The argument they're making seems to be that Netflix enforcing a minimum sensor standard for cameras is stifling directorial choice, and the way it's framed around film grain and artistic decision...
The argument they're making seems to be that Netflix enforcing a minimum sensor standard for cameras is stifling directorial choice, and the way it's framed around film grain and artistic decision making is clearly about film vs digital rather than the specifics of sensor types within the digital realm, so basically: "by enforcing a 4K minimum sensor standard on cameras, Netflix are excluding film and pushing a certain crisp aesthetic that is distinctive of HD digital cinema".
But then everybody is shooting digital nowadays... As in, over 92% of all releases in 2017, meaning it's an industry shift rather than a made-for-Netflix issue. Given that Netflix were willing to offer waivers to 29% of the cameras used in their best films of 2020, it also seems as though the standards have plenty of flex for aesthetic choices. Even so, of seven total waivers in that dataset, four were still for a specialist digital camera - the ALEXA Mini - and only three were for film.
The impression I get is that the camera standards can be taken pretty much at face value: "don't waste our time with crappy footage because you cheaped out on hardware, use one of these. If you need to go off-menu, we'll have to talk about it to make sure you aren't doing anything stupid". Technology, cost, and consumer behaviour - including the shift towards streaming on the whole - probably are blurring the aesthetic lines between cinema and TV, I just don't think Netflix's camera standards are meaningfully responsible for that.
I picked up on this as well. Their prime example, David Fincher's Mank, really stood out to me here. Fincher has relied exclusively on very high resolution digital cameras since The Social Network...
I picked up on this as well. Their prime example, David Fincher's Mank, really stood out to me here. Fincher has relied exclusively on very high resolution digital cameras since The Social Network in 2010. They have been a crucial element in the evolution of his visual style. He has spent over 20 years cultivating an aesthetic that feels very intentionally divorced from the limitations of filming with a conventional camera. I do not recall pundits claiming The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or Gone Girl were not true cinema based on this unique aesthetic, of which Fincher's camera choice is a major component.
According to people like say, Steve Yedlin, the DP of most Rian Johnson movies including Brick, The Last Jedi, and Knives Out (shot on digital to look like film), footage captured by modern...
The argument they're making seems to be that Netflix enforcing a minimum sensor standard for cameras is stifling directorial choice, and the way it's framed around film grain and artistic decision making is clearly about film vs digital rather than the specifics of sensor types within the digital realm, so basically: "by enforcing a 4K minimum sensor standard on cameras, Netflix are excluding film and pushing a certain crisp aesthetic that is distinctive of HD digital cinema".
But then everybody is shooting digital nowadays... As in, over 92% of all releases in 2017, meaning it's an industry shift rather than a made-for-Netflix issue. Given that Netflix were willing to offer waivers to 29% of the cameras used in their best films of 2020, it also seems as though the standards have plenty of flex for aesthetic choices. Even so, of seven total waivers in that dataset, four were still for a specialist digital camera - the ALEXA Mini - and only three were for film.
According to people like say, Steve Yedlin, the DP of most Rian Johnson movies including Brick, The Last Jedi, and Knives Out (shot on digital to look like film), footage captured by modern digital cameras can be graded and processed to look more or less indistinguishable from actual film. https://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/index.html https://www.yedlin.net/OnColorScience/index.html
Shooting on digital doesn't have to look like it was shot on digital. Could anyone tell Knives Out was shot on digital? It's got the colour grade of film, it's got grain emulation that looks indistinguishable from real film grain, it's got halation emulation, it's even emulating gate weave of rolling film.
With a talented enough DP and colour grade team, I think the end result of either digital or film can both end up looking like however the director/DP wants it to look.
Yea, I also don't think it's digital alone. It's the sets and camera work that seem strangely consistent to Netflix productions, even spanning huge movie productions, tacky series and...
Yea, I also don't think it's digital alone. It's the sets and camera work that seem strangely consistent to Netflix productions, even spanning huge movie productions, tacky series and documentaries. You look at some actor/actress' talking head in a hotel lobby and it's just... meh. It's like the production is capped exactly at the point of looking "professional" but that extra layer, whatever it is, you might find in an HBO production or cinema exclusive Hollywood blockbuster just isn't there.
I still think celluloid film gives a special feeling to movies and TV shows. I got quite good at spotting movies shot on fim, the grain is incredibly charming and quintessentially cinematic. I was...
I still think celluloid film gives a special feeling to movies and TV shows. I got quite good at spotting movies shot on fim, the grain is incredibly charming and quintessentially cinematic. I was watching Marriage Story recently, and was happy to confirm it was made in 35mm.
Yea, just to make this clear: I'm not dismissing the digital/resolution as a factor and it's likely a huge part of what makes Netflix production so recognizable. What I'm thinking, though: Doesn't...
Yea, just to make this clear: I'm not dismissing the digital/resolution as a factor and it's likely a huge part of what makes Netflix production so recognizable. What I'm thinking, though: Doesn't the lens and a huge array of post effects have a much larger impact?
Meanwhile... look at the set design of Don't Look Up. It's highly subtle but something is just... off. The furniture in living rooms and offices looks like it was bought yesterday, is too neatly arranged. Don't know how else to say it but there's a feel. I once read an interesting article comparing Netflix studios to more established ones and one point brought up was the huge warehouses with props and costumes those big movie studios can get back to. Netflix, apparently, doesn't have any warehouses. They resell or give away their stuff after each production because there's no money allotted to keeping a permanent physical space operating, all on-demand, baby! Since I hear this, I've been looking for this in feature movies. For example, in the new Spiderman movie, NY apartments look appropriately run down, basement laboratories dirty and messy. That's all happening in-between the scenes we actually remember but IMO it has a huge impact on setting the tone.
