Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Netflix 4K requirements

David Mullen ASC said:
Desqueezing either involves upscaling the horizontal by 2X or downscaling the vertical by 2X, but either way you aren't making 3792 pixels across used for capture magically cross the 4K threshold just by up scaling the horizontal in order to desqueeze it. On the other hand, I personally don't see why 3792 isn't acceptable if 3840 is.
Click to expand...

I agree. Maybe their standards would be more meaningful with a 2160p vertical requirement rather than a 4K-that's-not-really-4K horizontal requirement (3840 pixels is not 4,000 pixels and really not 4,096 pixels).
 
Patrick Tresch said:
i have a doubt.

Isn't only upscaling forbidden if you deliver and sell a 4k master but you could sell it as a 2k master? (if shot in >2k)

Pat
Click to expand...

What kind of difference is there between what they'd pay for a 4K movie vs 2K/1080 movie?
 
Michael Tiemann said:
I agree. Maybe their standards would be more meaningful with a 2160p vertical requirement rather than a 4K-that's-not-really-4K horizontal requirement (3840 pixels is not 4,000 pixels and really not 4,096 pixels).
Click to expand...
I like the 2160 as a better definition, I watch a lot of old movies which are 1.33 format and I love it when they are scanned on a "4k" film scanner ... but that means it will be 2160 high, not 4k wide. I am a netflix premium customer and 4k for old movies to me means they used the 4k scanner for the films(for non-digital films). I do think the spirit 4k scanner's condensor can do a 2x expand on the film before it is digitized, but really as long as i get the 2180p highth I'm good from a premium customers viewpoint. I think most of these "4k" dci definitions came from digital scanning around 2005, so the definitions are a bit different from digital camera lingo.
 
PatrickFaith said:
I like the 2160 as a better definition, I watch a lot of old movies which are 1.33 format and I love it when they are scanned on a "4k" film scanner ... but that means it will be 2160 high, not 4k wide. I am a netflix premium customer and 4k for old movies to me means they used the 4k scanner for the films(for non-digital films). I do think the spirit 4k scanner's condensor can do a 2x expand on the film before it is digitized, but really as long as i get the 2180p highth I'm good from a premium customers viewpoint. I think most of these "4k" dci definitions came from digital scanning around 2005, so the definitions are a bit different from digital camera lingo.
Click to expand...
Typically, 35mm films scanned are scanned full-ap 2048x1536 or 4096x3072, and then the de-anamorph setting would be done in the color-correction process later on. The Spirit 4K (or 2K) CCD pickup did not do the unsqueeze per se -- that was done with digital processing after the scanner at the end of the signal path, or done entirely in software. The advantage nowadays is almost everything scanned is pin-registered in software, so the resultant films are rock-steady and have no issues with weave or jitter.

4K scans have been possible since about 2000 (technically earlier), but they've really only been prevalent for the last 9-10 years. One major issue is that the files are four times the size of HD and take four times as long to copy, backup, and process.

Just as with digital cameras, just because a film scan was done at 4K doesn't mean it looks good or presents the movie in an accurate way. I can think of a few 4K projects that were absolute train wrecks because of bad decisions made by various people in the post process. What helps is to have experienced people with good judgement (and that includes the colorists, the engineers, and the clients), and to also refer to previous home video transfers so you have a sense as to what prior DVD viewers have seen before. Note that framing can also be an issue: just because the image is 4K or de-anamorphed to 2.40 (or 2.39) doesn't mean it's done in a linear way, nor does it mean there isn't image area getting cut off on one or more edges.
 
David Mullen ASC said:
I object to the notion that few cinematographers care about editing -- thinking about how a sequence will be edited is part of the job of cinematography! What's the point of shooting a scene that can't be cut together? How can you discuss coverage with the director and script supervisor without discussing the editing? Few people have such generous schedules that you can cover a scene from so many angles that it can be cut any number of ways -- with time limitations it is important to design the coverage for the editing plan.
Click to expand...

Absolutely! Sometimes we care even more than certain directors :-)
 
Ibrahim Abdulkarim said:
WAIT JUST A DAMN MINUTE!!!!!

Orange Is The New Black is definitely shoot on the Alexa. And its netflix most successful show
Click to expand...

All past seasons have been on Alexa. The new season is on the Panasonic Varicam 35, a 4K device.
 
Michael Tiemann said:
I agree. Maybe their standards would be more meaningful with a 2160p vertical requirement rather than a 4K-that's-not-really-4K horizontal requirement (3840 pixels is not 4,000 pixels and really not 4,096 pixels).
Click to expand...

What they want is 4xHD for marketing purposes. Having "real" 4k and be able to say "it´s even more than 4 times HD" is not that interesting. They also demand 16:9 which is nuts I think.
 
Björn Benckert said:
What they want is 4xHD for marketing purposes. Having "real" 4k and be able to say "it´s even more than 4 times HD" is not that interesting. They also demand 16:9 which is nuts I think.
Click to expand...

Netflix does not demand 16:9. In fact, their preference - as stated in their specs - is for 4096x2160, or "full 4K." They will accept either 4K or UHD, but they prefer the former.

And why do you think it would be "nuts" to specifically demand 16x9 when virtually every monitor currently being sold is 16x9, regardless of resolution?
 
Hi Mike

.. As you know It was very difficult to make wide crt screens. This is no longer the case with current TV tech. I, alongside nearly every cinema fan ever, would like wide screen to be actual wider (not just shorter screen). Therefore it is not unlikely that after 4k has finished being the big new sales tool marketeers may dial up the ultra wide screen push...

