Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

haleynahman.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 479 posts

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#41

Post by antiterra »

PKop wrote: post #4

It's hinted at here, but film produces a much better overall look than digital. It is just that digital is way cheaper and easier to work with. There is certainly more versatility in what you can create in post production with digital but the base look of what is captured is more beautiful on film, and this is the same with photographs. Look at high quality old images captured on film, they blow most digital images o…

None of this is true, nor does it need to be. As my photography professor says, “digital is better, but I don’t want better.”

Roma is as beautiful as anything shot on film, Amelie from 1995 is as teal-orange medium-shot photo filter as anything on Netflix. The Crown is often beautiful because of impressive practical lighting effects.

[EDIT: Amelie is from 2001, I mixed up the date with the same director’s City of Lost Children from 1995]

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#42

Post by eschneider »

PKop wrote: post #4

It's hinted at here, but film produces a much better overall look than digital. It is just that digital is way cheaper and easier to work with. There is certainly more versatility in what you can create in post production with digital but the base look of what is captured is more beautiful on film, and this is the same with photographs. Look at high quality old images captured on film, they blow most digital images o…

Those 80's and 90's night scenes aren't better because they're shot on film. They look better because they're better LIT.

Digital is easier to work with in low light some productions will try and save money by cutting back there. Can't really do that with film w/o it being painfully obvious.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#43

Post by atdrummond »

PKop wrote: post #4

It's hinted at here, but film produces a much better overall look than digital. It is just that digital is way cheaper and easier to work with. There is certainly more versatility in what you can create in post production with digital but the base look of what is captured is more beautiful on film, and this is the same with photographs. Look at high quality old images captured on film, they blow most digital images o…

Soderbergh has shot his last few films on iPhone and they look fantastic. Lighting and framing while shooting and good editing and grading afterwards are far more important factors.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#44

Post by swimfar »

faitswulff wrote: post #18
donatj wrote: post #13

> Everyone is lit perfectly and filmed digitally on raw and tweaked to perfection. It makes everything have a fake feeling to it. It wasn’t until I started watching “Stuntmen React” videos on Corridor’s channel recently that I realized people are even still doing stunts. The footage in modern movies is so massaged and strangely well lit that it feels fake to the point that it might as well be the CG as I’d assumed it…

> You’re not getting the benefit of injuring these poor stuntmen As someone who knows a lot of stunt people, I'd just like to point out that the benefit is not in injuring them, it's in the effortless action scenes. But yes, a byproduct of the action are the injuries. We really need to credit stunt people better. They're the most likely to actually lose their lives during filming. Hence why some are pushing for a stu…

That's not at all what he meant. He was saying that in both cases the stunt man is getting injured, but in the case of digital it doesn't look better than CGI, so at that point why not just do CGI and eliminate the injuries.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#45

Post by royjacobs »

PKop wrote: post #4

It's hinted at here, but film produces a much better overall look than digital. It is just that digital is way cheaper and easier to work with. There is certainly more versatility in what you can create in post production with digital but the base look of what is captured is more beautiful on film, and this is the same with photographs. Look at high quality old images captured on film, they blow most digital images o…

Tarantino uses film because he likes the artifacts film gives, not because it's objectively better. Same for PT Anderson. Indeed, both directors favor grungy 1970s aesthetics, which should give you an indication where they're coming from, stylistically. Nolan typically uses large film gauges like 65mm which are not comparable to 'regular' 35mm film.

Additionally, film does not have more dynamic range than digital. Take the latest sensors used by the Arri Alexa cameras for instance, they have a range of 17 stops. This is better than regular 35mm film. [1]

[1] https://www.arri.com/en/camera-systems/cameras/alexa-35#2730...

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#46

Post by andsoitis »

ulizzle wrote: post #21
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is true for the people writing articles about "The Visual Blandness of Netflix" - which makes me wonder who they're actually writing to, beside the echo chamber. A24 is great for this crowd. But, they're already aware of it... The majority of people watch TV and movies to be mindlessly entertained, not to be enlightened by some high-form of art. Netflix and Disney+ is just fine for this crowd. You're not…

If the majority of people are just fine with watching Netflix and Disney+ how do you explain their steep drop in stocks?

Netflix added more than 7 million new subscribers in the last 3 months, bringing the number of households to over 230 million worldwide. And that's just people who are paying. Many people share their accounts so we can assume another few million people who regularly watch but don't pay.

https://variety.com/2023/tv/news/netflix-subscribers-earning...

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#48

Post by donatj »

faitswulff wrote: post #18
donatj wrote: post #13

> Everyone is lit perfectly and filmed digitally on raw and tweaked to perfection. It makes everything have a fake feeling to it. It wasn’t until I started watching “Stuntmen React” videos on Corridor’s channel recently that I realized people are even still doing stunts. The footage in modern movies is so massaged and strangely well lit that it feels fake to the point that it might as well be the CG as I’d assumed it…

> You’re not getting the benefit of injuring these poor stuntmen As someone who knows a lot of stunt people, I'd just like to point out that the benefit is not in injuring them, it's in the effortless action scenes. But yes, a byproduct of the action are the injuries. We really need to credit stunt people better. They're the most likely to actually lose their lives during filming. Hence why some are pushing for a stu…

I worded that somewhat poorly. I didn’t mean to insinuate that injuring them was the goal, I meant to say we are not getting benefit from the final product that justifies the means. I have reworded the post.

To my point though, the “effortless action” is the problem, the final product of all this work and effort feels effortless in that it feels floaty, fake and without consequence. You don’t watch a modern fight scene and get the visceral reaction older things bring.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#49

Post by royjacobs »

antiterra wrote: post #41
PKop wrote: post #4

It's hinted at here, but film produces a much better overall look than digital. It is just that digital is way cheaper and easier to work with. There is certainly more versatility in what you can create in post production with digital but the base look of what is captured is more beautiful on film, and this is the same with photographs. Look at high quality old images captured on film, they blow most digital images o…

None of this is true, nor does it need to be. As my photography professor says, “digital is better, but I don’t want better.” Roma is as beautiful as anything shot on film, Amelie from 1995 is as teal-orange medium-shot photo filter as anything on Netflix. The Crown is often beautiful because of impressive practical lighting effects. [EDIT: Amelie is from 2001, I mixed up the date with the same director’s City of Los…

Amélie is from 2001, not 1995. Interestingly, it is one of the first films that was colour corrected completely digitally. This is also why the movie's colour palette is so striking. Not necessarily to everyone's taste, but I really found it to 'pop' in the cinema.
Post reply on HN