Netflix Approved Cinema Cameras

[@abavariannormiepleb9470]

Here’s to hoping RED’s ridiculous pseudo patents regarding compressed RAW get annulled sometime in the not too distant future.

[@potatofuryy]

Yeah, I hope Nikon wins the lawsuit RED filed against them.

[@ItsBerg]

Won’t happen

[@AxTechs]

@@ItsBerg well, we can at least hope

[@cubul32]

I own a RED and I approve.

[@zebius4157]

While Nikon seems to be taking a different approach to someone like Apple from what I understand, remember, not even apple, who if we're being honest is probably what set the blueprints for reds business practices, with their army of lawyers could win against red in their own compressed raw lawsuit. But honestly, I don't know what would change as those like Sony and blackmagic already figured it out and are reaping their benefits, taking a good chunk out of reds market share in the process while being technically "not true raw" while not really mattering if we're being honest, to the point I'm surprised more haven't gone to licensing blackmagic for braw which may not technically be "true raw", but seems to be a bit more efficient anyways. Maybe it means we can finally have prores raw on kinefinity again which to me was the biggest tragedy in all of this, and I say this as someone who is planning to get a red camera😮

[@bouncyybear1860]

it's funny how they require 4k but their compression ruins the image anyway 🙃

[@VariTimo]

Because it’s not about the user experience or the filmmaking it’s about money. We could have almost visually lossless 2K that would look perfect even on the biggest TVs and home projectors (because no one has a home screen large enough so it makes use of 4K) with the bandwidth we’re now using for meh 4K.

[@iamsean92]

you need to pay extra for 1080p and 4k now. yes even 1080p. the basic is only 720

[@iamsean92]

you are probably watching in 720p and dont realize it. you need to pay $15+ for 1080p. and $20 for 4k i'm done with netflix the prices suck. which oppiste of what it used to be.

[@TheMrawesomest]

All of this resolution, only to be streamed at less than 20 kbps. This is very frustrating as I've been noticing a degrading in stream quality over the past year or two. Some Netflix titles also "switch" to noticeably lower pixelated video between scenes even when the stream bitrate is still the same.

[@TommyHe]

All of those resolution and bit stream requirements happen at production, has little to do with the content delivery part. The 4:2:2 I-on content can easily tap 240MBits/s during recording since it's lightly compressed. While the AV1 or H265 can delivery decent video quality at 10MBits/s due to the high efficiency codec.

[@LanaaAmor]

Netflix approved is just a gimmick. They just approved cameras that were high end and made a spec list out of their average benchmarks and called it a day.

[@jmangrum]

Gray did a good job mentioning this in the video, but I still see a shocking number of people online who don't understand that this list is only enforced regarding Netflix ORIGINALS. You can shoot your film on an iPhone (ala Tangerine or High Flying Bird), and if Netflix likes it - they will buy it! Of course, if you're at the level where Netflix buying your film is a possibility then you probably have more choice when it comes to camera than most indie filmmakers.

[@LoganBriggs]

I'm curious about whether a Netflix Original could get away with a lower resolution if it's for an artistic purpose. He mentions in the video that something like the Office would not be well suited to a super sharp 4K format. But suppose that there's a Netflix Original where the director specifically wanted that sort of old school, less sharp look to enhance the feel of the movie or show. Do you think they could shoot on an approved 4K camera, but then reduce the fidelity in post production to match the aesthetic they're aiming for? Would Netflix permit a creative choice like that in one of their originals?

[@jmangrum]

@@LoganBriggs They probably would if it was for something like a found footage film.

[@CapitalOOpinions]

I don't think what you said about the container aspect ratio is true for Netflix. I don't believe they use containers, nor should they. If you watch, say, Marriage Story (1.66:1) on a MacBook Pro with a 1.6:1 screen, the video fills the width of the screen, which it wouldn't if the file had a 1.78 container with pillar boxing. The same goes in reverse for watching widescreen content on a widescreen PC monitor (2.370:1). This is a good thing. Using 1.78:1 containers is something Disney+ does, unfortunately, which is a stupid amateurish mistake that thankfully Netflix does not make.

