Netflix Approved?

Hi! I was wondering if the new Pocket Cinema Camera 4K meets the requirements for Netflix production? Thanks in advance!

Certainly meets the required “true 4K.” Once the Camera has been released, I’d think Betflix will add it to their list.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It would be fascinating to see if Netflix management could distinguish 11K or 6K from 2K in a professional screening suite -- much less across the room on somebody's 43" TV. Steve Yedlin would say no.

But this voodoo apparently has remarkable staying power in the executive suites.....

I agree John, but maybe there’s a hidden benefit to those shooting in 4K as it could provide a better 2K/HD deliverable. I do have a concern with the ever decreasing size of the photosensitive area of each photosite. With new technology applied to the design of smaller photosites, I wonder how much better the HD images could look with that same technology in much larger photosites. ARRI probably has answered that but the trend to increase resolution goes on.

Netflix has decided it’s a marketing advantage. I still watch SD material on my HDTV and the content is still a satisfying experience.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Don't believe much in those Ks in front of sensor spec.
There is very reliably looking test which proved that it's just some "indication" about real resolution which particular camera can resolve. Don't remember link anymore, but it was mentioned here on the forum. It was done by some Hollywood guy (if I remember well) and included many cameras and 35mm and 65mm film scanned at 8K.
It showed that eg. Alexa 2.8K delivers same resolution as many cameras with 4K sensors. Out of all cameras Alexa 65 was way above anything else.

Andrew, is this the video you were referring to?

https://f001.backblazeb2.com/file/asc-v ... emoPt1.m4v

https://f001.backblazeb2.com/file/asc-v ... emoPt2.m4v

IIRC, his conclusion was that resolution beyond UHD offered no benefit, except when down sampled to UHD to get better color rendition.

Yes. I don't fully agree with final conclusion (as this all purely depends on viewing condition), but it's an interesting video (and I was wrong 65mm IMAX was scanned at 11K).

IIRC, his conclusion was that resolution beyond UHD offered no benefit, except when down sampled to UHD to get better color rendition.

He didn't include 2K acquisition, but his apparent conclusion was that anything beyond *2K*, not UHD, was indistinguishable at real-life movie theater angles of view. To see the difference that the Alexa 65 makes, the screen would have to be so big, you'd need to turn your head in either direction to see it all.

It is interesting that Netflix appears to be so demanding when the vast majority of their viewers are viewing their content on screens much smaller than a movie screen.

I agree John, but maybe there’s a hidden benefit to those shooting in 4K as it could provide a better 2K/HD deliverable. I do have a concern with the ever decreasing size of the photosensitive area of each photosite. With new technology applied to the design of smaller photosites, I wonder how much better the HD images could look with that same technology in much larger photosites. ARRI probably has answered that but the trend to increase resolution goes on.

Netflix has decided it’s a marketing advantage. I still watch SD material on my HDTV and the content is still a satisfying experience.

I agree Rick, my viewing is SD and the closest I get on my Monitor/TV is 720p HD max, so all the NetFlix I watch is 720P HD (of sorts) resolution. I can see a difference from my SD DVDs and Laiser Disk from the 720P stream.
Cheers

I agree John, but maybe there’s a hidden benefit to those shooting in 4K as it could provide a better 2K/HD deliverable.

Your totally correct about that. It's not even a hidden benefit, its a completely proven one.

Back in saner times (when no one would ever have believed that the marketing department of a single tech company would have the power to dictate exactly which cameras a cinematographer was allowed to use ), Canon engineered that logic into the original C300 as it had a "4K" sensor, but used that sensor to get dual HD luma channel from the green photosites which through some mathematical magic were able to yield very clean aliasing free HD luma channel and then combined that lovely sharp luma with full 1080 for Red, Green and Blue color channels from the bayer pattern. Because they only focused on delivering 1920x1080, they didn't have to interpolate by debayering to yield RGB. They actually just took the straight 1920 x 1080 in each color channel as if they had a CCD 3-chip sensor feeding the encoder. It was damn ingenious and probably the reason why that original C300 punched well above it's weight despite being hobbled by an 8:bit 4:2:2 codec. You can watch the full explanation from Canon's Larry Thorpe here when he presented at Boston Rule Camera back in 2012:



It's long, but very informative.

