37 ms·
Netflix Originals: Production and Post-Production Requirements v2.1
- robodale 9y ago...And that my friends, is how you layout specs. Simple enough for anyone to read and understand, yet concrete enough to minimize interpretation variances. Love that change log.
- gcb0 9y agonot really. this how you do not do it. I'm particularly bugged by their list of approved cameras. it's silly. exclude most of the interesting cameras in the market for 4k now. my bet is that they are receiving so much submissions, and actually buying all of them, that I guess the company, or a few clever individuals, saw the "consulting" or equipment renting/financing potential and will try to monetize on selling cookie cutter packages.
- Analemma_ 9y agoThey did say that additional cameras could be approved on a case-by-case basis. And anyway, professional shoots and productions aren't hobbyists. They don't want "interesting" cameras, they want proven, reliable cameras.
- modfodder 9y agoWhat cameras would you prefer shooting on that isn't listed? I'm not seeing anything that I'd prefer to shoot on (other than film). Cameras like the Sony A7s or the Panasonic GH5 are great for the low budget film, but if Netflix green lights your project, you can afford much better cameras. Unless the project calls for really small and unobtrusive cameras, in which case Netflix would most likely approve the use of whatever camera best fits the project.
- martinbalsam 9y agoI would say that the Arri Alexa SXT is a better camera than most of the cameras listed there.
- modfodder 9y agoThat's valid. And kinda surprised it's not listed. Any other cameras that would make sense to be on the list?
- frankchn 9y agoI suspect the Arri Alexas are not on the list because they do not have "a true 4K sensor (equal to or greater than 4096 photosites wide)." The SXT has a 3404 x 2202 resolution when used in open-gate format.
- fgandiya 9y agoYeah, that's their reason https://backlothelp.netflix.com/hc/en-us/articles/229498668-Can-I-shoot-on-the-ARRI-Alexa-Amira- https://backlothelp.netflix.com/hc/en-us/articles/229498668-...
- nbm 9y agoThe Alexa SXT doesn't match the first requirement - a true 4K sensor. It has a 3424x2202 sensor.
- gcb0 9y agoThe projects i am involved are only being paid $1mi by Netflix for long feature. It is hardly money that takes you out of low budget line. Granted, it is "free" 1mi since they still keep box office and rights.... If you are not filming in a place where equipment rental is free like the US, GH5's become very inviting as your second (and third) camera.
- modfodder 9y agoIs this for projects funded (at least partially) by Netflix before production? Would love to hear more about your experiences (both with Netflix and general filmmaking outside the US).
- objclxt 9y ago> I guess the company, or a few clever individuals, saw the "consulting" or equipment renting/financing potential Not really, at that level everyone in Hollywood is renting their cameras anyway. Indeed, one of them cameras on that list (the Panavision DXL) is only available to rent, you can't buy it.
- zenburn 9y agoThey said this how you lay out specs, not this is which cameras you use
- joshuak 9y agoNo. This is exactly not how to layout specs. Specs should limit themselves in scope to the deliverables not the mechanisms that produced those deliverables. It is reasonable to say you want a painting that is 4 x 8 and fits on your wall. But dictating that all paintings must be painted with Kolinsky Sable brushes is unreasonable. 4k 10-bit log EXR ACES deliverables, sure thing. But please don't tell Roger Deakins he can't use that camera[1]. http://nofilmschool.com/2012/09/roger-deakins-talking-about-the-arri-alexa-at-ibc http://nofilmschool.com/2012/09/roger-deakins-talking-about-...
- CamperBob2 9y agoYou were modded down to goatse.cx territory, but I agree. This spec is a recipe for conformity, not creativity. Never mind Deakins, can you imagine handing it to Lars von Trier or Robert Rodriguez?
- mmastrac 9y agoThis likely gives them confidence that if they were to remaster for a different color-space or higher resolution, that they could. For a 4K original shot in 8K, Netflix could send it back through the production process for a more reasonable cost and be able to launch the title quickly. I'm surprised they don't ask for VFX sources to be archived though. ST:TNG and Babylon 5 both suffered badly from loss of the original VFX.
