BMPCC6K still not in Netflix list. But why?

Netflix really don’t care what camera you shoot with.

They only care about if you make a good movie.

Most of their content isn’t shot with Netflix approved cameras.

They buy films all the time that aren’t shot with Netflix approved cameras.

Anyone that thinks Netflix would choose to buy their movie because you shot it with a Netflix approved camera is probably focussed on the wrong detail for what makes a good movie.

JB

All true JB. Only “Netflix original” films have to use the cameras on their list.

The issue I have with the list is there are lots, and I mean lots of financiers and producers who have no clue so they treat the list as their guide and make that the gospel. Again, you don’t have to follow them if you can find your own financing or financiers who likes what you are proposing and will invest.

The issue I have with the list is there are lots, and I mean lots of financiers and producers who have no clue so they treat the list as their guide and make that the gospel.

So shoot on what they are requesting -- they are the client after all!

I don't really understand what the problem is. If I get hired to direct a film, and the producers are requiring for the film to be shot on a Netflix-compliant camera, so be it. I really don't think it's as big of an issue as this thread seems to want it to be.

I think this thread is more about acceptance, and on that subject I think that there are politics at work behind the scenes. It's a bit like a Dolby-approved designation -- manufacturers pay for that sticker! It's quite obvious to me that Blackmagic doesn't play that game (and neither does ARRI apparently) so they get left out of the club.

Here's what I will say -- if I'm shooting a feature film with a proper budget, the BMPCC6K wouldn't even be on my radar except as a crash cam or something that needed to fit in a tight space for very specific shots; but in that case I would probably go with an even smaller 4K model. For my main unit camera I would opt for at least something in the URSA line if I really needed to stick to Blackmagic brand cameras -- otherwise I'd leave the choice to the DP or Producers depending on their needs.

The issue I have with the list is there are lots, and I mean lots of financiers and producers who have no clue so they treat the list as their guide and make that the gospel.

So shoot on what they are requesting -- they are the client after all!

I don't really understand what the problem is. If I get hired to direct a film, and the producers are requiring for the film to be shot on a Netflix-compliant camera, so be it. I really don't think it's as big of an issue as this thread seems to want it to be.

I think this thread is more about acceptance, and on that subject I think that there are politics at work behind the scenes. It's a bit like a Dolby-approved designation -- manufacturers pay for that sticker! It's quite obvious to me that Blackmagic doesn't play that game (and neither does ARRI apparently) so they get left out of the club.

Here's what I will say -- if I'm shooting a feature film with a proper budget, the BMPCC6K wouldn't even be on my radar except as a crash cam or something that needed to fit in a tight space for very specific shots; but in that case I would probably go with an even smaller 4K model. For my main unit camera I would opt for at least something in the URSA line if I really needed to stick to Blackmagic brand cameras -- otherwise I'd leave the choice to the DP or Producers depending on their needs.

I agree with your premise of shooting as requested if they have the budget to do so. I would rent the camera and film it per said. When I refer it as an issue, I am talking about people who doesn’t know better and makes their decisions based on a list. Also, I am not referencing financiers and producers with deep pockets. I am referencing those who would put it just enough money to pay for cookies and want you to use a camera on the list with your dime. There are a lot of these in the indie film market. I don’t usually fall for them since I have my rate sheet but there are a lot, and I mean a lot, of folks starting to get in and make a film with little to nothing. That may not be you or me Kay. But just fyi.

Such folks will have to impress with what they finally have to show, not with the camera they use.
Too many believe they just need to buy the right camera and then they'll be the next great star.

And trying to cater to them will never bring you decent income. If you want to do that, it's fine.
But consider it like helping a friend, not doing a job. And make it very clear that this changes the kind of relationship vs one to a paying client.

It’s part of the job description if you want to claim yourself a director of photography.

You have to educate your producers. Or clients. Or whomever is hiring you. That’s why they hire you.

JB

I am talking about people who doesn’t know better and makes their decisions based on a list. Also, I am not referencing financiers and producers with deep pockets. I am referencing those who would put it just enough money to pay for cookies and want you to use a camera on the list with your dime.

I believe that far too many Producers in all budget ranges unfortunately make uninformed decisions based on hearsay and whatever they read while on the toilet. I'm not a DP, but if I was and someone asked me to shoot on some other camera I don't own, I would expect them to have a camera rental budget. If they expected me to somehow pay for the camera on my own dime, I would walk away without losing any sleep over it.