Did Canon patent their process of extracting from their 4K sensor a blue, a red, and two green HD images to combine them to create a single compressed image without debayering its colours?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

... I still watch SD material on my HDTV and the content is still a satisfying experience.

I still watch free to air broadcast TV SD on a 12 year old 28" CRT monitor fed YUV from a digital tuner at it still looks stunning - far better in fact than the same 576i signal viewed on any LCD monitor.

Did Canon patent their process of extracting from their 4K sensor a blue, a red, and two green HD images to combine them to create a single compressed image without debayering its colours?

I don't know. Assuming it's patentable, I'd bet that they did patent it.
I'm not sure they're even using it in the C300 Mark II as that model has to use a debayer to get 4K from the 4K sensor.

Netflix has decided it’s a marketing advantage. I still watch SD material on my HDTV and the content is still a satisfying experience.

Netflix is looking at being able to stream 4K, which is the reason or favoring 4K acquisition.

It isn't just a bunch of suits looking at numbers though; Netflx does some pretty stringent testing before deciding whether or not to approve a given camera.

The Pocket 4K will probably get approved once it's out and Netflix gets to test it.

How does this go for BMPCC 6k, I'm interested to know if it will be approved. There hasn't been a lot of update from netflix in this regards.

It isn't just a bunch of suits looking at numbers though; Netflx does some pretty stringent testing before deciding whether or not to approve a given camera.

They approved 4K from iPhone, but not from Alexa, so whatever testing they do has absolutely nothing to do with actual image quality. Based on the available evidence, the only qualification is sensor K count.

They approved 4K from iPhone, but not from Alexa, so whatever testing they do has absolutely nothing to do with actual image quality. Based on the available evidence, the only qualification is sensor K count.

That's new. But then it's been a while since I looked at Netflix's guidelines and requirements. They were very strict about the entire pipeline, and it WAS based on image quality.

Of course, Netflix has been releasing a slew of bombs lately, so maybe it's trying to make up for that...

But even if Netflix hadn't lowered its standards, I was expecting both new Pockets to pass muster, because BMD's color science and post pipeline are both excellent.

The catch is the Dolby Vision requirement. Most people shooting with Pockets are doing so because they don't have the budget for Dolby Vision certified hardware for post... sigh.

Maybe Netflix is wising up to the fact that if the story isn't any good, it doesn't matter how pretty it is?

Yes, Netflix has stringent requirements for post workflow, but that also has more to do with efficiently managing master files for streaming and dealing with color management for a huge range of screens, than it does with quality per se.

Dolby Vision adds cost to production because Netflix is requiring the facility to be Dolby Vision certified. But those are Dolby created and maintained standards, not Netflix standards.

In any case, that's post, not production. If you look at the source camera requirements, there is nothing about dynamic range, color bit depth, color subsampling, noise character, etc. It's just 4K sensor count. And that is only there because Netflix have marketed their most expensive subscription tier as "4K" and are afraid of a consumer class action lawsuit from people who mistakenly think that the K count of a source camera sensor has any kind of 1 to 1 relationship to the K count of the delivered file and consider it cheating if Netflix marketed 4K mastered content that had been shot on the Alexa which is "only" 3.2K.
It comes down to a fear of crazies like these folks who misunderstand how imaging works: https://4kmedia.org/real-or-fake-4k/

Yes, Netflix has stringent requirements for post workflow, but that also has more to do with efficiently managing master files for streaming and dealing with color management for a huge range of screens, than it does with quality per se.

It does, actually.

Dolby Vision adds cost to production because Netflix is requiring the facility to be Dolby Vision certified. But those are Dolby created and maintained standards, not Netflix standards.

Required by Netflix, so they're also Netflix standards.