- aphextron 9y ago>I'm surprised they don't ask for VFX sources to be archived though. ST:TNG and Babylon 5 both suffered badly from loss of the original VFX. What do you mean by this? Is it common practice to "remix" a show when it's rebroadcast? I just assumed they more or less press play on a .mp4.
- JohnTHaller 9y agoBoth ST:TNG and B5 took their original source material and brought it down to SD and added the visual effects in at that level. So, we still had higher resolution original source material, but it had no effects in it. And these shows have a LOT of effects. When it came time to release ST:TNG on Blu-Ray, they had to recreate the effects and apply them back to the original material, which was a large and costly undertaking. Since it didn't make enough money, they have no plans to do this things like ST:DS9, unfortunately.
- cpeterso 9y agoWikipedia has more details about Babylon 5's transfer issues. They shot the show on Super 35mm film so they would have a widescreen source, which they telecined down to 4:3 for broadcasting. But when the show was remastered for widescreen in the 2000s, the production company did not return to the original widescreen film. They converted a 4:3 PAL copy to NTSC and then upscaled that to widescreen! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_5#Mastering_problems https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylon_5#Mastering_problems
- 9y ago
- Dpackers 9y agoThis is Netflix setting the standard for the whole industry.
- SwellJoe 9y agoHow so? There's an entire film and television distribution industry that (currently) dwarfs Netflix in scale. They all have their own requirements, though usually not written out with such clarity. And, these are not onerous requirements. They ensure good quality but don't impose significant costs. There are several cameras here for under $10k, which was unheard of even a decade or two ago; when I worked in television in college (20 years ago), the cameras in the studio cost ~$80,000 each, and the decks we edited on cost ~$25,000 each. If you're making a show specifically for Netflix, you follow these guidelines; if not, you can make it however you want, but these aren't terrible or adding significantly to the cost of a production. I mean, there are several line items on most productions that'll be more than the camera. And, in post-production, resolution and file size barely matters today; a computer can chew through 4k almost as easily as 1080p, and multi-terabyte hard disks are cheap-as-free.
- Justin_K 9y agoI wish they'd push for 4K 60FPS so they could upgrade their releases to this in the future.
- cbg0 9y ago60 FPS is undesirable for most movies/shows, as opposed to 24 FPS which creates a certain feel that most people prefer.
- soperj 9y agoMost people prefer it because they're used to it, and that's what they feel is "movie like"
- ryandrake 9y agoIs 24FPS the video equivalent of vinyl's so-called "warm" sound?
- stinkytaco 9y agoThat's a pretty good analogy. Film is attempting to portray a 3D world in 2D. Even if everything looks really good, it's still fake and 4K at 60fps just draws attention to that fakeness. For sports, news, even documentaries this isn't a huge deal because you are not trying to get people to suspend their disbelief. But for narrative cinema, it can take you right out of the picture.
- slhck 9y agoI don't understand your argument… if the analogy were true, listening to a CD or streaming from the web would make most people think the recording is "fake" or artificial, longing to listen to it on vinyl. Which I guess most people probably haven't had the chance to compare to CD yet.
- 9y ago
- devmunchies 9y agoI'd like another post going into more depth on audio (sound design, mixing, mastering...). I've seen a few things on Netflix where the bad audio engineering totally ruined the experience.
- ldite 9y agoWow, this is pretty scanty. For comparison, the BBC's technical requirements: http://dpp-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/specs/bbc/TechnicalDeliveryStandardsBBC.pdf http://dpp-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/specs/...
- dfox 9y agoThese two specifications are for different use-case. Netflix's is about having consistent quality of ordered works and preserving the ability to do lossless-ish conversions, while BBC's is technical specification of what can be broadcast without excessive additional conversion steps.
- ldite 9y agoTrue - the equivalent Netflix spec is this one; https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9DJydDVOVKKLVdCdlF2cFVDVEE/view https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9DJydDVOVKKLVdCdlF2cFVDVEE... ...again, a bit less detailed.