[@ABC-sc2ip]

Too bad Netflix doesn't have standards for writing or cinematography.

[@williamlindesay21]

It’s funny because that ‘Netflix look’ is an awful look.

[@SomewhatAbnormal]

I own the Panasonic BS1H which is on the “approved” list. It’s basically the S1H in a box form with a ton of inputs, outputs, and mount points. It makes an excellent documentary camera, but many people don’t like it because it doesn’t have an integrated LCD - you must have an external LCD (NinjaV). But who shoots high end video without an external monitor anyway? Also, there’s the issue of RED’s ridiculous patent which requires the use of a Ninja to get RAW.

[@zacharyo_connor]

I would love your perspective of Bo Burnham's Inside. While not a "movie" it's legitimately one of the most visually original and interesting pieces from a cinematography and editing pov. It's such an inspiration for solo/low budget filmmakers like myself.

[@truthseeker8139]

These are for productions commissioned by Netflix. If you are making a movie on your own shoot with anything and tell a good story. Netflix will buy it if it has an audience. Go buy a old cheap used black magic cinema camera and learn storytelling.

[@scottlawton1601]

Anyone else hate streaming services?

[@perrinmedia]

This video is an example of why I love your channel. Thank you so much for this information!

[@Giova104]

So you can't send, for example, a native 2.39:1 film, but you must add black bars to make it 16:9?

[@dunke10]

Brooklyn 99 shows what The Office would look like shot on a high end camera because it has the same style of cinematography

[@techtt6213]

Could you maybe do a follow-up on this regarding HDR (DV, HDR10)

[@melvinch]

Netflix-approved means some Netflix QC people get kickbacks from camera-makers. Simple as that.

[@jerry4706]

Every creator bragging their camera is netflix approved yet will never get their content on there 😂

[@newtons_laws]

They just approved the Canon R5C

[@swanbarra4241]

I'm wondering why the Blackmagic 6K pro doesn't make the cut. It fits the requirements, and panasonic has an approved camera that has the same form factor. so yeah

[@kraftpunk6654]

Dynamic range. The Lumix S1H meets Netflix's dynamic range requirements.

[@VariTimo]

Because the sensors Blackmagic puts in the Pockets are trash compared to Panasonic. I went for the GH5s while a friend of mine got the Pocket 4K. The Pocket just straight up doesn’t see all the colors the GH5s does. Let alone dynamic range and most of all reliability. The Pockets are amazing for everybody who can’t afford anything better. Once you’re past that point you should leave them.

[@Mssmilelovejoy]

Because it's not just about resolution. Blackmagic is not an industry used camera. By industry I mean specifically the film industry, not videography, not web series or short film, actual episodic content and most feature content. They don't have the quality that can come close to matching even the cheapest camera in the field.

[@SteveSmith-ze5mw]

That’s incorrect. The 6k pro produces an image that is nearly indistinguishable from any of the industry standard cameras by the average viewers eye. 99.9% of people wouldn’t be able to differentiate a 6k pro image from a red,Venice, or even arri with proper lighting, exposure, grading, ect.

[@SteveSmith-ze5mw]

Incorrect, you’re biased to the camera you bought and your friend just isn’t capable of producing a good image with it. At this point the level of quality in bodies is so good even at the black magic level that it doesn’t even matter. With the right operator, a black magic could literally produce an image capable of winning best cinematography at the Oscar’s.

[@nathanaelreyes5854]

I find it frustrating that Netflix has this you can shoot on this kind of camera and only on 4K or 8K. For a company that insists on creative freedom for filmmakers, that’s shockingly restrictive.

[@Mssmilelovejoy]

It's absolutely not. This is misleading. I've worked on netflix shows that shoot 3.4k. All the high end cameras he referred to are literally the only cameras the industry is using anyways and they range all over the place in technical specifications. Cinematographers usually only become limited by this because it means that they have to rent higher resolution speciality cameras for other specific scenes such as slow motion cameras if the frame rate needs to be very high or crash cameras.