If you look at the source camera requirements, there is nothing about dynamic range, color bit depth, color subsampling, noise character, etc. It's just 4K sensor count.

That's actually a myth. I met some cinematographers and colorists who were involved in some of the Netflix tests. They are (or at least, were -- it was well over a year ago) pretty stringent, and based on image quality throughout the pipeline. That's where the Dolby Vision requirement comes from; it's to ensure image quality.

That the list doesn't include the specs of the cameras other than resolution doesn't mean that Netflix hasn't considered them; those are characteristics of the camera, so adding them to the list would be superfluous. It does however specify things like the maximum compression ratio it will allow for Red 6K and 8K cameras, for example... which contradicts your post. Most cameras don't have such an option.

It does work; nearly every Netflix production LOOKS excellent.

Now if only Netflix would apply the same sort of standards to the screenplays that it greenlights...

Those are just the facts. In my opinion, the requirements are overkill, but since they're only relevant if Netflix is funding the production, I don't think that anyone minds, since Netflix pays for them.

That said, there have been some cinematographers who have expressed... let's just say exasperation that Netflix at least in some cases thinks that it knows better than the DP, but I think think part of the problem is that Netflix is too focused on the technical side of filmmaking and is largely ignoring the artistic. Another Life looked very nice for the most part, but that didn't come anywhere close to making up for the rather hackneyed and cliche-ridden storytelling -- which has lead to less than flattering reviews...

that Netflix is too focused on the technical side of filmmaking and is largely ignoring the artistic.

Way off-topic, but Netflix actually loses money. Its central mission is to attract equity financing; billionaires who are gambling that Netflix will achieve market dominance some time in the future, and become a monopoly, with monopoly profits. It's the same model as uber and WeWork, which also lose money and depend on under-pricing services to get any business from consumers. They survive by attracting more investment.

Anyway, the product Netflix is producing isn't movies, it's subscribers -- to sell to potential investors. The inevitable result is an enormous production slate, and a hit and miss approach to "content".

Going moderately off topic it looks like the ump g2 has Blackmagic raw approved, docs on Netflix site. Interestingly q5 is the preferred ‘compressed’ format for docs etc

Way off-topic, but Netflix actually loses money. Its central mission is to attract equity financing; billionaires who are gambling that Netflix will achieve market dominance some time in the future, and become a monopoly, with monopoly profits. It's the same model as uber and WeWork, which also lose money and depend on under-pricing services to get any business from consumers. They survive by attracting more investment.

Anyway, the product Netflix is producing isn't movies, it's subscribers -- to sell to potential investors. The inevitable result is an enormous production slate, and a hit and miss approach to "content".

Right... so you'd think that Netflix would want to everything it can to attract subscribers, and one of the most effective ways to do that is to offer better content to them than the other streaming channels do.

I think the streaming wars are going to be rather bloody. The more exclusive content each channel has, the more the subscribers will rebel since quite a few aren't going to be pleased about having to get yet another streaming subscription to see just that one new show.

They attract more subscribers with novelty, which means a huge production slate and lots of bad material. But they retain subscribers thanks to inertia -- reluctance of people to cancel and move to another service.

Besides, we're talking about the mass-market. Terrible stuff routinely makes billions. Knowing what kind of terrible stuff will turn out to be a blockbuster can be a little difficult....

Going moderately off topic it looks like the ump g2 has Blackmagic raw approved, docs on Netflix site. Interestingly q5 is the preferred ‘compressed’ format for docs etc

Listening in on the Netflix boardroom discussion...

“Okay, we approve Blackmagic raw. Compression ratios 3:1 to 12:1 look good enough in 4K. Now about this Q business. We want to promote more quality, not less, so we’re recommending Q5. I can only think how the market would react if we gave them Q0 and they hear we attempted to discourage Q5! That’s not the kind of image we want to project. Q5: Everyone on board?”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

They attract more subscribers with novelty, which means a huge production slate and lots of bad material. But they retain subscribers thanks to inertia -- reluctance of people to cancel and move to another service.

I'm wondering how long that reluctance will last if the downward trend in the ratings for Netflix productions continues while the competition starts ramping up.

