James 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.
You 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.
4k is less resolution than 35mm film, which was used very successfully for most of the history of cinema. Chris Nolan shot Interstellar & his Batman films on 70mm, which exceeds 8k resolution.
So I think you're quite wrong about 4k being "too much resolution for closeups" or being "incompatible with... shorter shot lengths".
24 frames/second is a minimum. Their FAQ says you can shoot at a high framerate.
Therefore, the best way to interpret "Bitrate of at least 240 Mbps (at 23.98/24 fps) recording" is probably that if you shoot at 24 frames per second, then you must have a bitrate of 240 Mbps. Not that 24 frames/second is the only framerate allowed.
This 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.
Most VFX shots loop through not one but several software packages. Sometimes even through multiple VFX vendors. Project files are proprietary and become inaccessible over time. And different VFX houses write their own add-ons that are not shared with a vendor like Netflix.
So collecting VFX shots in a pre-rendered state is notoriously difficult. Doesn't mean it's not worth trying. But you'll probably end up with various decomposed elements (models, rigs) and not something you can easily and quickly re-output in 4k, HDR, etc.
The VFX elements for TNG were mostly kept, so it was mostly new post-production - it was DS9 that got bit hard, since there was much more CGI in the later seasons making an HD remaster too expensive.
> ST:TNG and Babylon 5 both suffered badly from loss of the original VFX.
Yeah, Star Trek (VOY/DS9) suffers really on Netflix - I wonder what they chose as source - straight DVD rips? The intro of VOY, for example, has weird color artefacts when the deflector dish of Voyager flies by the camera.
That'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..?)
> 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?
In terms of resolution, no. Standard 35mm can produce a good quality 4K transfer (depending on the speed of the film you're using), and if you shoot on VistaVision (which is where you use 35mm film but rotate it 90 degrees) can go even higher.
Of course, the cost to do so is massive, and it's getting larger ever year. The only TV show I know this year that was shot on 35mm was Westworld.
Joe Public can't afford to shoot on 35mm for his/her Netflix original series even if they wanted to. Netflix would almost certainly only let an extremely experienced A-list director shoot on film, both because they'd be able to negotiate it but also because on film you can only usually afford a 3x overage (that is, you shoot three times what you end up using), whereas with digital that can go as high as 10x. It takes a really disciplined director and DP to manage that.
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
I don't know for real, since it's not my field. But generally any field that you start digging into turns out to have its complexities, that you may not have expected. While this looks pretty decent to the layman's eye, if I got this level of detail for the software projects I work on, it would also be much better than what I normally get to work off of, but I still would have plenty of room for interpretation.
To 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.
I spoke to a director friend of mine a few years back about shooting in 4K. He says that when he works (whenever budget allows), he would always shoot in 5K, not because he wanted the extra resolution for the full frame but because he wanted the ability to crop the shot down without losing resolution. Some shots would be scaled down from 5K to 4K, but others would be cropped to 'zoom in', or allow for minor panning that wasn't present in the original camera work.
8K presumably provides the same benefits but to a greater scale; you can scale it down to 4K, you can 'zoom in' on parts of the shot (such as a subtle detail, a pickpocket stealing a wallet for example) without having to use a second camera or record the shot twice, and so on.
Seriously, sure, 4K is enough for output but who says it's enough for input? As long as sensors keep getting better, the industry will keep finding ways to take advantage of it until it's essentially required.
Imagine a future where you can zoom in on any detail as well as you could with a high-res sensor at capture time?
It's not necessary for today's viewing experiences, but we know little enough about what is going to become popular that I wouldn't put ANY bets on "4K" being enough forever.
I use my 40" 1080p tv as a second monitor from time to time, and it's way too ugly to be deemed as 'good enough' IMO.
Perhaps action movies won't be much improved with better resolution, but I'll want screencasts, browser windows, nature documentaries or really any detailed image to be shown in 4K at least.
Actually I'd want screen to stop being "TVs" or "computer monitors", it should be just a high def big rectangle than can be used to display anything. For that we'd need to come at least to retina level of text rendering from any comfortable distance. That should mean 8k as standard def in my book.
For 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.
If 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.
4k and 8k is going to be more useful with large and extremely large screen sizes. HD is perfectly designed for traditional TV use cases - with a screen on a table in a living room.
4k and 8k means a completely different use model, like a giant wall-sized screen in the same living room. It's the difference between a movie theatre and an IMAX movie theatre.
When that happens, cinematography can expect to be different, sorta like IMAX movies have different cinematography. Sometimes they even composite multiple HD films together on screen without losing resolution. This would actually be extremely useful for sports, where the background shows the entire field at 8k, with windows showing stats or replays, etc..
...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.
No. 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].
not 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.
I 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.
I'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.
I'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.
This 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.
I'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.
I 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.
Now 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.
