Live data from Hacker News

The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

haleynahman.substack.com

221–230 of 479 posts

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#221

I've said it and I say it again, most or some of the reasons why it looks weird to us (people who grow up with a TV) come down to camera quality. Most TV camera setups were about lighting and the needed amount. Since a few years cameras are so good, we have almost real blacks and real whites sometimes even in the same frame and its naturally filmed and does not look like total shit. We have crazy aperture sizes and w…

Back in the 80s we had films that were in color. These days, films are all in blue and orange. The blue and orange looks as bad as the 1930s two-strip technicolor, where the palette was green and red. Case in point: House of the Dragon. The beautiful sets and costumes are all hard to enjoy when it's all drab blue and orange. Take a look at the picture: https://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2022/sep/15/house-o... T…

For anyone who wants to see what color movies used to look like, I just watched Purple Noon. It's so beautiful you can just turn the sound off and use it as moving wallpaper.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#222
post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except Barry Lyndon did exactly that.

You’re not wrong, but Kubrick famously used some of the fastest lenses available at the time to shoot the candlelight scenes. I believe the folklore is that he had to borrow them from NASA, so it’s probably a stretch to expect that kind of technical availability in general film productions from the period.

John Alcott, Kubrick's cinematographer, who got an Oscar for that film and is known for using natural light, is probably more responsible for that.

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0005633/bio

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#223
post #78

On a related note, why is Netflix's interface so locked down? Why would it be bad for me to turn off autoplay for trailers? Why can't I say "never show me this show again, I'm never going to watch it"? And why, in this age of AI, and they still putting white text over a white background? That last one, especially, made me say "do people at Netflix eat their own dogfood"?

I think there are three reasons:

1. They've decided to have a single interface for every device and Netflix supports a lot of devices. So it basically can't have any features that require more than a d-pad input.

2. They want to obscure the fact that their catalogue is really quite small. That's why are very limited manual filtering options and no advanced search. You'd very often get 0 results.

3. They're still in the "A/B testing can solve anything" and "we must optimise for engagement!" phase and haven't realised the problem with that. They probably A/B tested showing you stuff you'd already seen, found it increased engagement and said "ok it must be good".

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sorry, I was also thinking of the same director’s City of Lost Children, which is 1995 and still has a teal/orange aesthetic. (Apologies to the French for using the translated titles.) It looks like City of Lost Children was graded by Yvan Lucas via an analog process called ENR. Subsequently, Amelie was the first digital coloring he did, and, since it was before LUTs, his analog experience was crucial. https://www.di…

Is ENR similar to bleach bypass? They seem to be mentioned in the same breath but it's a bit vague.

It believe it’s a specific method for a partial bleach bypass on prints but that’s basically me being ChatGPT from random internet knowledge.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#225
post #191
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will never accept the hate for 48 FPS. 24 FPS looks like garbage. Panning shots are a stuttery mess. 24 FPS looks somewhat okay when the camera is still and only the people in it are moving, but the ridiculous choppiness ruins any moment with camera movement. A higher refresh rate is simply an objective improvement. I don't care that you associate it with bad soap operas.

High refresh rate makes people feel sick. It's "too real", such that the brain can't synchronize what it's seeing to what it's feeling motion wise. Ultimately a 2d plane is not optimal for a realistic experience. By it's very nature, film is impressionist.

Do you have a citation for that? Lots of people play video games on big screens for hours at a time and don’t get motion sickness.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#226
post #14
post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It looked pretty good and it was a great adaptation. It also didn't really look that much like their other shows (many of which are indeed extremely mediocre) and it sounds like you just have some anti-netflix bias.

I'd say it sounds like I made a superficial judgement based on the trailers, which is exactly true as described! Would you say the finished product has more visual flair than the trailers indicate? It may be they intentionally picked shots or changed the trailer footage to fit in with the brand guidelines.

IMO it was a good looking show and I'm not a fan of super hero movies or really Netflix content.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#227
digital can look like crap. but it can also look pretty good. its down to the artistry. easy to fuck up in ways film couldn't be fucked up. and don't discount the fact that everything is being watched on OLED which is not as good as LCD even in rendering subtle gradients such as skin tones.

I'm watching Snabba Cash right now on Netflix. The settings are gritty, the lighting is raw and creative, the colors are splashy and true. It looks great.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#228
post #78

On a related note, why is Netflix's interface so locked down? Why would it be bad for me to turn off autoplay for trailers? Why can't I say "never show me this show again, I'm never going to watch it"? And why, in this age of AI, and they still putting white text over a white background? That last one, especially, made me say "do people at Netflix eat their own dogfood"?

> On a related note, why is Netflix's interface so locked down?

A/B testing. The product org has always been driven by A/B testing, which means it sometimes finds a local maxima which they then stick to. They've also been driven by keeping things simple, both for the user and the developers. Having a single interface means the user gets a consistent experience (ironically broken by having so many A/B tests) and also means that testing on the backend is easier, because you don't have a geometric explosion of combinations of settings to test.

The fewer settings there are the fewer things to test when you want to change something.

> Why would it be bad for me to turn off autoplay for trailers?

Because A/B testing has shown that overall it's better for customer retention. They're willing to give up some users in exchange for the gains they get from having it on.

> Why can't I say "never show me this show again, I'm never going to watch it"?

Because people lie to themselves. A lot of people will say, "Schindler's List is an amazing movie!" and keep it on their watch list, but yet never watch it again, and then will say "Jackass 3 is the dumbest shit I've ever seen" and never put it on their list but watch it 15 times. People's intentions and actions don't always match. Netflix used to have a way to remove stuff from being shown, and then get calls into customer service from people who had chosen that button asking how to get the movie back because they actually want to watch it.

> And why, in this age of AI, and they still putting white text over a white background?

While you could fix this with AI, it would take a heck of a lot of computer power for a relatively small fix for few people (not a lot of people use captions). You'd have to review every film with every set of captions. That's a lot of hours of AI review.

> That last one, especially, made me say "do people at Netflix eat their own dogfood"?

When I worked there, most everyone watched Netflix every day. In fact, the only thing we didn't dogfood was the billing system because we all had free Netflix, and then when it broke, they gave everyone an $8/mo raise and told us all to sign up for paid accounts so that we could test the billing system with different billing days and different payment methods.

But very few that I knew of who used captioning. Most people don't like it and find it distracting. So when there were captioning errors they were usually caught by customers.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#229
post #78

On a related note, why is Netflix's interface so locked down? Why would it be bad for me to turn off autoplay for trailers? Why can't I say "never show me this show again, I'm never going to watch it"? And why, in this age of AI, and they still putting white text over a white background? That last one, especially, made me say "do people at Netflix eat their own dogfood"?

Not just interface lockdown, but the insistence that They Know Better. Netflix, YouTube, pretty much any video service I've tried, actively prevents someone from excluding search results while simultaneously putting the offerings They Want You To See toward the top, almost without regard for the search prompt. I know that this would make the mile-wide, inch-deep problem for most catalogs readily visible to many people, but not being able to say, "DON'T GIVE ME THE RESULTS I DON'T WANT", does not endear a site to this user and many others.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#230
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…

Vignette is a useful and appealing effect. That doesn’t mean a lens with vignette is superior. The images straight out of the camera may be more appealing. Yet on the other hand, with a low vignette lens, you can add exactly as much or little as you want in post.

Film vs digital seems very similar, with a greater degree of “natural processing” happening in film.

Post reply on HN