You know someone who would actually take that gig?

You know someone who would actually take that gig?

I personally don’t however it is not uncommon practice especially for those who are trying to build their portfolio as a DP and get into the industry, ending up renting the camera and/or lenses on their own dime. I would walk away too.

It all depends at which point you are in your career. If you have to BYO, it has to be regarded like tuition fees.
But you can't do that forever.

I'll be honest, the Netflix list is for their productions. So if you're shooting something for them then they're providing the budget to use any of the cameras on their approved list. Thus, if a "big" filmmaker team tells Netflix that they want to do a show with Blackmagic Cameras including the 6K, I bet Netflix would quickly approve it and put it on the list. I'd go with a David Fincher type here because of his clout. So, make no mistake Netflix will bend to the will of top tier talent. And, if they want Blackmagic Cameras not on the list I bet Netflix will let them.

You know someone who would actually take that gig?

If you’re struggling to put food on the table, you can’t afford to be selective with respect to clients – especially if you’ve started out as a freelancer are are still competing with others who might edge you out because they happen to have a Komodo or a BGH1.

This is the point many people seem to be missing – it’s not about Netflix’s list per se or their eligibility criteria for cameras, or about educating whoever’s hiring you, because you may not even get that chance.

It’s about being squeezed out because whoever’s potentially hiring you is more concerned about technical details outside their comprehension and least appreciative of your skill.

Professionals who have already firmly established themselves need not be too concerned about these things, because they can still maneuver their influence to coax their collaborators.

But small-time filmmakers are often at the mercy of bigger clients, and amongst all the things they need to worry about that are outside their control, this camera list is adding to those things.

So it’d be wise and ethical on Netflix’s part to be aware of their own influence in this regard and try to mitigate the camera list being unwittingly used as a reference standard.

If you're struggling to put food on the table, and the only gigs you're going after are ones which require you to rent or buy gear on your own dime just to qualify to work on them -- you might want to re-think your career choices.

The change needs to come from the bottom to the top and not the other way around. Desperation is never a good negotiating position.

Desperation is never a good negotiating position.

Just like wealthy people like proclaiming that poverty is a state of mind. Both arguments fallaciously assume that a sate of despair is only attributable to a person’s choices, and not to circumstances outside their control.

Prescribing a rethinking of career choices or, by contrast, never giving up until you achieve your dream is also veering towards a philosophical debate.

The discussion is pointing towards who’d be the most vulnerable to the whims of ill-informed clients because a major VOD platform published a list of approved cameras, which inadvertently became a reference standard is beginning to show unanticipated effects.

Poverty, like any societal state, can be a state of mind. I've got cousins with the same economic start I had, living only a few miles apart.

But home life was very different. Their parents were constantly on them about getting too big for their britches. And they were always ordered to be "small" of presence. Keep your mouth shut, don't bother people with questions.

My parents told my sister and I directly after a visit one day. They did not approve of Mom's family's training of our cousins. Our parents *expected and wanted* my sister and I to outgrow our britches. And to keep asking questions and participating in discussions. Keep thinking on our own.

And yes, my cousins have all led lives mostly even smaller than the near-poverty they grew up in. Very sad, really.

Your state of mind is the biggest single predictor of your future. Nourish it well!

And in professional careers be very aware of where and how you can grow bigger britches. Go there. And thrive, even if it takes some hard work over time.

For which camera, it doesn't matter in the end. Produce the best product you can with what you can afford. If someone wants a different camera, judge as to whether the income from the job will justify rental costs. Choose a path, and just go.

And always, work on needing bigger britches. If that leads to a change of career paths JUMP on it. Most everyone I know in every field never expected to be doing what they are doing now.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

It’s not long ago that everyone seemed to want you to shoot with a RED camera. In that respect, requesting you shoot with a Netflix-approved camera might be seen as progress.

Poverty, like any societal state, can be a state of mind.

Couldn’t disagree with you more, though I’ll say I used to think the same way about life.

Until I started reading about cognitive biases, privilege, structural inequities, implicitly discriminatory policies, and overlooked perspectives of sociologists.

Turns out, most of us aren’t even aware that we’re the victims of our own enculturation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/pos ... ch-people/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjective_validation
https://www.broadstreetministry.org/pov ... assion-is/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis

I wish this was the ideal, meritocratic world where our state of mind was the biggest single predictor of our future, as many like to believe it is. But unfortunately, it isn’t.

