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

271–280 of 479 posts

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#271

Post by vmladenov »

antiquark wrote: post #114
gigaparsec wrote: post #11

The number one thing that bothers me the most in the "netflix aesthetic" is the weird looking background bokeh that every scene seems to have. It looks like a cheap gaussian blur filter applied in post production and adds to the fakeness. This is probably due to the optics in some of the latest Red digital cameras, but it's still not convincing. Kinda like 48 vs 24 FPS.

This background blur becomes a necessity if the filmmakers are using the "LED wall virtual set" technology. Otherwise, you could see the individual LEDs if the background was in sharp focus. E.G.: "Why 'The Mandalorian' Uses Virtual Sets" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ufp8weYYDE8

This is why the scene in Mando that’s clearly just some random hill outside LA still looks so much better than anything else in the show. Andor has some great scenes that are shot on location in Scotland.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#272

Post by kuschku »

WhyNotHugo wrote: post #40
gigaparsec wrote: post #11

The number one thing that bothers me the most in the "netflix aesthetic" is the weird looking background bokeh that every scene seems to have. It looks like a cheap gaussian blur filter applied in post production and adds to the fakeness. This is probably due to the optics in some of the latest Red digital cameras, but it's still not convincing. Kinda like 48 vs 24 FPS.

> The number one thing that bothers me the most in the "netflix aesthetic" is the weird looking background bokeh that every scene seems to have. I complained about this with a group of friends the other day and it seemed I was the only one that even noticed it. I feel like I'm taking crazy pills here. Sure, when you focus on something the background is a bit blurry. But on some modern movies, EVERY shot has a bokeh b…

One reason this change happened is the move from super35 to full frame sensors combined with moving to ever faster lenses. f/4 on super35 used to be common, now it's all f/1.4 on full frame, increasing the bokeh massively.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#274

Post by rubslopes »

tested23 wrote: post #259
kzrdude wrote: post #241

Another aspect of this is staffing. It doesn't immediately seem tech related, but it is. There's less people in the background as extras, less people making background scenes or setting up. It can mostly filled in by production technology if necessary. Some movies just seem so empty, and they look "cheap" if you see it in this angle. Some big hollywood production like for example Passengers where there are barely mor…

Another movie that does this is Tenet. There is this massive action set piece at the end, people are literally fighting for the fate of the world. Then you have people running around, shooting at nothing. Are massive set pieces with hundreds of extras just not economically feasible anymore?

I remember that. There were so few people in that scene, it felt uncanny.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#276

Post by [deleted] »

mandymoorefan wrote: post #134

The author doesn't address that blockbuster movies have always found a "trendy look" and run with it. Is what she claims Netflix is doing any different than any other popular cycle in filmmaking? "It's actually, specifically, about how movies these days look. That is, more flat, more fake, over-saturated, or else over-filtered, like an Instagram photo in 2012, but rendered in commercial-like high-def." The "2012 Inst…

[deleted]

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#277

Post by noisy_boy »

I'll take this thread to plug my totally subjective hare brain theory/bias.

I've noticed that I like movies that are shot with the blue filter (or atleast thats what I call it) - everything has a tinge of blue (the filters are almost closer to blue-grey; something like #374358). For some reason, I have noticed that, to me, they also turn out to good movies. Example would be Margin Call[0] (though in some scenes the blue is mixed with a golden hue which actually makes it look nicer); another one is The Grey[1].

[0]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1615147/

[1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1601913/

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#278

Post by orbital-decay »

That can't be the result of using LED ligthing, because modern LEDs are really good and don't require much correction in post, yet movies still look like that. In fact, I don't think you can pinpoint this to a single technical reason.

It's just the industry converged onto the same recipe book - some of that is cost cutting, some is just massive amounts of A/B testing throughout the years.

Demand leads to optimization, which in turn leads to convergence and less varied supply. Which is kind of paradoxical, considering the low barrier and creative freedom available with today's tools. And yes, it really started to happen somewhere in early 2000s, not just with movies and the looks but with everything related to visual entertainment, from games to illustrations.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#279

Post by LegitShady »

kzrdude wrote: post #241

Another aspect of this is staffing. It doesn't immediately seem tech related, but it is. There's less people in the background as extras, less people making background scenes or setting up. It can mostly filled in by production technology if necessary. Some movies just seem so empty, and they look "cheap" if you see it in this angle. Some big hollywood production like for example Passengers where there are barely mor…

to be completely fair to netflix, Amazon spent like $80-100m releasing season 1 of wheel of time and those 8 episodes also looks like lifeless garbage.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#280

Post by colanderman »

h4x0rr wrote: post #240
mort96 wrote: 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.

I watched the new Avatar movie with HFR. Some scenes were in 24fps, some in 48. Everytime it switched to 24fps it became unpleasant for a few seconds. Like playing a video game and getting a frame drop. Sometimes they switched like 5 times a minute. The effect going from 24fps to 48fps was very satisfying though. I don't understand how people can think 48fps looks bad or "fake".

To me, 48 fps per se doesn't look fake -- it's the fake stuff in the shots that 48 fps reveals to be fake.

The first Hobbit movie set me against 48 fps for this reason. The weapons on the characters backs bounced around as if they were made of foam -- because they presumably were made of foam. 24 fps hides this imperfection and lets your brain fill in with a more appropriate interpretation.

The same bugs me about rerenderings of 90s television at higher resolutions. The sets suddenly look fake -- because they are -- but in standard definition you simply can't tell.

Any improvement in media fidelity must be accompanied by a complementary improvement in set/makeup/prop design to avoid this problem. Problem is, at a certain point -- this extra work simply surpasses what is relevant to tell a good story, and is left undone -- and high fidelity reproductions belie this shortcoming.

Post reply on HN