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

what bloodline is shot on- is maybe not the most relevant topic in this thread , i think Phil just mentioned it as an
example:) i thought that show looked great and to me that is the most important thing.

now ofcourse networks have for ages specified their tech. requirements - so nothing new here.

i think Peters question was a good one, because now technology has come so far as to pose a very relevant question:
what is more important - mathematics or aesthetics?
 
After watching the Steven Yang Netflix tech spec video I contacted Steven and he has been kind enough to be very clear about their requirements. Primary cameras need to be native 4K or above and also record in RAW. They are constantly testing cameras BTW.
While as a cinematographer I don't like being dictated which camera or lenses to use I congratulate Netflix for at least being clear why they accept certain cameras and not others.
And yes Alexa 65 shooting RAW is acceptable. A bit costly for my film but totally within the tech specs of Netflix.
 
Peter Lyons Collister said:
After watching the Steven Yang Netflix tech spec video I contacted Steven and he has been kind enough to be very clear about their requirements. Primary cameras need to be native 4K or above and also record in RAW. They are constantly testing cameras BTW.
While as a cinematographer I don't like being dictated which camera or lenses to use I congratulate Netflix for at least being clear why they accept certain cameras and not others.
And yes Alexa 65 shooting RAW is acceptable. A bit costly for my film but totally within the tech specs of Netflix.
Click to expand...

Ask ARRI to loan you Alexa 65 :)

Their website headline would be "RED DP goes Alexa 65" :)
 
Dylan Macleod said:
So shooting Alexa open gate 3.2K wouldn't pass? I saw test footage and compared to 2K it was amazing! Seems that Arri created this format for exactly this reason?
https://www.arri.com/news/news/new-alexa-prores-32k-for-uhd-tv/
Click to expand...

They have very specific requirements for all current Netflix productions.

The simplified version of the white paper is any digital cinema camera that can record in a RAW format with a pixel width of 3840, 4096, or higher. Uprezzing of any sort is not permitted. They provide the image dimensions for UHD and DCI resolutions in aspect ratios of 1.78, 1.85, 2.39, 1.80/1.9, and 2:1. They do indeed have notes on specific cameras as Peter has mentioned. Some are recommended, some are not, some can be used sparingly "to get the shot". Main camera(s) however need to be RAW 4K or 4K+ systems.

There is a distinct focus on quality control with forward thinking to the post and VFX workflow side of things. They essentially are asking for the similar guidelines desired by certain level studio features. Netflix is looking to match or exceed that quality level in their UHD 4K or 4K master. Basically bringing the cinema experience home on all levels.
 
I imagine that there's a simple practical component to all of this for Netflix.

At the end of the day they're a company that stores and transmits massive amounts of DATA. If they allowed uprezzing some content providers would arbitrarily uprez footage to attain the "4K" badge but that would cost Netflix and it's customers more money in storage and bandwidth respectively.
 
As I´m told Sony owns a huge chunk of Netflix and by doing so they also owns parts of the rights in the content Netflix produce. And it´s no secret that Sony is pushing for 4k not only at Netflix but also in their TV´s and consoles and not the least their cinema cameras.

I know Sony and the Bloodline production had a big debate regarding what cameras would be used and I can only say as much as there where a huge push from sony´s side not to use RED cameras which where actually preferred by the deciding part of the production team. Sony insisted on the use of F65 and F55. I don´t know how it ended up on alexas. As I know those where not allowed on the preprod/pilot stage of the production due to Netflix 4k demands.
 
Björn Benckert said:
As I´m told Sony owns a huge chunk of Netflix and by doing so they also owns parts of the rights in the content Netflix produce. And it´s no secret that Sony is pushing for 4k not only at Netflix but also in their TV´s and consoles and not the least their cinema cameras.

I know Sony and the Bloodline production had a big debate regarding what cameras would be used and I can only say as much as there where a huge push from sony´s side not to use RED cameras which where actually preferred by the deciding part of the production team. Sony insisted on the use of F65 and F55. I don´t know how it ended up on alexas. As I know those where not allowed on the preprod/pilot stage of the production due to Netflix 4k demands.
Click to expand...

Not sure how Sony could "own" a huge chunk of Netflix insofar as it is a public company and a quick search fails to reveal anything of the sort; certainly not a large enough stake to require reporting it. As for their owning rights to content, that might be the case contractually (although I think that would be publicly disclosed) but it wouldn't come with partial ownership of the company, even if that were the case, as Netflix has the obligation to manage the company for all shareholders.
 
I think that Netflix is not "in bed with" Sony. Netflix does like their cameras and has created an "Alexa" LUT for the F65 so the Alexa look can be emulated. But they are also quite fond of Dragon and F55 and perhaps some future cameras.
If the co-producers of Netflix content happen to be Sony then I would say there might be some "pressure" on the filmmakers to use Sony cameras. They might even demand it. In that case it is our responsibility as filmmakers to fight that as it is really impinging on our creative rights.
I remember studios wanting is to use a certain camera rental house for budgetary reasons, and then to use Fuji (and yes even Agfa) as camera original stocks for financial reasons... But they never dictated those things for creative reasons.
 
Peter Lyons Collister said:
I think that Netflix is not "in bed with" Sony. Netflix does like their cameras and has created an "Alexa" LUT for the F65 so the Alexa look can be emulated.
Click to expand...