- yodon 9y agoDo they have a similar Pre-Production requirements doc?
- samstave 9y agoBest pricing info I can find quickly: * c300 mk ii 6998 * c500 18995 * c700 28000 * Varicam 35 12949 * caricam lt 16500 * red dragon 32520 * red weapon 49955 * red helium 49500 * panavision dxl cant find * sony f55 28990 * sony f65 cant find * sony fs7 12949 * arri alexa 65 cant find * ursa mini 4.6k 5995 * ursa 4.6k 4995
- jamesfmilne 9y agoARRI Alexa 65 and Panavision DXL cameras are not for sale. They are only available for rental from ARRI Rental and Panavision respectively. Sony don't manufacture the F65 anymore, so you won't find a current list price. It originally retailed for $65k for the camera body, and $20k for the SR-R4 recorder, so basically $85k. [1] [1] http://nofilmschool.com/2011/09/sony-officially-prices-f65-true-4k-camcorder http://nofilmschool.com/2011/09/sony-officially-prices-f65-t...
- skyebook 9y agoI'm curious why they didn't qualify the FS700 (considering they include the FS7) or any external recorders. Being able to record straight to a pair of SSD's in an Odyssey would seem preferable to dealing with Sony's bolt-on recorder + proprietary cards.
- praveenperera 9y agoThe RED cameras are pretty much unusable without a lot of very expensive add-ons. The real cost comes out to 100K+. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t1PQJmM8P4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3t1PQJmM8P4
- samstave 9y agoYeah -- pretty much all of them are like that I was putting some quick foundational numbers in there... I would expect all of those prices to be 5X or more than what you see after all the extra stuff that one would need to have a complete setup might be... let alone time, training, education, talent, etc etc etc...
- code4tee 9y agoI always find the idea of future proofing interesting here. Like the way Seinfeld reruns are in HD even though the technology didn't really exist at the time--because they shot a TV show in actual film and then could re-scan it later to keep up with modern tech. Crazy expensive but obviously given the value of those reruns the cost made sense.
- bbrik 9y agoI don't think they shot Seinfeld in 35mm to be future proof. It was the best way to film at the time.
- joezydeco 9y agoFriends reruns also got the HDTV rescans. In some shows you can see things that weren't supposed to be on-camera in the 4:3 format. It's just a matter of which shows are worth the cost and time to do it.
- Houshalter 9y agoThey did this to some of the star trek series. Some scenes you can see things that were not meant to be seen. E.g. here Kirk and Khan are arguing, and then suddenly two people dressed like them start fighting: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=B_c1Odol9xw#t=45s http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=B_c... I can't find it now, but I believe they even redid some of the early CG effects by just rerendering the old models with modern software. It's worth preserving that kind of stuff for future generations. One of my favorite video games was rereleased over a decade later with updated graphics. Sadly they had to recreate everything from scratch because the original files were lost. And the original models were very high detail. They just converted to 2d and down sampled a ton because of the limitations of PCs at the time.
- cakedoggie 9y agoWhat is the vid you send supposed to show?
- lcfcjs 9y agoI prefer getting 90s TV shows instead of this "original material".
- eponeponepon 9y agoThat's beautifully clear - I wish I worked with specifications so lucid. I've got almost no real knowledge of the field it's governing, but I believe I would know how to successfully shoot some footage that Netflix would accept off the back of reading it. One thing intrigues me though - albeit likely a function of my lack of knowledge on the matter - do these requirements implicitly rule out shooting on film for Netflix? (I mean, I'm sure that ${hollywood-bigshot} could negotiate, but for Joe Public..?)
- L_Rahman 9y agoEven ${hollywood-bigshot} = Bong Joon-Ho who made a movie for Netflix that premiered at Cannes film festival wasn't allowed shoot on film: http://variety.com/2017/film/news/bong-joon-ho-working-with-netflix-controversy-okja-cannes-1202428394/ http://variety.com/2017/film/news/bong-joon-ho-working-with-... At first, Darius Khondji, my cinematographer, and I wanted to shoot ‘Okja’ on 35mm, but Netflix insisted that all Netflix originals be shot and archived in 4K,” Bong said in an interview with Variety
- coldtea 9y ago>Even ${hollywood-bigshot} = Bong Joon-Ho who made a movie for Netflix that premiered at Cannes film festival wasn't allowed shoot on film That's just BS on Netflix's side though. They still feature all kind of non-Netflix movies that are shot on film.