I don't think this is so much a Netflix specific problem as it is an industry wide one. The big players in the film industry has basically standardized on a few different cameras. That has lead to...
I don't think this is so much a Netflix specific problem as it is an industry wide one. The big players in the film industry has basically standardized on a few different cameras. That has lead to all movies looking very similar over the past few decades as digital cinema has taken over.
And I also think the article has things reversed. It's not that films are looking more like movies, but that the production value on TV shows has gotten so much higher over the last decade that they look just as good as movies.
Sharpness doesn't have much to do with sensor resolution, but much more with the lens. If you use a soft lens on a high resolution sensor you'll get a soft image. Then comes post-processing. The...
Sharpness doesn't have much to do with sensor resolution, but much more with the lens. If you use a soft lens on a high resolution sensor you'll get a soft image. Then comes post-processing. The 4k requirement says pretty much nothing about the look of the image.
I think the reason why Netflix films seem like TV shows is that they're generally not too good.
The argument they're making seems to be that Netflix enforcing a minimum sensor standard for cameras is stifling directorial choice, and the way it's framed around film grain and artistic decision making is clearly about film vs digital rather than the specifics of sensor types within the digital realm, so basically: "by enforcing a 4K minimum sensor standard on cameras, Netflix are excluding film and pushing a certain crisp aesthetic that is distinctive of HD digital cinema".
But then everybody is shooting digital nowadays... As in, over 92% of all releases in 2017, meaning it's an industry shift rather than a made-for-Netflix issue. Given that Netflix were willing to offer waivers to 29% of the cameras used in their best films of 2020, it also seems as though the standards have plenty of flex for aesthetic choices. Even so, of seven total waivers in that dataset, four were still for a specialist digital camera - the ALEXA Mini - and only three were for film.
The impression I get is that the camera standards can be taken pretty much at face value: "don't waste our time with crappy footage because you cheaped out on hardware, use one of these. If you need to go off-menu, we'll have to talk about it to make sure you aren't doing anything stupid". Technology, cost, and consumer behaviour - including the shift towards streaming on the whole - probably are blurring the aesthetic lines between cinema and TV, I just don't think Netflix's camera standards are meaningfully responsible for that.
I picked up on this as well. Their prime example, David Fincher's Mank, really stood out to me here. Fincher has relied exclusively on very high resolution digital cameras since The Social Network in 2010. They have been a crucial element in the evolution of his visual style. He has spent over 20 years cultivating an aesthetic that feels very intentionally divorced from the limitations of filming with a conventional camera. I do not recall pundits claiming The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo or Gone Girl were not true cinema based on this unique aesthetic, of which Fincher's camera choice is a major component.
According to people like say, Steve Yedlin, the DP of most Rian Johnson movies including Brick, The Last Jedi, and Knives Out (shot on digital to look like film), footage captured by modern digital cameras can be graded and processed to look more or less indistinguishable from actual film.
https://www.yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/index.html
https://www.yedlin.net/OnColorScience/index.html
Shooting on digital doesn't have to look like it was shot on digital. Could anyone tell Knives Out was shot on digital? It's got the colour grade of film, it's got grain emulation that looks indistinguishable from real film grain, it's got halation emulation, it's even emulating gate weave of rolling film.
With a talented enough DP and colour grade team, I think the end result of either digital or film can both end up looking like however the director/DP wants it to look.
Can't say for sure, but I usually can tell very easily.
Yea, I also don't think it's digital alone. It's the sets and camera work that seem strangely consistent to Netflix productions, even spanning huge movie productions, tacky series and documentaries. You look at some actor/actress' talking head in a hotel lobby and it's just... meh. It's like the production is capped exactly at the point of looking "professional" but that extra layer, whatever it is, you might find in an HBO production or cinema exclusive Hollywood blockbuster just isn't there.
I still think celluloid film gives a special feeling to movies and TV shows. I got quite good at spotting movies shot on fim, the grain is incredibly charming and quintessentially cinematic. I was watching Marriage Story recently, and was happy to confirm it was made in 35mm.
Yea, just to make this clear: I'm not dismissing the digital/resolution as a factor and it's likely a huge part of what makes Netflix production so recognizable. What I'm thinking, though: Doesn't the lens and a huge array of post effects have a much larger impact?
Meanwhile... look at the set design of Don't Look Up. It's highly subtle but something is just... off. The furniture in living rooms and offices looks like it was bought yesterday, is too neatly arranged. Don't know how else to say it but there's a feel. I once read an interesting article comparing Netflix studios to more established ones and one point brought up was the huge warehouses with props and costumes those big movie studios can get back to. Netflix, apparently, doesn't have any warehouses. They resell or give away their stuff after each production because there's no money allotted to keeping a permanent physical space operating, all on-demand, baby! Since I hear this, I've been looking for this in feature movies. For example, in the new Spiderman movie, NY apartments look appropriately run down, basement laboratories dirty and messy. That's all happening in-between the scenes we actually remember but IMO it has a huge impact on setting the tone.
I don't think this is so much a Netflix specific problem as it is an industry wide one. The big players in the film industry has basically standardized on a few different cameras. That has lead to all movies looking very similar over the past few decades as digital cinema has taken over.
And I also think the article has things reversed. It's not that films are looking more like movies, but that the production value on TV shows has gotten so much higher over the last decade that they look just as good as movies.
Sharpness doesn't have much to do with sensor resolution, but much more with the lens. If you use a soft lens on a high resolution sensor you'll get a soft image. Then comes post-processing. The 4k requirement says pretty much nothing about the look of the image.
I think the reason why Netflix films seem like TV shows is that they're generally not too good.