The cameras used on Netflix's Original Films and Series

[jonpais]

Just wanted to add one more point, and that’s about Vinterberg and Dogme 95. Many of today’s filmmakers, rejecting the immaculate rendering of digital cinema, are intentionally going for a grungy style, using vintage lenses and whatnot; but nothing in Dogme’s rules precludes shooting with even an Arri Alexa (provided you could handhold it). Those who think Netflix’s rules are arbitrary and restrictive should have a look at Dogme 95’s ‘Vows of Chastity’.

Note: I’m not in any way comparing the streaming giant’s corporate rules to the Danish manifesto!

Shooting must be done on location. Props and sets must not be brought in (if a particular prop is necessary for the story, a location must be chosen where this prop is to be found).

The sound must never be produced apart from the images or vice versa. (Music must not be used unless it occurs where the scene is being shot.)

The camera must be hand-held. Any movement or immobility attainable in the hand is permitted.

The film must be in colour. Special lighting is not acceptable. (If there is too little light for exposure the scene must be cut or a single lamp be attached to the camera).

Optical work and filters are forbidden.

The film must not contain superficial action. (Murders, weapons, etc. must not occur.)

Temporal and geographical alienation are forbidden. (That is to say that the film takes place here and now.)

Genre movies are not acceptable.

The film format must be Academy 35 mm.

The director must not be credited.

Source Wikipedia

[HockeyFan12]

On 11/22/2017 at 7:59 PM, jonpais said:

@HockeyFan12 I think there’s a huge misunderstanding here, no doubt the fault is all my own. Number one, I never meant to suggest that video is superior to film. Let me be perfectly clear - I don’t believe Raging Bull could ever be improved upon! Number two, I realize that these great filmmakers chose the cameras and processing techniques they did, not because they were impoverished, but for aesthetic or philisophical reasons. When I said that some of the films  shot on 16mm might have looked ‘better’ if shot on say a GH5, I did not mean to imply that ‘if only they had had a modern digital camera, their films would be watchable today.’ My point was merely that filmmakers should not be judged based on the camera they shoot with, something even the Cannes film festival can agree on. If I were to rewrite my post, I would definitely change my last statement about not being condescending toward today’s less fortunate filmmmakers! Come to think of it, I don’t know why I included Wong Kar-Wai’s masterpiece in my list - I think I just got carried away rattling off the names of some of the filmmakers I admire the most! His film obviously does not belong there, glad you pointed it out. My bad! I don’t believe I’ve ever had the opportunity to watch a pristine restored print of Chungking Express at the cinema, but would love to be able to one day.

In that case I’m sorry, I overreacted and misinterpreted your post.

I don’t think anyone should be judged primarily by what gear they own or use. But there are nevertheless better choices of gear for different circumstances. Ultimately, your choice of equipment will be one of many choices that’s reflected in the final product. And that’s what I think you should be judged on.

But yes, gear is far from the most important decision a creative will make. For amateurs like me, high end cameras are a much worse choice (imo) regardless of budget… too difficult to operate or steal shots with and only for a marginal improvement in technical image quality. Most of the content I’ve seen on this site that’s been shot on an Alexa or something is usually among the worst looking, because that’s a harder camera to use well without a larger crew and that far outweighs the technical superiority.

But I do think it’s something that matters… on a case by case basis… On the Revenant, the Alexa mattered.

On the other hand, it’s this same thinking that makes me so critical of Netflix’ decision to focus on “true 4k” over whatever the creative team would prefer. Cannes definitely has a better approach–judge the painting, not the brush. But that isn’t to say the brush doesn’t matter, just to say that all that matters is what you do with it. So I mostly agree!

23 hours ago, Mark Romero 2 said:

I have to say that anybody who is both a hockey fan AND a fan of Wong Kar-Wai is ok in my book.

Are you located in the Bay Area by chance???

I remember watching Days of Being Wild at the World Theater on Broadway in The City back in 1990 or '91 when it was first released. That was probably the closest to film nirvana I have experienced.

No I couldn’t afford the Bay Area! Beautiful part of the country, though. 

[jonpais]

@HockeyFan12 Even if someone’s on the receiving end, your criticisms and thought process are so interesting to follow, it’s virtually impossible to take offense. ?

[IronFilm]

On 11/23/2017 at 6:47 PM, jonpais said:

but nothing in Dogme’s rules precludes shooting with even an Arri Alexa (provided you could handhold it)

A back of steel!

6 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

 

On the other hand, it’s this same thinking that makes me so critical of Netflix’ decision to focus on “true 4k” over whatever the creative team would prefer.

Blames the lawyers is my bet.

[Mark Romero 2]

10 hours ago, HockeyFan12 said:

No I couldn’t afford the Bay Area! Beautiful part of the country, though. 

No one can afford the Bay Area!!!

[HockeyFan12]

On 11/23/2017 at 9:36 PM, jonpais said:

@HockeyFan12 Even if someone’s on the receiving end, your criticisms and thought process are so interesting to follow, it’s virtually impossible to take offense. ?

Thanks! I'm flattered. I'll admit I'm wrong pretty often but I do try to think things through!

[IronFilm]

Other developments on the production front from Netflix:
 

Video : https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_c2D6r41PxSdG1fUTZNb0hTV28

 

https://media.netflix.com/en/company-blog/from-script-to-screen-empowering-production-with-technology

 

Quote

One focus of this effort has been an initiative called Prodicle. At its core, Prodicle puts a variety of production application technologies into the hands of our freelance production crew. By creating this foundational environment, we’re able to leverage existing technologies (like Google’s G-Suite) to collaborate with our productions in real-time. Furthermore, we’re able to introduce new technologies that reshape the fundamentals of production planning and logistics. For example, here’s a look at our first progressive web application called Prodicle Move.

Move seeks to answer one simple question: “What is happening on set right now?” We want to put that information into the hands of every user, using a mobile app that showcases key shooting data. The concept in and of itself is not groundbreaking, but the prospects of taking information once found only in emails and PDFs and centralizing it in real-time, opens up countless possibilities for efficiency across the production and back at the studio.

 

[mercer]

This sounds like a production clusterf%&k just waiting to happen. Imagine a bean counter watching the production and telling a director to get another take or to not get another take because Jim in editing said he could use one of the three previous takes. 

[IronFilm]

Micro management turned up to an 11!