[@LonzosStudios]

say what, my C500 MKII a low end camera...My maxed out credit cards beg to differ!!

[@TinLeadHammer]

Frame aspect ratio is not simply a ratio of width to height in pixels. You are forgetting pixel aspect ratio. Also, there is no need adding "to one", because 1.78 is already a ratio, you've just calculated it! 1.78 divided by 1 is just 1.78.

[@unspecialist]

Pls don’t say 4k UHD, plenty of confusion out there because mixing these two up, but 4k is one resolution and UHD is another that actually doesn’t even reach 4k horizontal pixels.

[@iamsean92]

you are probably watching in 720p and dont realize it. you need to pay $15+ for 1080p. and $20 for 4k i'm done with netflix the prices suck. which is opposite of what it used to be

[@EfekanOrtanci]

I have a Panasonic s5 and in addition to 4K, it also has C4K. In this feature, the recording resolution is 4096x2160. I don't know exactly what the difference is between normal 4K 3840x2160, but when I set the 2.39.1 ratio in 3840x2160, this ratio does not match the black clipping of many movies. But when I set the 2.39.1 ratio to an image I shot in C4k, i.e. 4096x2160, it matches the black bars of other 2.39.1 movies. So are those movies shot in C4k and not normal 4k. I used a translation, so there may be spelling mistakes and unintelligible words.

[@VariTimo]

A lot of cinema cameras don’t shoot in these strick resolutions. But it really doesn’t meter. 4096 or 3840 are visually identical in terms of special fidelity. Use whatever resolution works best with your workflow. The black bars won’t be the same because they’re not the same shape. 4096 is a bit wider. When you set your project to 2.39:1 and crop the images to get to scope your composition will be intact with both.

[@Mssmilelovejoy]

C4K isn't a term we use, it's referred to as UHD. With some higher end cameras the photosites and the resolution can end up being different and most higher end cameras don't jump from UHD to 4k, to 5k etc. They'll have many points in the middle to create certain standardized aspect rations. Take the Sony Venice for example. The aspect ratios, or imager modes, in the camera jump from 8.6k at 17:9 max, but provide options for 16:9 and 17:9 at many other resolutions as well as providing may anamorphic options. Essentially it's not preprogrammed to shoot 8k on an anamorphic. The default options will be 7.6k or 8.2k to ensure the ratio is correct and gives you the best use of the sensor. Every high end camera has a very wide variety of imager modes that you can choose from. As someone who works with these camera everyday my first piece of advice is to double check that the aspect ratios you're comparing to are indeed 2.39:1 and not 2:1 or a custom aspect that some DOP's choose. The 2.39:1 from your version of 4k to C4K is going to look different because you're changing the width of the photosites causing the whole aspect ratio to shrink.

[@EfekanOrtanci]

@@Mssmilelovejoy So as someone with a camera that only has C4K and 4k options. Should I use 3840x2160 or should I shoot in 4096x2160. I'm going to shoot a short feature film but I don't know which one to choose as standard. The final post production will be in 2.39.1 scale. I'm shooting with the 2.39.1 marker turned on in-camera. I'm actually looking for which option I should record in, since I'm going to adjust in another scale instead of 16:9 in general. 4096x2160 or 3840x2160.

[@Mssmilelovejoy]

@@EfekanOrtanci There isn't a broad enough standard to answer that question for you. I would research the festivals you'll be applying to and see what deliverable requirements they have for resolution and stick with that or higher. If I were you I would think about how your audience is going to view this film, either digitally or at festivals. Think about what sizing of the resolutions for aspect ratio would look better on which screens.

[@iamsean92]

you need to pay extra for 1080p and 4k now. yes even 1080p. the basic is only 720p. read the fine print. it's a sad fact

[@NullStaticVoid]

No Fujis make the cut? I own a couple slightly older Fujis and they shoot amazing F log vid with really good color.