It’s not long ago that everyone seemed to want you to shoot with a RED camera. In that respect, requesting you shoot with a Netflix-approved camera might be seen as progress.

That’s a fine competition for tragedy that is.

Poverty, like any societal state, can be a state of mind. I've got cousins with the same economic start I had, living only a few miles apart.

Fairly condescending and ignorant thing to say.

I say this as someone that grew up in relative poverty for the city I grew up in, which does have universal health care and better "social" programs than countries like the US. We were living well below the poverty line.

I lived in state or government housing most of my young life. (Housing Commission)

I was a ward of the state several times in my youth.

I went to (many) local state schools.

Many of my family still live in relative poverty or below the poverty line.

JB

Not at all condescending, simply what I've seen in the people around me. Choices matter. Outlook matters.

I've seen people go from desperate poverty and succeed and the opposite. There's always "things that happen". How we react to those happenings makes a huge difference in what come next.

It's been quite remarkable at times to see someone change their own internal attitudes, and then become much more than they were capable of before.

Learning how to get say the utmost image or sound with the gear at hand rather than just saying "I can't do X", gets anyone farther along.

It's quite empowering to realize that one has a great deal of say over their future.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

What a fascinating conversation for a New Year. I had no idea we were "poor" when we ate kraft dinner and Mom poured left over milk back in the bottle and we "fought" for gas money. We just went on with life and lived our dreams as best we could - producing 1 photographer and 2 opera singers. I have no idea how I paid for my first camera only that I kept trading up.

Well said. I didn't realize how low our "relative" income was as a kid either. It was in college really I began to understand just how low we'd been.

Never a comment about relative economic status at all growing up.

It's really a waste of time. Learn. Grow yourself. Push your borders.

And if someone wants you to use a different device, and they're paying enough to be worth working for, use the device.

If not, move on.

Sent from my SM-G960U using Tapatalk

It's really a waste of time. Learn. Grow yourself. Push your borders.

Right on brother!

Standing ovation for this response. 100% yes to this. The Netflix camera list is marketing nonsense, not technical reality.

That's not at all true. It IS technical reality, but it has nothing to do with marketing, and everything to do with technical reality, because it's all driven by the workflow requirements for Netflix own projects.

That so many people not shooting for Netflix are using it as marketing because they think it matters for their projects is just them making excuses for not understanding what the Netflix requirements are for. They are based on how Netflix operates its own workflow.

The problem isn't really the list itself, but the fact that it seems that so many people started using it as a marketing crutch rather than for its actual intent, which is to ensure a consistent in-house workflow.

And this from JB IMO drives home the point --

They buy films all the time that aren’t shot with Netflix approved cameras.

Anyone that thinks Netflix would choose to buy their movie because you shot it with a Netflix approved camera is probably focussed on the wrong detail for what makes a good movie.

JB

There are a lot of people who make buying decisions based on the Netflix approved list... but when you look closely, what you'll find most of the time is that their excessive focus on the technical stuff is a reflection of their lack of awareness of how to actually make a movie, let alone a good one.

I'm as baffled by some of the Netflix decisions as the next person ("Another Life" anyone? Seriously? Who greenlit THAT script?), but that doesn't change the fact that the Netflix approved list is largely irrelevant for anyone not shooting a Netflix project, or that most of the people who are most obsessed with the Netflix approved list probably can't articulate why they're so obsessed about it.

I'll be honest, the Netflix list is for their productions. So if you're shooting something for them then they're providing the budget to use any of the cameras on their approved list. Thus, if a "big" filmmaker team tells Netflix that they want to do a show with Blackmagic Cameras including the 6K, I bet Netflix would quickly approve it and put it on the list. I'd go with a David Fincher type here because of his clout. So, make no mistake Netflix will bend to the will of top tier talent. And, if they want Blackmagic Cameras not on the list I bet Netflix will let them.

There have been a few examples of Netflix approving projects using cameras not on their list (namely Arri, before Arri introduced its larger sensor cameras) because of the DP's clout.

The discussion is pointing towards who’d be the most vulnerable to the whims of ill-informed clients because a major VOD platform published a list of approved cameras, which inadvertently became a reference standard is beginning to show unanticipated effects.

I live in a city where there are Netflix productions going on more or less constantly. It's a huge part of our economy.

And in spite of that, I've worked on a couple of CBC projects. On one we used a Komodo because that's what I own, but on the other one, although I shot a couple of days of b-roll with my Komodo, principal photography was done on a Black Magic Pocket 6K before I met the producer.