Besides, we're talking about the mass-market. Terrible stuff routinely makes billions. Knowing what kind of terrible stuff will turn out to be a blockbuster can be a little difficult....

True... but the more choices Netflix subscribers have, what's to keep them loyal?

I met some cinematographers and colorists who were involved in some of the Netflix tests. They are (or at least, were -- it was well over a year ago) pretty stringent, and based on image quality throughout the pipeline.

Please ask those cinematographers and colorists how is it possible that the iPhone qualifies, but the ARRI Alexa used to shoot numerous Oscar winning films, doesn't qualify? It makes absolutely no sense in terms of image quality.

I met some cinematographers and colorists who were involved in some of the Netflix tests. They are (or at least, were -- it was well over a year ago) pretty stringent, and based on image quality throughout the pipeline.

Please ask those cinematographers and colorists how is it possible that the iPhone qualifies, but the ARRI Alexa used to shoot numerous Oscar winning films, doesn't qualify? It makes absolutely no sense in terms of image quality.

Who know, maybe apple has something to do with it.

Ricardo Marty

Please ask those cinematographers and colorists how is it possible that the iPhone qualifies, but the ARRI Alexa used to shoot numerous Oscar winning films, doesn't qualify? It makes absolutely no sense in terms of image quality.

The iPhone was definitely not part of the approved list when I looked at it a year ago...

As for why the Alexa isn't on the approved list, the answer is blindingly obvious.

It's equally obvious why the Alexa LF exists.

High Flying Bird was a recent Netflix Original shot on an iPhone 8.

Even beyond the insanity of Netflix approving the iPhone, the Sony FS7 and Canon C300 Mark II are also on the qualified list. I've shot and graded mountains of footage from both cameras, and they are most certainly inferior to the non-approved Alexa in terms of image quality. The only blindingly obvious thing about the rules is that the sole qualification is a 4K source sensor.

Your logic is specious.

Well it's Netflix list. People who are not contracted to shoot one of their original content don't need to care about it at all in my opinion.

Well it's Netflix list. People who are not contracted to shoot one of their original content don't need to care about it at all in my opinion.

The benefit of having a camera that was on the list for non-Netflix productions was a bit of prestige, because the testing was pretty stringent. Apparently that isn't the case any more...

Other than that, it's not just your opinion, it's a fact -- that's also true if you're looking to sell a film to Netflix. It doesn't matter in that case either. I've heard it surmised that you could get a better deal if it's a 4K film, but I don't know whether or not there's any truth to that. For all I know that could have been from a camera dongle trying to convince the director to hire it for its camera's specs. My guess is that it's bogus. I'll try to hunt down someone from Netflix when I head to Santa Monica in November for AFM. If there's anyone from Netflix AT AFM. I hope there is because we're planning on pitching a series to Netflix...

People did use Alexas for Netflix productions, btw... if the DP and/or director have enough clout, Netflix will capitulate.

That's right. There is a difference between content that Netlflix purchases after it's already been produced (or is already in production) and content that is contracted from the very start as a Netflix Original. It's the later for which the list is enforced. The Cohen Brother's Buster Scruggs was supposedly an exception to the original content source camera rules, but that was already in production before Netflix got involved so it's more likely that is the reason the 4K source sensor rule wasn't enforced.

According to folks inside Netflix that I've spoken to about it, there's been some internal debate about whether to change the higher tier to be branded as a Dolby Vision tier rather than a 4K tier. Then the need to even worry about a 4K source sensor goes away.

According to folks inside Netflix that I've spoken to about it, there's been some internal debate about whether to change the higher tier to be branded as a Dolby Vision tier rather than a 4K tier. Then the need to even worry about a 4K source sensor goes away.

HDR adds more to image quality than 4K anyway. If I had to pick between the two, it would be a no brainer. I selected my camera for the color and dynamic range, not its excessive resolution. Same for my new TV. And most of the UHD/HDR BluRays out there are up-rezzed from 2K masters anyway...