[@Mionwang]

i like how you added the netflix intro sound each time the netflix logo showed up on screen lmao

[@samorayee420]

50$k camera Netflix approved I don't understand how big is Netflix. Is it bigger than Hollywood 😂

[@seaview-films]

These channels float the wrong assumption that you need an approved Netflix camera to be on their streaming service. Let's be clear. As an indie filmmaker, you don't need to run out to rent or buy a Netflix-approved camera to be able to sell your show or film to Netflix! That list is for Netflix commissioned productions, and they pay for the cameras. Plenty of films shot on different cameras are available on Netflix. They might buy an amazing no-budget indie story on a dslr for distribution. If you have a project that Netflix is picking up for production, they're going to provide you with the budget for the camera they need anyway. So, forget the list, it is totally irrelevant.

[@Cbriggs502]

So basically i wasted 13:49 minutes of my life watching this video for nothing 🤦‍♂️

[@seaview-films]

sorry but yes. It is click bait. @@Cbriggs502

[@ryanashby2459]

Anyone know if or when the Sony FX30 will be approved? I heard it's soon...

[@alejandrosalas-yearwood5440]

If that’s so, how come Steven Soderbergh was able to shot a Netflix movie on an iPhone 8? 🤨

[@Mssmilelovejoy]

This is for netflix original content or any show that is being filmed on Netflix's behalf or in partnership with. They buy distribution and streaming rights for tv shows and films that they did not produce and the standards there are pretty much give us the final product in 4k.

[@lyralazers]

it's a wonder that with such rigorous standards for the technology involved the house style is so overwhelmingly flat and unpretty

[@shaunlaisfilm]

Netflix is suggesting what cinematographers should use in order to deal with their streaming service? Such a suggestion will certainly have an influence on producers who will lean on the directors & again we are back to the cinematographers. No way would Conrad Hall, Sven Nykvist or Gordon Willis would have been in stride with this. But hey it is all about technology not about the technique these days.

[@VariTimo]

Word. You have some technician making choices you hire a cinematographer for.

[@shaunlaisfilm]

@@VariTimogreat point! A lot of these movies are going to start to look alike, Netflix is going to redefine the cinematography standard for cinematography while not being founded by cinematographers. The only puncher's chance cinematography & filmmaking has is that there are other streaming services out here or that filmmakers could use their own site to stream or physically release their films: if they are willing to understand that they might not reach the masses yet still connect with those who appreciate their kind of filmmaking.

[@Mssmilelovejoy]

@@shaunlaisfilm They absolutely will not look alike. I work in the industry. Lenses are everything and are significantly more important to the look than the camera sensor. The cameras netflix approved are already industry standard cameras. They represent requirements for post production. Every single network has these exact requirements and nowadays they're all pretty much the same with 4k delivery. Netflix will never define cinematography standard. Again they just followed what was already being done and required higher resolution delivery for their vfx shows matching much of what Disney and Marvel did before every film industry standard camera on the market had 4k. By film industry standard I mean these high end cameras. For narrative at least they're not using anything else unless it's a crash cam or drone.

[@shaunlaisfilm]

​@@MssmilelovejoyLight is everything in Cinematography & Photography, the lenses matter but in the same capacity as the camera but the Light is everything, how one uses it can be subjective or it could be formulaic but it is required in order to use a camera.

[@shaunlaisfilm]

​@@Mssmilelovejoyalso I am a photographer & have been one for over 25 years (using 35 & 120 film only) & I am not a cinematographer but there is no freedom for a cinematographer if they have to go by rules of aesthetics, equipment & cinematography standards from a distributor. We already have filmmakers copying popular filmmaking trends that are narrative or aesthetically famous, all we need is for Netflix to build a bridge for "Netflix Filmmakers" to walk over while calling their visual steps, (an unofficial hip title) that "Netflix Look."

[@dunke10]

This video is very informative, but you could have talked about why so many Netflix shows are in 2:00.1

[@Mssmilelovejoy]

2:1 has become a very popular trending aspect ratio in the industry as of late. With TV networks most DOP's have to shoot 16:9 to meet the network requirements, but now given that there are so many devices watching these shows (including phones where 2:1 looks better) they no longer need to meet 16:9 and DOP's have more freedom to shoot in different ratios.