We didn't choose to shoot the b-roll with my Komodo because it was "better" but rather to save money for the production budget. The main concern the producer/director had wasn't about the quality of either camera, but rather about matching them.

If you're struggling to put food on the table and getting bumped out of projects due to not having a Netflix-approved camera, then the bigger concern might be your marketing; I apply for jobs based on my work, and most of the time they ask me what kind of camera I own AFTER they decide that they want to hire me.

Generally, the higher paying clients are also more interested in getting a quality product and therefore more discerning regarding the talent level of the people they hire than lower paying clients.

So you might be better off raising your rates and pursuing better clients so that you can start retiring your cheapskate clients...

Not that that's easy to do, but if freelancing was easy, a lot more people would be doing it.

If you're struggling to put food on the table and getting bumped out of projects due to not having a Netflix-approved camera, then the bigger concern might be your marketing; I apply for jobs based on my work, and most of the time they ask me what kind of camera I own AFTER they decide that they want to hire me.

Great point.

If you are chasing jobs to be hired based on the client choosing you based on what camera you own then you're setting yourself up for clients that only judge you by that metric.

When I first went freelance in about the year 2000, I used to have two rates. One was a "video" rate and one was a "film" rate depending on what format I was shooting. The film rate was double the video rate. Remember this was really the very earliest days of digital video. HD wasn't even yet really a thing.

After about a year I realised that all the horrible jobs, the ones where the client was the most problematic and painful were the damn "video" jobs. And the film jobs were the opposite. I got all the resources, equipment and crew I asked for.

So I got rid of the FILM and VIDEO rate and just had a DP RATE that was my film rate and lo....the painful jobs stopped calling !!!

By valuing myself more expensively, I got better clients, better jobs without doing anything differently.

If you define your work by your equipment then there's always going to be someone else out there who has the same (or better) gear for cheaper. And that's where those clients will go.

JB


EDIT...By the way, I have MULTIPLE seasons of multiple shows on Netflix. None of which are shot with a Netflix approved camera.

If you are chasing jobs to be hired based on the client choosing you based on what camera you own then you're setting yourself up for clients that only judge you by that metric.

Yeah... and that's a situation that tends to reinforce itself if you let it, which is easy to do.

So I got rid of the FILM and VIDEO rate and just had a DP RATE that was my film rate and lo....the painful jobs stopped calling !!!

By valuing myself more expensively, I got better clients, better jobs without doing anything differently.

More people should read that. It's similar to advice I've heard from a lot of other successful folks also.

And quite a few of those successful ones landed their first clients using gear that we'd consider to be basically crap.

And by that I don't mean dirt cheap like Black Magic cameras, which are decidedly NOT crap... I mean older action cameras, and low end dSLRs that could only shoot in H.264, not even in 4K, etc.

If you define your work by your equipment then there's always going to be someone else out there who has the same (or better) gear for cheaper. And that's where those clients will go.

Agreed... and although I own a camera that carries some prestige, it's not what's getting me jobs, since I advertise my reel and work samples rather than my gear. And even though I'm new to the Vancouver market, I'm getting my day rate now that the covid restrictions are lifting as our vaccine rates reach herd immunity levels (though there are new restrictions in place thanks to omicron that will probably slow things down for a bit until enough people are boostered up to reopen again).

EDIT...By the way, I have MULTIPLE seasons of multiple shows on Netflix. None of which are shot with a Netflix approved camera.

No one so far has asked me whether or not I have a Netflix approved camera either... and one of the shoots I did was for a Netflix partner...

Since there are a tiny number of actual Netflix signatories, to whom its technical requirements could be communicated privately in the course of typical contractual negotiations (or dispensed with altogether, in the course of negotiation), the decision to publish this list, which now includes consumer cameras which no one in her right mind would use as an A camera, suggests some other marketing agenda.

Seems hardly worth the trouble, but threads like this one may be the point. Netflix, forever.

By valuing myself more expensively, I got better clients, better jobs without doing anything differently.

I totally agree with this statement. More should do this.

After about a year I realised that all the horrible jobs, the ones where the client was the most problematic and painful were the damn "video" jobs. And the film jobs were the opposite. I got all the resources, equipment and crew I asked for.

VIDEO work sucks. I learned that lesson too and no longer and will never do video work. My rates are my DP/Director film rate specifically for narrative filmmaking. If someone comes to me and ask if I can do their video work (wedding, corp events) I just send them to someone else, mostly young amateur youtubers who has a DSLR and a few lights . I don’t loose sleep not taking such gigs. Video clients, especially the women, are difficult and cheap - haggling all the time even after contract has been drawn and signed. No more!!!