If you are referring to the "Type A" LUT, that was done by Sony quite a while ago, concurrent with the introduction of Slog3 and Sgamut3.

As for any ownership stake in Netflix, Bjorn, if you want to post such claims you really need to provide actual evidence, but absence that evidence, you really shouldn't be saying such things, particularly in a public place (i.e., the Internet in general.....).
 
M Most said:
If you are referring to the "Type A" LUT, that was done by Sony quite a while ago, concurrent with the introduction of Slog3 and Sgamut3.

As for any ownership stake in Netflix, Bjorn, if you want to post such claims you really need to provide actual evidence, but absence that evidence, you really shouldn't be saying such things, particularly in a public place (i.e., the Internet in general.....).
Click to expand...

"I´m told" does not mean any thing more than that. If that´s not the case then I was told wrong or misunderstood what I was told. So sorry for spreading misinformation, if thats the case.

Bloodline, The Netflix original series was produced by Sony Pictures Television. I know that does not mean their in bed together, but they both push for 4k, that much I know, and sony like sony cameras.
 
what is the true resolution of 6K dragon shot 2x squeezed anamorphic and and cropped to 16:9?
 
Ibrahim Abdulkarim said:
what is the true resolution of 6K dragon shot 2x squeezed anamorphic and and cropped to 16:9?
Click to expand...

Depends how you look at it, if only downscaling is aloud then you get dragon full height divided by 2... 3160/2= 1590 in height then that gives 1590x1.77= 2814 for width... if you want a 16:9 crop out of it.

so 2814x1590 without upscale.

If you upscale, or do not downscale vertically but stretch horizontally you can get up to: 5615x3160

So one could argue that anything between 2814x1590 and 5615x3160 is possible before you start to scale or downsample in more than one direction.
 
Björn Benckert said:
Depends how you look at it, if only downscaling is aloud then you get dragon full height divided by 2... 3160/2= 1590 in height then that gives 1590x1.77= 2814 for width... if you want a 16:9 crop out of it.

so 2814x1590 without upscale.
Click to expand...

Upscale? Downscale? Starting point? I think the above is confused, top to bottom, left to right, in to out, and vice versa. I certainly don't understand it.

Starting at the top...Dragon with anamorphic 6:5 6K = 3792x3160 or (7584x3160) full height. If we crop to 16:9 and desqueeze 2x, that becomes 5618x3160, which clearly exceeds the 4K minimum. From there one can downscale by 31.6% to get UHD and Netflix should be happy.

But, as I asked several pages ago, is this the final answer? If Netflix only counts the RAW pixels, not the desqueezed pixels, then we're short by 24px on either side of our full-scale anamorphic box and the anamorphic content will fail the IQ test as stipulated for master camera shots.

The problem is easily solved by shooting 1.33x anamorphic against a 6K 3:2 format. That gives us 4213 cropped horizontal pixels vs 3160 vertical pixels which can then be desqueezed and downscaled to a proper UHD.

But the central question remains: will Netflix rule in favor of counting anamorphic pixels pre- or post-desqueeze when measuring them against their 4K yardstick?
 
I
Michael Tiemann said:
Upscale? Downscale? Starting point? I think the above is confused, top to bottom, left to right, in to out, and vice versa. I certainly don't understand it.

Starting at the top...Dragon with anamorphic 6:5 6K = 3792x3160 or (7584x3160) full height. If we crop to 16:9 and desqueeze 2x, that becomes 5618x3160, which clearly exceeds the 4K minimum. From there one can downscale by 31.6% to get UHD and Netflix should be happy.

But, as I asked several pages ago, is this the final answer? If Netflix only counts the RAW pixels, not the desqueezed pixels, then we're short by 24px on either side of our full-scale anamorphic box and the anamorphic content will fail the IQ test as stipulated for master camera shots.

The problem is easily solved by shooting 1.33x anamorphic against a 6K 3:2 format. That gives us 4213 cropped horizontal pixels vs 3160 vertical pixels which can then be desqueezed and downscaled to a proper UHD.

But the central question remains: will Netflix rule in favor of counting anamorphic pixels pre- or post-desqueeze when measuring them against their 4K yardstick?
Click to expand...

Sorry for being unclear. What you call desqueeze is considered an upscale by netflix. In other words you need double UHD height on your sensor to be able to squeeze the material x2 verticaly and then crop out your 16:9. The same goes for 1.33 anas, then you need UHDx1.33 in height. I dont have the numbers in my head but last time I counted i came to the conclution that weapon 8k will be the first camera to clear this requierment.
 
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.
 
I wish this misinformation about shooting with anamorphic lenses somehow increasing horizontal resolution would stop being repeated on RedUser...

Anamorphic photography can improve vertical resolution IF you are using a square-ish sensor compared to cropping that same sensor vertically in order to get a 2.40 image using spherical lenses.

If you just forgot about having the expand the image horizontally so it didn't look squeezed and just thought of it as a normal image of skinny objects, you'd understand that there isn't hidden horizontal resolution somehow baked into the image just because the optics made everything look skinny.

If I shot a picture of this drawing of an oval and a rectangle with a 2X anamorphic lens:
stretched.jpg


It would look something like this if I left it squeezed-looking:
stretched2.jpg


Now that image of the square and circle wouldn't magically have double the horizontal resolution just because I had to upscale the horizontal in order to make it look like an oval and a rectangle again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top