- Houshalter 9y agoNetflix has even added amateur youtube series to their collection. With low resolution and terrible audio quality etc. They have no control over content they don't produce. Doesn't mean they can't set standards for the things they pay to produce.
- modfodder 9y agoFor a film they green light, probably not. But if the film is already shot and they want it, I don't see that getting in the way.
- Glyptodon 9y agoI assume this doesn't particularly apply to documentaries and such?
- smeyer 9y agoDid you read the change log? The first item there implies the answer is yes: >Unified Spec: With version 2.1, we made the decision to unify the two previously separate Features/Series and Docs/Coms documents into one overall set of requirements.
- modfodder 9y agoThe Canon C series (100/300/500/700) are popular among documentary filmmakers. And this in mainly for projects produced by Netflix in the pre-production stage. Not for projects that have already been shot (but not yet distributed). I'm in post on a project shot mainly on the Canon C100 (not on the approved list). We will be talking to Netflix at some point about picking up the project and I have no worries about in not being in 4k or shot by an approved camera. If they like the project and want it, the camera format won't matter.
- callesgg 9y agoI would assume that the document is only in regards to productions that they have a hand in during production. (Self produced)
- indescions_2017 9y agoAh, that Canon EOS C700 is a symphony of light capturing technology, though. Here's a sample "A Day in Kyoto" shot at 4K 120fps raw: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MeEKCYvApM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MeEKCYvApM
- Kaedon 9y agoI'm so, so glad I don't have to care about deliverables requirements anymore. Every studio has totally different set of requirements that are as complex as this and it's a real bear to make sure you're fully in compliance with them.
- olegkikin 9y agoI'm surprised they don't allow UHD resolution (3840×2160). There are probably a few people in the world who can reliably tell the difference with true 4K. An average person can't even tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.
- pflats 9y agoThey do allow it.
- olegkikin 9y agoCamera Requirements 4K Resolution: • Camera must have a true 4K sensor (equal to or greater than 4096 photosites wide). Also notice that not a single UHD camera is on the approved list.
- pflats 9y agoThe cameras have to be 4K+; the final product can be UHD. See the "IMF Master" section.
- olegkikin 9y agoI was talking about the source material from the beginning. The fact that they allow UHD in the IMF master makes it even less reasonable, because downscaled 4K-> UHD footage will have lower resolution than the native UHD footage.
- bo1024 9y agoWhen you step back, it seems to reveal an almost silly obsession with video resolution as a proxy for quality and future-proofing. It feels like it's coming more from marketing than true quality or future-proofing goals (just look at the audio standards...). On the other hand I definitely applaud their focus on having good backups and preserving the original source material.
- KaiserPro 9y ago
- gwbas1c 9y agoI wonder if Netflix is experiencing quality problems? Sometimes the lower-budget content that's a few years old looks pixelated or over-compressed. In these cases, it's somewhat obvious that whoever produced it just didn't know better.
- Analemma_ 9y agoIf it's third-party content, that's not Netflix's fault: they have to use whatever footage the studios give them, and sometimes what the studios give them is junk, either accidentally or deliberately.
- Havoc 9y agoCan someone explain the 24fps to me? It seems out of place old-school in light of the 4K & 240Mbps etc.
- DanBC 9y agoI have never watched a tv show show and thought "You know what this needs? Not better writing, plotting, story arcs, acting, or directing, but more frames per second or a higher resolution".
- Crespyl 9y agoMaybe I'm an outlier, but there have definitely been times (long camera movements/rotations in particular) where I thought "jeez, that's a low framerate". Some movies have it worse than others, and maybe it's my own fault for training myself to look for it with interactive games, but there are definitely times where it stands out as an outdated technical limitation.