[@Makta972]

Weak ..

[@chasethebluedot]

Does Netflix still use this list? The last update was over a year ago.

[@KhaliPeeliBheja]

You didn't mention about Sony FX30.

[@jamess8060]

The RED Raven is cheaper than the Komodo and provides a much nicer image because it uses the classic Dragon sensor. I got my full Raven package for £4,000. Can't beat it. :)

[@qiyuxuan9437]

Isn't the global shutter on the komodo sacrifice some image quality? But it is a very good choice in scenes that rolling shutter is a problem.

[@MrAndrewClaycomb]

Cinema lens options are very limited on Raven.

[@jamess8060]

@@MrAndrewClaycomb same with the Komodo with it's RF mount, no? You've got a whole world of EF lenses to choose from on the Raven.

[@MrAndrewClaycomb]

​@@jamess8060 An RF mount can easily be adapted to PL and EF.

[@jamess8060]

@@MrAndrewClaycomb You can adapt EF to PL too, can't you?

[@audeostudio]

i love how there is a carzy flex about cameras approuved by Netflix when the real deal is getting your PROJECT approuved by Netflix haha

[@gingerstuey]

I love that Netflix feels the need to approve cameras, but then doesn't care when every filmmaker (on Netflix) throws a cheap and dated "orange and teal" LUT on that approved camera footage. Dear Netflix, I would rather watch something shot on a GX85 at 1080p with proper colour grading, than something unwatchable like "Fall" shot on a million dollar IMAX camera with a $20 anamorphic lens attached and some KZbinr's heavy handed orange and teal LUT. What a waste of NetFlix's time.

[@cinemaipswich4636]

There are exceptions. If you are a reasonably well known, or you make something very popular of exceptional, they may let you in the door.

[@Jensen-C]

I would imagine Netflix is pretty flexible. I don’t see anything wrong with Netflix making people have a high standard for people paying for their service. I mean it is their service at the end of the day

[@gundamzerostrike]

4:28 - What movie/series is this?

[@spikewilliam]

I truely think that in the end it's all about streaming quality. The cleaner the image is, the better it will look when compressed to fit Netflix video stream. Grainier is the picture, the more difficult it is to correctly handle the grain structure when highly compressed.

[@SaintProductions1]

Why isn't the Ursa MiniPro 12k not Netflix approved? Is it because it can only record in Braw?

[@Mssmilelovejoy]

The Ursa doesn't meet any film industry standards. These shows and features are ALL being filmed on the high end cameras or what we in the industry refer to as industry cameras. It's really just three brands in the narrative world: Arri, Sony, and Red in order of popularity. Other cameras are used in extremely low budget maybe festival films, but for 99% of mainstream narrative content you watch it's these cameras or film cameras. It's like comparing a SmartCar to a Porsche.

[@SaintProductions1]

@@Mssmilelovejoy Um, this doesn't answer my question (I understand what you are trying to get at though). The Ursa Mini Pro G2 is Netflix approved, so I was asking why isn't the Ursa 12k...?

[@Mssmilelovejoy]

@@SaintProductions1 This is what I mean though. The company doesn't put out good enough cameras. It's not a resolution game. The Ursa Mini's are almost never used for production and serve as crash cams which is why it's approved. Higher resolution does not mean higher quality. Many times camera companies have to make the photosites on sensors extremely small to fit into a large resolution like 12k. This means that you skimp and sacrifice dynamic range and colour. The photosites are too small to absorb an adequate amount of information that meets professional standards. There's even more factors that goes into the type of sensor and what colour range it can work in as well.

[@SaintProductions1]

@@Mssmilelovejoy Once again, I here & understand your opinion; BUT, this doesn't factor in why the Ursa G2 is approved & the Ursa 12k isn't (The Ursa 12k is the better cinematic camera in every way). And the color coming out of the Ursa 12k is amazing (if you haven't used the camera, you should try it). I am NOT comparing it to an Arri LF or 35.