[+] [-] Animats|8 years ago|reply
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-av... [2] http://www.cinemetrics.lv/database.php?sort=asl
[+] [-] HappyKasper|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] dood|8 years ago|reply
So I think you're quite wrong about 4k being "too much resolution for closeups" or being "incompatible with... shorter shot lengths".
[+] [-] adrianmonk|8 years ago|reply
Therefore, the best way to interpret "Bitrate of at least 240 Mbps (at 23.98/24 fps) recording" is probably that if you shoot at 24 frames per second, then you must have a bitrate of 240 Mbps. Not that 24 frames/second is the only framerate allowed.
[+] [-] mmastrac|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] iampliny|8 years ago|reply
So collecting VFX shots in a pre-rendered state is notoriously difficult. Doesn't mean it's not worth trying. But you'll probably end up with various decomposed elements (models, rigs) and not something you can easily and quickly re-output in 4k, HDR, etc.
[+] [-] happycube|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] aphextron|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mschuster91|8 years ago|reply
Yeah, Star Trek (VOY/DS9) suffers really on Netflix - I wonder what they chose as source - straight DVD rips? The intro of VOY, for example, has weird color artefacts when the deflector dish of Voyager flies by the camera.
[+] [-] dawnerd|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] KaiserPro|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] eponeponepon|8 years ago|reply
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..?)
[+] [-] objclxt|8 years ago|reply
In terms of resolution, no. Standard 35mm can produce a good quality 4K transfer (depending on the speed of the film you're using), and if you shoot on VistaVision (which is where you use 35mm film but rotate it 90 degrees) can go even higher.
Of course, the cost to do so is massive, and it's getting larger ever year. The only TV show I know this year that was shot on 35mm was Westworld.
Joe Public can't afford to shoot on 35mm for his/her Netflix original series even if they wanted to. Netflix would almost certainly only let an extremely experienced A-list director shoot on film, both because they'd be able to negotiate it but also because on film you can only usually afford a 3x overage (that is, you shoot three times what you end up using), whereas with digital that can go as high as 10x. It takes a really disciplined director and DP to manage that.
[+] [-] L_Rahman|8 years ago|reply
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
[+] [-] modfodder|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sverhagen|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|8 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] coldtea|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] danudey|8 years ago|reply
8K presumably provides the same benefits but to a greater scale; you can scale it down to 4K, you can 'zoom in' on parts of the shot (such as a subtle detail, a pickpocket stealing a wallet for example) without having to use a second camera or record the shot twice, and so on.
[+] [-] chavesn|8 years ago|reply
Seriously, sure, 4K is enough for output but who says it's enough for input? As long as sensors keep getting better, the industry will keep finding ways to take advantage of it until it's essentially required.
Imagine a future where you can zoom in on any detail as well as you could with a high-res sensor at capture time?
It's not necessary for today's viewing experiences, but we know little enough about what is going to become popular that I wouldn't put ANY bets on "4K" being enough forever.
[+] [-] hrktb|8 years ago|reply
Perhaps action movies won't be much improved with better resolution, but I'll want screencasts, browser windows, nature documentaries or really any detailed image to be shown in 4K at least.
Actually I'd want screen to stop being "TVs" or "computer monitors", it should be just a high def big rectangle than can be used to display anything. For that we'd need to come at least to retina level of text rendering from any comfortable distance. That should mean 8k as standard def in my book.
[+] [-] yathern|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] UnoriginalGuy|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] mozumder|8 years ago|reply
4k and 8k means a completely different use model, like a giant wall-sized screen in the same living room. It's the difference between a movie theatre and an IMAX movie theatre.
When that happens, cinematography can expect to be different, sorta like IMAX movies have different cinematography. Sometimes they even composite multiple HD films together on screen without losing resolution. This would actually be extremely useful for sports, where the background shows the entire field at 8k, with windows showing stats or replays, etc..
[+] [-] eveningcoffee|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] robodale|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshuak|8 years ago|reply
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-...
[+] [-] gcb0|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] indescions_2017|8 years ago|reply
Here's a sample "A Day in Kyoto" shot at 4K 120fps raw:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MeEKCYvApM
[+] [-] code4tee|8 years ago|reply
Crazy expensive but obviously given the value of those reruns the cost made sense.
[+] [-] bbrik|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] zurn|8 years ago|reply
References: http://ecee.colorado.edu/~ecen4242/marko/TV_History/related%... http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/first-hdtv.htm
[+] [-] ldite|8 years ago|reply
http://dpp-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/specs/...
[+] [-] devmunchies|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samstave|8 years ago|reply
* 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
[+] [-] Justin_K|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] olegkikin|8 years ago|reply
An average person can't even tell the difference between 720p and 1080p.
[+] [-] Havoc|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshuak|8 years ago|reply
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.
[+] [-] Kaedon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gwbas1c|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] yodon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tomc1985|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Glyptodon|8 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ryaneager|8 years ago|reply