- Houshalter 9y agoYou may not have noticed it consciously, but I bet your subconscious noticed it. Once I started to notice motion blur in movies I can't stop noticing it. Often times its really hard to tell what is going in a scene with lots of motion. All objects become unrecognizable blurry smears across the screen. Of course it effects the way scenes are filmed - directors take it into account and film things differently than they otherwise might have at higher fps. Avoiding shots with too much movement or camera panning, that might have been very superior. Conversely, high frame rate stuff "feels" so much more real. It's hard to explain, but if you look at side by side comparisons, the higher frame rate is definitely preferable. The guy who did the tech demo of full motion video on a 1981 PC had some interesting points about this. He did experiments to find the optimal trade off between frame rate and resolution. He found higher framerate with lower resolution was better than the reverse, and had some nice examples of it. PC gamers have known this forever and are obsessive about high frame rates.
- severine 9y agoThe Onion, almost 20 years ago: http://www.theonion.com/article/high-definition-television-promises-sharper-crap-866 http://www.theonion.com/article/high-definition-television-p...
- ryaneager 9y agoNow if they would stream UHD content at 240 Mbps, they would almost double the quality of UHD Blu-ray (144 Mbps). Or any increase of the 15.6 Mbps they are using now.
- voltagex_ 9y agoIt's probably too early in HEVC's life to know how much of a real increase in quality that would bring - you'd also exclude most of Netflix's customers (my connection is exceptionally fast by Australian standards and I couldn't stream that). Not to mention blowing their storage costs out the window. Have you noticed their audio bitrates, btw?
- joshuak 9y agoThis is really tragic to watch. I like Netflix in many respects but this is just incompetent. Not one Academy Award Winning film for best picture would qualify for these specs. Not one. I expect very few if any nominees either. The Arri Alexa is eliminated by these specs, for crying out loud. The single most popular camera amongst high end feature cinematographers. This is driven by some misguided belief that input resolution == output resolution AND that resolution is the measure of quality. I really hope they get their head out of their asses on this at some point. It's good to have quality standards, and thank god they aren't Turner Classic Movies (the fuck was that all about??). But these specs are as arbitrary as saying all of your food must be cooked in copper cookware. We tell stories, not pixels.
- mattalbie 9y agoThe Arri Alexa 65 is on their list.
- joshuak 9y agoYes, and not the camera I'm referring to.
- dsl 9y agoPretend most of HN has no idea what you are talking about, especially which n is "THE n".
- joshuak 9y agoGood point. And I suppose I didn't do a good job making my point clear. It isn't a matter of which camera is better, but that the camera is a part of the creative process of filmmaking and is not strictly tied to the quality of deliverables. It is a brush with which an artist chooses to paint, for creative and practical reasons. For a company like Netflix to control quality the goal must be to capture the creative intent with the highest fidelity[0]. Keeping in mind that the pixels serve the content, the content does not serve the pixels, and pixels are just one of very many things that serve the content. This can and should be done by specifying the quality of the result, the deliverables, not the tools used in the creation process. [0] Fidelity as apposed to quality is an important distinction (that seems to be lost on Netflix). "Pi", "Saving Private Ryan", "No Country for Old Men", and "Deadpool" have different objective measurements of image quality, but they can all be presented to an audience at high fidelity.
- tomc1985 9y agoThese are the kinds of high-quality production standards that all companies should employ. Technical excellence above all else
- coldtea 9y agoTo paraphrase Bill Gates (who never actually said the original, but anyway) 4K should be enough for everybody. Having seen 1080p stretch and play nicely on a 30 feet cinema screen, and not being much worse looking from regular Hollywood titles even for front seat viewing, I don't see the allure of 8K even for "future-proofing". Sure, monitors and tvs might improve their resolution in the future. But I don't se human eyes improving much (regarding angular resolution vs distance) or houses getting any bigger to fit a 30ft tv. 4K is good for reframing (cropping) and higher detail, but after some point enough is enough.