[@Mssmilelovejoy]

@@SaintProductions1 I work in film, I've been on calls with post production and Producers over this shit. It's not an opinion. That's the issue. You can like whatever you want by eye, but the sensor quite literally cannot put out the same amount of colour data as high end sensors. It does not compare. Think it's great all you want, but when you start working with the high end cameras it becomes very very clear quickly how big of a difference this stuff is.

[@ruff1draft]

Panasonic S1H used is on my list and the future Panasonic S1H Mark 2

[@zacsmith2862]

I wonder if Netflix would allow shooting super16 and scan it in at 4k ?

[@acedia4453]

But muh Sony A7

[@TT-dx4ez]

Id love to see a streaming platform where only film cameras were approved or a certain % of the feature was shot on film. that would be rad.

[@raksofilms8763]

Then Sony a7IV is possible? I think yes

[@qiyuxuan9437]

I dont think it support timecode export.

[@lokesh6734]

Is there any chance that Netflix will approve fx30

[@cic9540]

The Sony a7S III is a full-frame mirrorless camera that can capture internally up to 10-bit 4:2:2 UHD 4K video in 120 frames per second.

[@Tappits84]

And when you are filming a Netflix original, you have a multi-million-pound budget, you have the cash for reds and arris, and you do not have to settle on a consumer camera regardless of how reasonable it is..

[@BrunoMassao]

Yeah, and it is also the base for the Sony FX3, which added timecode and then became Netflix Approved, whilst the Sony A7S III still isn`t. It`s a matter of IQ, usability and production requirements, hence why it is called "Requirements and best practices". There's a threshold, and the camera needs to reach it on all points.

[@qiyuxuan9437]

​@@Tappits84 There are scenes in Ironman2 shot on a Canon 5D mk2, a DSLR😂.

[@Tappits84]

@@qiyuxuan9437 Yer and theres TV shows that use Gopro 7's, but its not the primary camera.

[@vegardpedersen]

A7S III does not approve because of the Time code, how stupid! Netflix is loosing out on a lot of stories because of nonsense like that, it does not matter at all o the story if you use timecode, it just speeds up syncing... It is a reason Netflix is no longer the king of Streaming. Great video tho, fun to watch!

[@sebastienwiard3900]

Totally agree, it's mostly a marketing thing. Content creators, storytellers know that once you've reached a certain amount of specs, the rest is just bonus (A7 III or Lumix S5 are monsters when it comes to pure specs but won't get approved because of meaningless details)

[@dxkaiyuan4177]

Exactly, timecode has absolutely no effect on image quality.

[@useless_name]

As many have pointed out: Your film shot on A7s could still be picket up by Netflix. The restriction only applies if you shoot a Netflix original, in which case they will provide you with a camera if needed. (Edit: grammar)

[@Mssmilelovejoy]

These standards are for original content, and no they're not loosing on stories. The higher end cameras is what the entire industry is using anyways. It also ABSOLUTELY Friggin matters if you're using timecode. the A7S III doesn't meet industry standards for so many reasons. It's like comparing a smartcar to a porsche. Sensors are not defined as good or high end because of their resolution or their colour outputs.

[@Mssmilelovejoy]

@@dxkaiyuan4177 and yet timecode has every effect on the actual use of shooting. Tell me you've never been on a real film set without telling me.

[@nikkola2329]

One marketing joke accelerating other marketing jokes You tell me Alexa Classic’s 2k in Skyfall look better than Red’s alleged 4k in Witcher

[@zebius4157]

Except wasn't Witcher shot on Alexa LF?

[@manavsnapp]

chup

[@itsmecaldo]

Can anyone tell me which series or movie this clip is from 4:28

[@myphilosophy-8896]

You are great guys, thank you for everything

[@nathanksimpson]

It'd be really cool to have a boom operator solo sticker.

