON DRAGON 8kVV
RED WEAPON HELIUM 8K s35

I guess time to contact Netflix to clarify before going on shooting with the Epic Dragon and getting rejected as they only allow 10% material coming form non-approved cameras, and I guess they did this in consideration of Drones shots and such.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

When starting any original production with Netflix, or with anyone for that matter, you have a discussion with their post people and bring these things up then. If they've tested a 4K+ camera you want to use and have rejected it, then that's sort of final, but if they just haven't tested that particular model yet, then I'm sure they'd let you shoot tests for the hope of an approval.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

When starting any original production with Netflix, or with anyone for that matter, you have a discussion with their post people and bring these things up then. If they've tested a 4K+ camera you want to use and have rejected it, then that's sort of final, but if they just haven't tested that particular model yet, then I'm sure they'd let you shoot tests for the hope of an approval.

Indeed,
I just sent them a clarification request on it, to see if there was an error on the listing, and if the RED EPIC DRAGON & RED EPIC-W are in or out.

 

[Peter Moretti]

I think I have posted this before, but having met and shot for many Netflix projects they have this mandate because the TV manufacturers got screwed on 3D displays. They were promised content and got very little. So in exchange for 4K displays Netflix and I believe Amazon promised them true 4K content. It is as simple as that. Alexa is a good camera but alas needs to be their Alexa 65 sensor to make muster.

This is very non subjective. Simple math.

I don't doubt this at all. But I do doubt that anyone watching a Netflix movie would say, "Oh I've been gypped b/c I'm watching uprezed ArriRaw."

 

[Phil Holland]

There is the additional marketing angle by going 4K. Netflix was/is one of the earliest to put that stamp on the quality of visuals in the streaming content development game. This has given them an edge for those who like 4K content over broadcast and some cinema. They also provide a pricing tier to reflect that premium and it's indeed worth it.

Also to mention, one of the early adopters of HDR.

These are things that at the moment broadcast can't compete with. Some shiws are indeed at a minimum capturing their shows in 4K. Cable can comoete. But it's a toss up if they do as there's a lot of different content and budget levels out there. As for cinema, a growing trend of finishing in 4K is certainly in the air.

 

[Marc Wielage]

There are dozens of shows and films on Netflix that were shot on non-4K sensor Arri Alexas.

But not paid for and produced by Netflix. A Netflix Original is a very specific thing. Of course, they'll air all the Lord of the Rings films, all the Harry Potter films, and the first 10 years of Marvel films that were only finished in 2K. But not brand-new projects that they finance.

BTW, there is one camera left off the list: a film camera. They will allow 35mm and 16mm film to be used on original productions if that's part of the creative demands by the filmmakers. But I would bet they would ask that all the film material have 4K scans. (I'm still not convinced there's 4K of resolution in Super 16mm, but that's me.)

 

[Gunleik Groven]

I think I have posted this before, but having met and shot for many Netflix projects they have this mandate because the TV manufacturers got screwed on 3D displays. They were promised content and got very little. So in exchange for 4K displays Netflix and I believe Amazon promised them true 4K content. It is as simple as that. Alexa is a good camera but alas needs to be their Alexa 65 sensor to make muster.

This is very non subjective. Simple math.

... and thus the most overlooked post in the thread...

There is some undeniable business logic to this.

 

[Hrvoje Simic]

Yup, Peter sums it up nicely.

Large business entities base their decisions on business deals and covering parties included first and juggle everything else second. Sales of 4K TVs depends on quantity of 4K content, presentable easily through simple numbers.

Regarding the 3D circus, manufacturers pretty much had it coming, expecting proper 3D content for home delivery happening over night, as if the existence of technology comes in the package with the knowledge to utilize it properly. And expecting 3D to work properly on a typically-sized TV set in a typical living room. And Hollywood not screwing up 3D. In times where money is prioritized over reason and things tend to get abused then thrown away 3D was doomed from the start. With all the potential it had. I was counting the days.

Producers *wanted* the same content to work with 2D and 3D, DoPs *wanted* 35mm look and lens choices for stereographic imaging, directors *wanted* to think in 2D and just add depth with a second camera to canvas imaging logic, studios *wanted* to cash in on cinema and home delivery for the same material disregarding its special requirements. While no one even bothered to make a proper 3D cinema camera and all was based on impractical rigs clogging down production workflow. Since all those wishes had no basis in physics, biology and reality in general, and the inertia of individual interests only lead to well founded negative impressions from the audience, widespread 3D acquisition was dead before it even had a chance to reach maturity.

 

[Ketch Rossi]

Just confirmed with Netflix that the approved cameras are indeed as I suspected and not as they appear on the Poster.

RED EPIC DRAGON
RED WEAPON DRAGON/HELIUM

 

[M Most]

Yup, Peter sums it up nicely.

Large business entities base their decisions on business deals and covering parties included first and juggle everything else second. Sales of 4K TVs depends on quantity of 4K content, presentable easily through simple numbers.

That is only true if you believe that the general public can tell the difference. I would offer the opinion that in general, they can't. In a very short time frame, ALL new TV's will be UHD. For most civilians that simply means larger and nicer images on the screen, and has absolutely nothing to do with how they're originating or what they technically are. Personally, I have an LG B6 55 inch monitor, and quite frankly, most of the time I don't really see any significant difference between network programming (in HD) and Netflix UHD productions. And I consider myself a bit more informed than the average consumer. Sales of new TVs depends on the public perception of whether the images they show are better and worth an investment. They have nothing to do with whether there's "4K content."

Regarding the 3D circus, manufacturers pretty much had it coming, expecting proper 3D content for home delivery happening over night, as if the existence of technology comes in the package with the knowledge to utilize it properly. And expecting 3D to work properly on a typically-sized TV set in a typical living room. And Hollywood not screwing up 3D. In times where money is prioritized over reason and things tend to get abused then thrown away 3D was doomed from the start. With all the potential it had. I was counting the days.

Producers *wanted* the same content to work with 2D and 3D, DoPs *wanted* 35mm look and lens choices for stereographic imaging, directors *wanted* to think in 2D and just add depth with a second camera to canvas imaging logic, studios *wanted* to cash in on cinema and home delivery for the same material disregarding its special requirements. While no one even bothered to make a proper 3D cinema camera and all was based on impractical rigs clogging down production workflow. Since all those wishes had no basis in physics, biology and reality in general, and the inertia of individual interests only lead to well founded negative impressions from the audience, widespread 3D acquisition was dead before it even had a chance to reach maturity.

I think nearly everything you just said is irrelevant and mostly untrue because it's based on the assumption that stereoscopic 3D is at its heart a great idea with a flawed implementation. I don't agree with that at all. 3D failed because the vast majority of the public saw no reason for it, had no real demand for it, didn't like wearing glasses to see it, and didn't like watching it for more than a couple of minutes because it physically hurt to do it. In other words, it was a lousy experience with no compelling purpose. In other words, a gimmick. Any other explanation is a rationalization for ill conceived assumptions.

 

[Frank Glencairn]

You are more than welcome with Netflix to fund your own blockbuster with an iPhone or using an Arri Alexa and license it to Netflix. They will fund their own content to the provided 4k spec.

There is a ton of 2k stuff on Netflix though, like Fargo, which was shot on a Alexa and with half-century-old Cooke lenses (season 2), and on a Alexa mini (season 3). Looks like, if you are Dana Gonzales, you have the saying, which tools you want.