VIDEO work sucks. I learned that lesson too and no longer and will never do video work. My rates are my DP/Director film rate specifically for narrative filmmaking. If someone comes to me and ask if I can do their video work (wedding, corp events) I just send them to someone else, mostly young amateur youtubers who has a DSLR and a few lights .

Yeah... I did a wedding video shoot shortly before covid, and it was a very unpleasant experience. There wasn't enough budget for me to have an assistant, even though the photographer did, and that put me in a situation where I had to set up one of the cameras based on guesswork so that I could shoot something else with the other one... and while I was getting ready for that other shot, they moved the furniture around and brought people into the room with the ceremony, blocking the view from the static camera...

Not a problem for a two person team, but definitely a problem for a one person team.

Needless to say, I don't pursue those sorts of leads any more. Events like conferences are reasonably good work though; they're very easy relative to how much they pay... but you do have to stick your guns on pay instead of undervaluing yourself. They aren't particularly interesting jobs, but sometimes the conferences are pretty good, like the AI conference I got to shoot just before the pandemic. IIRC attending was kind of pricey, but being part of the event staff meant that I got paid to be there instead of paying to be there, and I got to watch several of the presentations on AI.

... I did a wedding video shoot shortly before covid, and it was a very unpleasant experience. There wasn't enough budget for me to have an assistant, even though the photographer did, and that put me in a situation where I had to set up one of the cameras based on guesswork so that I could shoot something else with the other one... and while I was getting ready for that other shot, they moved the furniture around and brought people into the room with the ceremony, blocking the view from the static camera...

Not a problem for a two person team, but definitely a problem for a one person team.

Needless to say, I don't pursue those sorts of leads any more...

I’ve been fortunate to always have an assistant at weddings. I just let them know it’s required. I also do a site visit to plan the settings (the bride’s party at the hairdresser, getting dressed, the marriage venue, the reception meal, the dance) and the key angles with the bride and attend the rehearsal and influence the bride and groom’s plans if need be.

I agree the attention and support the photographers get can be irksome and they never hesitate to get in my line of sight (but I usually cut them out of the edited video).

I’m expecting to do another wedding this year after the bride graduates, but not going to happen during the pandemic. I love doing weddings for friends and family, in part because of what a wedding represents to the couple and our culture (but I’ve never been treated poorly). And the results are cherished afterwards so very satisfying.

They aren't particularly interesting jobs, but sometimes the conferences are pretty good, like the AI conference I got to shoot just before the pandemic. IIRC attending was kind of pricey, but being part of the event staff meant that I got paid to be there instead of paying to be there, and I got to watch several of the presentations on AI.

Although I don't take conference video work, I agree the big ones pay well and usually it is well coordinated too. I was more referring to smaller event venues that are local, such as a local company internal event or a car show event put on by local dealerships.

Although I don't take conference video work, I agree the big ones pay well and usually it is well coordinated too. I was more referring to smaller event venues that are local, such as a local company internal event or a car show event put on by local dealerships.

Agreed. The small ones can be chaotic and pay pretty poorly. But when you can score gigs shooting conferences for companies like Microsoft, you can actually make a pretty good living exclusively doing conference shoots. That's certainly not for everyone since it can get rather dull, but it's a good way to make some money here and there.

If you're struggling to put food on the table and getting bumped out of projects due to not having a Netflix-approved camera, then the bigger concern might be your marketing...So you might be better off raising your rates and pursuing better clients so that you can start retiring your cheapskate clients...

Not that that's easy to do, but if freelancing was easy, a lot more people would be doing it.

I’m sure those who’re looking for advice will read this and be well informed, but you misinterpreted the point.

John summed up well one of the main arguments:

Since there are a tiny number of actual Netflix signatories, to whom its technical requirements could be communicated privately in the course of typical contractual negotiations (or dispensed with altogether, in the course of negotiation), the decision to publish this list, which now includes consumer cameras which no one in her right mind would use as an A camera, suggests some other marketing agenda.

Camera-eligibility criteria and subjectivity aside, why indeed not restrict the list to be passed along internally, that’s the question.

Though it’s unlikely that there’s an ulterior agenda – that’d be giving them too much credit.