[@AlleyKatPr0]

This needed to be said, thank you. Aspect ratios are important production considerations, and this topic of streaming-format will always be relevant.

[@nayantharamathew165]

Do one for IMAX camera also please

[@aLgProduction]

Thanks for sharing.

[@dunke10]

I have a question about the approved cameras. I worked in the production of a tv show that was shot on a Sony FS7. Even if it's fiction, would Netflix buy it as an original production?

[@ezrarichardson279]

If they like it, then they’ll buy it. Even if the camera used isn’t in the list. But it would never be a “Netflix original” since they didn’t produce it.

[@dunke10]

@@ezrarichardson279 I didn't know that detail, thanks

[@SteveSmith-ze5mw]

If you’re making the piece you can shoot on whatever you want. If they’re funding the production then affording the camera won’t be an issue. The approved list really means nothing.

[@Kevon420]

I love the idea of The Office being filmed entirely on an Arri Alexa 35, still keeping the general look and style of the show (deep depth of field, whip pans, quick zooms, etc.) but just that extra level of fidelity would be so interesting.

[@edwardreverseproductions]

i mean, the deep depth of field comes from the smaller sensor right?

[@lukastemberger]

​@@edwardreverseproductions You can have any depth of field on any sensor. It just depends on how fast the lens is. Part of the "non-filmic" look comes from that lack of fidelity, so filming it on an Arri or Sony wouldn't look authentic. You can always film it with an expensive camera and then heavily filter it in post to achieve the look though.

[@Mssmilelovejoy]

Yeah it's so easy to replicate that look. I was working with the crew on Animal Control and it's the same sitcom look but with some pricey lenses and Red Gemini's. Mind you Red Cameras have very sharp sensors so that helps more.

[@Mssmilelovejoy]

@@edwardreverseproductions depth of field is entirely based on lens, however different sensors have "softer" looks depending on how they record the light. Arri cameras are known and specifically designed to have this softer look unlike Red's and Sony's which are known for more precise and sharp looks.

[@burning2p]

It is a good example of how a creator has to think alongside with production costs. If (As) The Office is perfect the way we know it, why would one ever need a 35 sensor the shoot new episodes ? More expensive camera comes along with slower settings on set, different lenses to be mounted, bigger data volume, bigger storage needs, longer rendering time, etc.. Every steps comes with more money on the table LOL. Also not sure any cinematographer out there would like to put a zoom lens on a 35 Arri Alexa 😆 The only way I see them use a high end camera would be if they make a 1h30 long anniversary episode for the 20 years of the show . Who knows ?? 😊

[@allanvanuga9196]

Great video.

[@alwinbenjamin]

👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

[@robertobuatti7226]

Physical media such as Blu-ray or 4K UHD Blu-ray is way superior to any streaming platforms like Netflix because all streaming services compress their content even if it's 1080p or 4K it will still look very compressed compared to the physical media release which will have minimal compression, I don't why Netflix don't release their exclusives on physical media for collectors like myself who prefer to own movies and shows in the best format with the best picture available other on Blu-ray or 4K disc without the ugly compression streaming has, plus once you own something on a physical media format you own it forever, unlike streaming which can remove it anytime the streaming service likes.

[@burning2p]

"You will own nothing and be happy" --> get this in your browser and... follow the white rabbit.

[@GroovBird]

That container aspect ratio is stupid, imo. That means that if I'm viewing a show wider than 1.78:1 on my ultra-wide 21:9, it'll be boxed?

[@Mssmilelovejoy]

No, they need room for post. It won't end up looking like by the time they've created the final deliverable.

[@DethronerX]

Thank you for this video. I kept waiting for the film camera list, though : D : D

[@JackyEndriana]

I mean all film camera should be approved by netflix, but u need scan it to 4k

[@JackyEndriana]

I think :v

[@DethronerX]

@@JackyEndriana Yeah as the video said too. I did want the film section in this video, since they're mentioned on Netflix list

[@TinLeadHammer]

​@@JackyEndriana20 years ago the leading broadcasters would not allow 16mm film for HD productions. I suppose that likewise 35mm is not good enough for 4K.