- yathern 9y agoFor traditional 2D screens, I tend to agree with you - that 4K is quite enough. But for Virtual Reality, these higher definitions are a must. 8K per eye will be much better than 4K per eye - at least that's the thought at the moment.
- cududa 9y agoMostly agree - but even with a screen displaying 2D, how is different. I get the whole "your eyes can only see n number of pixels" what in the world difference does that make? You can't see individual bits of matter photons are reflected off of, but the collection of mater that builds up that "image" to your eye. Sure the increase in resolution is "imperceptible" in terms of individual elements building up a particular frame, but to assume a visual cortex can't discern increased detail is just arrogant and borderline laughable
- UnoriginalGuy 9y agoIf resolution was the only metric, that makes sense. But reality is that we're seeing higher color depth ("HDR"), higher framerates, higher quality sound streams (e.g. Dolby Atmos and beyond), and even technologies we aren't envisioning today because the hardware isn't "there" yet. If 8K is only a resolution bump, then boring, but it may be much more than that. 4K is.
- coldtea 9y ago
- Animats 9y agoJames Cameron ("Avatar", "Titanic", etc.) used to argue that high frame rate was more important than higher resolution. If you're not in the first few rows of the theater, he once pointed out, you can't tell if it's 4K anyway. Everyone in the theater benefits from high frame rate. This may be less of an issue now that more people are watching on high-resolution screens at short range. Cameron likes long pans over beautifully detailed backgrounds. Those will produce annoying strobing at 24FPS if the pan rate is faster than about 7 seconds for a frame width. Staying down to that rate makes a scene drag. Now, Cameron wants to go to 4K resolution and 120FPS.[1] Cameron can probably handle that well; he's produced most of the 3D films that don't suck. He's going to give us a really nice visual tour of the Avatar world. For other films, that may not help. "Billy Lynn's Long Halftime Walk" was recorded in 3D, 4K resolution and 120FPS. Reviews were terrible, because it's 1) far too much resolution for close-ups, and 2) too much realism for war scenes. Close-ups are a problem - do you really want to see people's faces at a level of detail useful only to a dermatologist? It also means prop and costume quality has to improve. The other issue with all this resolution is that it's incompatible with the trend towards shorter shot lengths. There are action films with an average shot length below 1 second. For music videos, that's considered slow; many of those are around 600ms per shot.[2] They're just trying to leave an impression, not show details. [1] https://www.polygon.com/2016/10/31/13479322/james-cameron-avatar-3d-4k-hdr https://www.polygon.com/2016/10/31/13479322/james-cameron-av... [2] http://www.cinemetrics.lv/database.php?sort=asl http://www.cinemetrics.lv/database.php?sort=asl
- HappyKasper 9y agoYou neglect to mention the fact that we are so used to seeing 24 fps that anything above it doesn't look like a movie. Why do home videos have that "home video" look? The biggest reason is the 60 fps frame rate - it just doesn't feel cinematic. Even the 48 fps of the Hobbit films felt too "lifelike" and not cinematic enough. A lot of prominent directors, as you've mentioned, say they'd like to move towards a world with higher frame rates. But that'll be a bitter pill to swallow for a viewing public that unconsciously believes "cinema" means 24 fps. 3D in particular is very difficult to watch at frame rates as low as 24 fps - a big reason it makes so many people nauseous, and a big reason so many directors are saying we need higher frame rates. High resolution may not be a huge positive but it is definitely not a negative. There's nothing inherently cinematic or better about low resolution like there is about 24 fps, and if excessive sharpness feels jarring in a scene, the cinematographer can elect to use a lens with a softer focus. And the strobing effect you mention - unless we're talking 3D (where motion blur feels wrong), a low shutter rate and consequent good amount of motion blur easily avoid strobing.
- exabrial 9y agoOnly 24fps? Wow
- misticdeveloper 9y agoI guess this is old news, but apparently if you get hired by Netflix to shoot anything and you want to use an Alexa.. good luck. You should get in line and wait for an Alexa65 when it's available.
- Coffee_lover 9y agoCan anyone break this down a bit for the lamen. What's the ACEs pipeline? Frame chart, power windows... And more?