In the scheme of things, this is probably just one of those seemingly inconsequential oversights of which large entities such as Netflix just can’t be bothered to be worried, and about how they’ll spawn unintended consequences.

I also wonder why they would make their Partner Help Center publicly available.

Now, it’s informative to a lot of people no doubt, especially their sound and delivery pages. On a side note, I was slightly surprised that their loudness recommendation is −27 LUFS and not −23.

Alternatively, if their intent was to make it a public repository, why just target it towards their partners, can also be up for debate.

… On a side note, I was slightly surprised that their loudness recommendation is −27 LUFS and not −23...

Perhaps EBU has additional comment for Netflix. Or will this be another dual standard subject to the region you are airing your work.

From Wikipedia:

“In August 2010, the European Broadcasting Union published a new metering specification EBU Tech 3341, which builds on ITU-R BS.1770. To make sure meters from different manufacturers provide the same reading in LUFS units, EBU Tech 3341 specifies the EBU Mode…”

Camera-eligibility criteria and subjectivity aside, why indeed not restrict the list to be passed along internally, that’s the question.

Though it’s unlikely that there’s an ulterior agenda – that’d be giving them too much credit.

Conspiracy or no, what reason could there be for this list, other than marketing? 99.976% of the people interested in it don't have and never will have Netflix deals. Those who do have deals will negotiate delivery requirements the same way they negotiate every other detail of the production. Without reference to any list.

But, meanwhile, look at all the attention the thing brings Netflix.... Selling the dream of a Netflix production to people who will never get one, in the same way the actual business of American indie film is not selling movies, but selling the idea to would-be filmmakers; filmmakers, not movies, being the source of the income. Netflix already exempts B-cams from the requirement, so if they're going to the trouble to make a list, why would they put dubious consumer cameras on it, other than to promote the brand ("according to Netflix....) and filmmaker fantasies? I own or could own the camera, therefore....

Perhaps EBU has additional comment for Netflix.

It was mentioned in TECH 3344, but only in reference to home theatre equipment.

Turns out, it’s actually about dialogue-gated measurement:
https://www.pro-tools-expert.com/home-p ... -of-genius

Even Disney+ and HBO Max appear to have adopted it:
https://www.rtw.com/en/blog/worldwide-l ... dards.html

Selling the dream of a Netflix production to people who will never get one, in the same way the actual business of American indie film is not selling movies, but selling the idea to would-be filmmakers; filmmakers, not movies, being the source of the income.

Interesting point. But how Netflix may be directly generating revenue is unclear.

A more plausible hypothesis is that their partners and other filmmakers weren’t the main target of that camera list after all.

Remember Arri marketing the hell out of the Alexa LF and Mini LF as fulfilling a TV show’s potential 4K mandate?

Here’s Arri’s Marc Shipman-Mueller with the Alexa LF’s debut at the BSC Expo 2018:


Look at how sarcastic he is when talking about the 4K mandate – he even deflects directly referring to Netflix.

Maybe at the beginning it was just Netflix flexing their muscles at camera manufacturers – “If you want your camera included in our list, build it to our specs.”

Maybe that was a way to indirectly influence companies such as Arri to build a “proper” 4K camera because otherwise they’d have their customers coming to them saying the can’t use the Alexa for a 4K mandate.

In the years that have passed, Netflix have seemingly relaxed their compliance to the 4K mandate, because it was clearly superficial anyway.

That might just explain why they couldn’t be bothered about the list inadvertently but mainly affecting the filmmakers who have nothing to do with Netflix.

I think you have to remember that Netflix USED to have a lot more power than they do today. Remember when Apple TV+, Disney+ etc weren't around ?

Netflix seemingly had all the good content (which they no longer have) and this is why they have been desperately trying to make up for shedding the rights to that content by making their own originals AND warehousing "name" filmmakers and studios.

In other words, I know directors and producers that are "exclusive" to Netflix so that even if they don't find they can get anything made with Netflix, it stops Netflix's competition from making content with them as well. It's what the studio system used to do with big stars. Which they could also use to PUNISH actors that didn't do what they were told. They'd sign them to long contracts and just pay them to do nothing because it was better for them in the long run to not let them work with others.

Netflix Originals are doing what no other studio has been able to ever do and just literally throw money at content in the hope that some of it will be good and keep the same audience base that they now have. Apple TV+ are doing the same thing right now.

I just wrapped a high profile show with a two time Oscar winner and they struggled to get credible directors because all of the top echelon are on deals with streamers and they're either not available or you can't hire them on your massively budgeted "independent" series....