[@brandonmbugua]

Hey guys I’d love to hear your thoughts on this tip I learned on editing that definitely changed my outlook on the edit: kzbin.info/www/bejne/l53IkICgbMycm68

[@Bluboy30]

It's always funny to me how Netflix is so strict when it comes to which camera filmmaker can use to make films on their platform. But many of their films looked like they were shot on old camcorder. 😂

[@useless_name]

Ok give an example lol

[@Bluboy30]

Their recent movies: The Old Guard, The Adam Project, The Gray Man, The Irishman and Extraction. Those are just the ones I can remember right now.

[@The_Idea_of_Dream_Vision]

​@@Bluboy30 probably it's the grading and film grain added in post

[@Bluboy30]

@@The_Idea_of_Dream_Vision Nope, it's the opposite. To my eyes, some of their movies looked like it's cheap made for TV movies like back in the 1990s and 2000s. I would prefer that they add film grain in post production and make their films look more like films instead of home video.

[@Mssmilelovejoy]

It's not strict. Literally the cameras they've approved are all the camera's that are used in the industry. Any cameras not on that list aside from the Arri Mini (which is now discontinued) are not used as standard cameras in the industry.

[@VariTimo]

Thanks from completely going over 2.00:1. It truly is the worst aspect ratio.

[@Kevon420]

16:9 is the worst but go off.

[@AxTechs]

There is no "bad aspect ratio", what do you mean?

[@VariTimo]

@@AxTechs People don’t know what to do with it. They don’t know how to place actors in a frame. They have much harder time building pressure through composition. Sure there are great uses of 2.00:1, like in House Of Cards, Stranger Things, and The Crown. But for every one of those there’re 50 shows that don’t know what to do with the thing. It’s neither here nor there, that alone makes it artistically weaker.

[@VariTimo]

@@AxTechs People don’t know what to do with it. They don’t know how to place actors in a frame. They have much harder time building pressure through composition. Sure there are great uses of 2.00:1, like in House Of Cards, Stranger Things, and The Crown. But for every one of those there’re 50 shows that don’t know what to do with the thing. It’s neither here nor there, that alone makes it artistically weaker.

[@AxTechs]

@@VariTimo You can use that argument for literally any aspect ratio from 2.39 to 9:16 - that people don't know how to use them. I for one use 2:1 quite regularly, it's useful for web content as it fits better on widescreen phones now, like the iphone, without bleeding into the notch, and on 16:9 displays, it feels less claustrophobic than 2.39 (cropped) whilst retaining a very similar compositional format to 16:9. If you're struggling with the framing of 2:1 that's not a problem with the aspect ratio, that's a problem with the skillset of the person using it. David fincher has mentioned in the past that he's wanted to use 1.33 for certain films of his, but he can't understand the framing behind such a square aspect ratio, so he eventually settled on 2.2:1 for Mindhunter and Mank, and I respect him for that. That doesn't make 1.33 a "bad" aspect ratio

[@user-vs6uz4fn4g]

If I was Netflix I would almost ban all digital cameras and mostly accept Film cameras ranging from Super 16, 35mm, 65mm & IMAX. I feel that most digital camera appear low budget and distract from the story and image quality is very low even with the high resolution.

[@tristan6509]

Film is a pain in the ass to edit, even if it looks better no one other than hobbyists will use em Also the final product gets digitized anyways (which involves pointing a digital camera at the physical film) so what's the difference for Netflix?

[@user-vs6uz4fn4g]

@@tristan6509 Shooting on film has the same editing process as shooting on digital as the film gets digitised. Working on film also ends up being more economical as the crew are more disciplined and have fewer takes reducing the amount of rushes for the editor to view. They are using a digital scanner which scans and captures all of the characteristics and quality of film. Shooting on film is also future proof as 35mm can be anywhere between 4K - 12K Resolution (also depending on if an anamorphic lens is used).

[@valkiron11]

You think you slick, Tarantino. Cinema went digital. Get over it.