Let's face it unlike both s3d and 4k the content is actually really plentiful... So I do think it is short sighted for Netflix to push for delivery in any aspect ratio other than the one that serves the story best.

Michael 'where is my 65inch 2.39 OLED'
 
The only reason you can buy a 50+ inch 4K (or even HD) monitor for under $1000 is because of the economy of scale involved in mass manufacture of the panels required. There have to be standards in order for that to happen, whether you like them or not. Letterboxing is now a widely accepted way of accommodating any aspect ratio. Unless someone figures out a way to manufacture screens that you can physically squeeze and stretch to become another aspect ratio, that's the way it is. When an entity like Netflix is footing the bill for your production, they can demand anything they want. If the filmmaker doesn't like it, they can try and sell their project elsewhere. I don't see very many doing that. And I don't think they're being "short sighted" in the least. I think they're being practical and, to a great degree, rather forward thinking in asking for 4K in the first place, and allowing 1.9:1 as the primary deliverable. My guess is that if a filmmaker with a good enough track record told them he wanted to shoot a project in 2.4:1 and gave them a good reason for that request, they would possibly honor it and accept a letterboxed delivery. They already stream a lot of features that way.
 
M Most said:
Netflix does not demand 16:9. In fact, their preference - as stated in their specs - is for 4096x2160, or "full 4K." They will accept either 4K or UHD, but they prefer the former.

And why do you think it would be "nuts" to specifically demand 16x9 when virtually every monitor currently being sold is 16x9, regardless of resolution?
Click to expand...

My bad, I mean they do not want wide screen like 2.35 or 2.40 or such for their own productions. To me it´s nuts for them not to let the creatives make that decision.
 
Michael Lindsay said:
Hi Mike

.. As you know It was very difficult to make wide crt screens. This is no longer the case with current TV tech. I, alongside nearly every cinema fan ever, would like wide screen to be actual wider (not just shorter screen). Therefore it is not unlikely that after 4k has finished being the big new sales tool marketeers may dial up the ultra wide screen push...

Let's face it unlike both s3d and 4k the content is actually really plentiful... So I do think it is short sighted for Netflix to push for delivery in any aspect ratio other than the one that serves the story best.

Michael 'where is my 65inch 2.39 OLED'
Click to expand...

I think your idea is a great one and really needs to be talked up. All the various new formats of TVs are produced for one reason; to keep TV prices from dropping so low there's no margin for anyone. Once a "flagship" screen hits the $1k mark, the retailers are baying at the manufacturers for the next fad so they have $6k products to sell. As you say, new screen tech allows screens of any shape and there's a plethora of 1:2.35 and 1:2.40 material already out there. It makes a lot of sense. Rather than studios needing to invest in new, high risk tech to feed 3d or even 4k/8k, they can simply release things in their native aspect. And film makers would love it.

Shame you didn't bring this up at the beginning of IBC where Redusers could have lobbied the manufacturers. Let's start a movement for NAB!
 
I'd remind you that iPad screens are still 4x3...

Mike is right, you need standards to lower costs, and I don't think there would be a big market for 2.40 TV screens if they cost twice as much as 16x9 screens.

Personally I would have liked a 2:1 TV screen standard, it would have handled 2.40 material and 1.85/16x9 material equally well.
 
Not actually true David and an oft repeated fallicy. In the production industry we strive to keep costs down whilst meeting the requirements and standards set out for us. The manufacturing business runs on a different set of rules, however.

As I stated above, the constant need for high priced up sells is what drives innovation. The whole manufacturing, importing and retailing business relies on providing the public with something new that they didn't know they needed. Retailers and wholesalers cannot survive if demand stagnates (ie, we're all happy with what we have now) or when the economies of scale drive the prices down to the point where margins no longer cover costs (the lease on a retail store, wages, advertising). Yes, common sense tells us that nobody needs a 1:2.4 OLED TV in their living room but neither do we need a new, improved washing detergent or a new burger from McDonalds. But they need it and they will pressure the manufacturers to deliver it. If Sony says the world doesn't need 65" curved micro thin OLED screens with an Internet connection and a coffee maker and Samsung shrugs and says, "duh, OK", Sony loses sales. When Apple feel that changing iPads to widescreen will boost sales (and they don't have a more cost effective alternative to have punters lining up around the block), they'll go there. Will they consider the cost of producing content for it? Nope. Not their problem. How much money did s3d cost in production? Why?

Whether it makes sense to us or not, there will be a next wave of new TVs with high retail prices that will eventually drop to a grand, only to be followed by the next and the next. My suggestion was simply that, if we plant the seed, maybe next time Sony, Samsung, LG et al are having a board meeting, wondering what they can do next justify $6,000 televisions for a year, maybe someone will remember a conversation they had at NAB.
 
By the way David, if what you're saying is that it shouldn't be like this, you're damn right. The process of which I speak is the single most destructive force on the planet and drives global warming, poverty, slavery and terrorism. But until governments, economists and big businesses can let go of the notion of perpetual growth, it's the reality.:-(
 
VTW there is no aspect ratio mandate per se from Netflix. We plan to frame either 2.0:1 or 2.40:1 for our feature. I believe there is a great movement afoot by some cinematographer friends to make 2.0:1 the strongest format. Storaro proposed this as well as Allan Daviau years ago. John Schwartzman framed for 2.0:1 on the new Jurassic Park film which he originated on 35mm with anamorphic lenses.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top