Having worked on Apple TV+ shows it's bananas how much money they have to throw at the production. Remember too, that because the way residuals work (or don't work with streaming) a lot of the budget is going to above the line. All the producers are taking their cream up front because their isn't the same backend on residuals with streaming. Basically take 40%+ of the public budget of any Apple or Netflix show and that just goes to the "producers" and other above the line names of people on a call sheet that you never ever meet during a production.

Netflix were the first to do streaming in a big mass way, the first to do 4K content and have a seperate 4K subscription plan.

Netflix is a company that IS NOT run by filmmakers, but IS RUN by an ideologically IT based thinking. It was important to their IT nerds who had to optimise streaming over less capable bandwidth so they made some technical decisions about the best way to make content for their network (Like the BBC example I listed above)

Remember too, that most of that content wasn't 4K mastered. Until only a few years ago, most studio masters would only have been 2K, or DVD transfers that are probably only HD upconverts. Certainly a lot of VFX pipeline is only 2K even today.

I think that thinking isn't relevant today, but there's now a whole department that does this certification process and I'm assuming they now justify their existence by continuing to maintain this "list". It's self fulfilling, and certainly seems to be partisan.

JB

There is another side effect all those streaming services created for any indie filmmaker outside the US and outside the studio system:

1. DVD and Blu-ray sales got killed
2. filmmakers lost control over the selling price
3. if you are not in the streaming system, you are almost out of places to sell
4. linear TV gets slowly killed
5. cinemas are dying slowly or are walled-in by the studio system

What do I mean by that?
When we started as indie filmmakers in 2004 we where able to bring our movie into the cinemas on our own, then sell the movie on DVD and on different platforms. Everytime the selling price was our own decision. Step by step we could bring back in the investment.

Then came iTunes and AppleTV, which made it possible to sell to even more people, it was not easy to get accepted but that kept the very low quality movies outside.
With the rise of Netflix and then Amazon Prime streaming became suitable for the masses.
Netflix was still selective of the movies the let in, but Amazon Prime had almost no hurdles to release your movie on their platform because they were desperate for content.
Other platforms started to appear.
On those all-you-can-watch platforms you then totally lost control over your selling price. As a filmmaker you had to accept what they were willing to pay out. Amazon Prime one-side lowered the payout especially for non-US indies every few years - now they are paying out only 2 cents per hour streamed.

We can't get enough viewing slots in cinemas, because US studios are owning most of the cinema chains in Europe and they give and take slots at will. Or if they do not own the cinemas, then they determined the movies to be played, how many times and rooms.

It's quite depressing what the whole indie filmmaking has become outside the US and outside the system.

So while filmmaking got easier from the camera and technical point of view, it got much more difficult from a financial point of view.

There is another side effect all those streaming services created for any indie filmmaker outside the US and outside the studio system:

1. DVD and Blu-ray sales got killed
2. filmmakers lost control over the selling price
3. if you are not in the streaming system, you are almost out of places to sell
4. linear TV gets slowly killed
5. cinemas are dying slowly or are walled-in by the studio system

What do I mean by that?
When we started as indie filmmakers in 2004 we where able to bring our movie into the cinemas on our own, then sell the movie on DVD and on different platforms. Everytime the selling price was our own decision. Step by step we could bring back in the investment.

Then came iTunes and AppleTV, which made it possible to sell to even more people, it was not easy to get accepted but that kept the very low quality movies outside.
With the rise of Netflix and then Amazon Prime streaming became suitable for the masses.
Netflix was still selective of the movies the let in, but Amazon Prime had almost no hurdles to release your movie on their platform because they were desperate for content.
Other platforms started to appear.
On those all-you-can-watch platforms you then totally lost control over your selling price. As a filmmaker you had to accept what they were willing to pay out. Amazon Prime one-side lowered the payout especially for non-US indies every few years - now they are paying out only 2 cents per hour streamed.

We can't get enough viewing slots in cinemas, because US studios are owning most of the cinema chains in Europe and they give and take slots at will. Or if they do not own the cinemas, then they determined the movies to be played, how many times and rooms.

It's quite depressing what the whole indie filmmaking has become outside the US and outside the system.

So while filmmaking got easier from the camera and technical point of view, it got much more difficult from a financial point of view.

This is a serious concern not only outside but also here in the USA. We won't be going back to the good old days but what can be done so that the indie filmmakers can flourish and an industry just on it will be sustainable and for the long term? Better stories just doesn't cut it anymore. The indie industry needs a niche, and fast.

What if there were no "good old days"? Beyond the occasional fluke, non-studio movies haven't made money since Roger Corman and drive-in theaters. In the end, he also went out of business. The distribution model no longer supported that kind of moviemaking.

Thanks to arts administrators, Sundance and Tribeca, American indie film has always occupied a tiny niche -- "coming of age" sagas, sub-Bergmanesque relationship dramas and "socially conscious" heartland movies by film school grads who have never missed a meal. This stuff is beloved in Park City, but nowhere else. Accomplished storytelling and American indies have never gotten married. They haven't even slept together. For accomplished writing in the U.S., you need to look to cable.

If everyone can make a movie, the only audience for those movies will be the people who made them. This looks to be truly hopeless.

They buy films all the time that aren’t shot with Netflix approved cameras.

Buying isn't an issue, the film is done in that situation. There's no risk. This is only for people proposing to use their money to shoot I think. They don't want to be scared of technical camera issues. The amount of tech disasters I've seen on shows (netflix and others) would scare anyone away from non "standard" gear.

Like when your only(why?!) red camera stops working at midnight and you have to stop work and reschedule after paying everyone overtime to wait around 2 hours in hopes you could get it working.

Sometimes the non standard gear it part of the movie making of course (stereo, or trying to film for $1, or putting camera in places most wont fit or could be damaged) but anything with a fair budget and normal pipeline, nope. I mean, if I was giving you substantial money for a show, knowing everything I know about workflow, I'd refuse anything except alexa LF as a "principle". You'd need to have a special case to justify anything else.

Bleh, my posts are moderated and showing up long after other people have said the same thing, haha

The main think I would be concerned with if I was a camera owner/operator selling their service is that they have a quality glitch free workflow. You can shoot on a potato, as long as the result the client expects is the result the client gets at the end of the process.

I'm never on that side of things, I'm the one stuck using the footage after its shot. If Blackmagic footage comes in with a proscribed standard workflow, it will be fine with no complaints. Just haven't seen that here (at work) yet. If you want to use BM for anything, netflix included, focus on PROVING a pipeline start to finish. "Oh, I use this guy all the time and everything always works perfectly" goes a loooong way more than "I found this guy's ad that says he uses X camera".

For anyone interested to know here is Apple's Spec Details for submitting Movies and TV Shows to AppleTV: https://help.apple.com/itc/videoaudioas ... tatic.html

Who is netflix?

I like this person!

Who is netflix?

Who is Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin? R.I.P.

For anyone interested to know here is Apple's Spec Details for submitting Movies and TV Shows to AppleTV: https://help.apple.com/itc/videoaudioas ... tatic.html

Apple TV doesn't have much content (everything is pay per view) and not so good programming. Lasso was the one they tout most but I didn't like that show at all. It's not for me.

I’ve shot with the BMPCC6K a few times, and while the image quality is amazing, I think it’s missing a few things that might be keeping it off Netflix’s approved list. For one, the data rate and codecs might not be as robust as what Netflix prefers. I’ve noticed that some cameras just have that extra layer of refinement, like the Red Komodo, that make post-production smoother and more compatible with their requirements.

Honestly, it’s a bit frustrating because the BMPCC6K is such a versatile camera, and it can produce some seriously stunning footage. But if you’re looking for high-quality content on the fly, 123moviesfree is a great place to explore different films.

I’ve shot with the BMPCC6K a few times, and while the image quality is amazing, I think it’s missing a few things that might be keeping it off Netflix’s approved list. For one, the data rate and codecs might not be as robust as what Netflix prefers.

It’s not about the image quality.

It’s not about the codec.

It’s about having a dedicated timecode input. That’s it. That’s what’s stopping it from being Netflix sanctioned.

Of course that hasn’t stopped filmmakers selling their content shot on many not Netflix approved cameras starting of course with the gold standard Alexa.

I’ve shot for many streamers, and Netflix are strict. The rest not so much. I did The Great for Hulu on Alexa SXT. No problem at all, even though it’s not a 4K camera. Funny.

I also have many shows I’v shot that are ON Netflix, but most assuredly were not shot with any Netflix approved camera.

So the Pocket had a 3.5mm that did nothing but timecode = Netflix Approved.

The moment they use the same jack to record audio as well = Netflix Denied.

That's goofy of Netflix.

that did nothing but timecode = Netflix Approved.
.

This is the key phrase.

JB