Live data from Hacker News

The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

haleynahman.substack.com

291–300 of 479 posts

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#291
as someone who used to work at a digital intermediary (DI) company (think photoshop filters but for film) most of this is bollocks.

> But every time I watch something made before 2000, it looks so beautiful to me

No, the author is confusing nostalgia with aesthetics.

Heat for example is a great movie, fun story, good suspense. It looks ok, but its colours are all over the place. you don't notice it, because its an old film and old films should feel like that.

The quote:

> Tungsten allows for more accurate color in camera but LEDs are cheaper, cooler, and more convenient. So the solution is to film on a nice digital camera and fix the color in post.

very much nope. None of the stuff you've seen in films since about 2005 looks like it was shot. No film ever gets to screen without colour correcting. In fact every setup will have a macbeth chart film so that they can conform the colours so they are consistent.

More over, film is colour corrected in 16bit log, which is way more colours than most of us can observe, and a fuckton more dynamic range than can be displayed.

yes shite LED lights have worse spectral response than tungsten, but its fairly easy to correct for (hell if you are good enough you can film under sodium lamps and make it look good. )

but ARRL lights have full RGB, with loads of effects that were not possible before. I as a mere mortal can light a room like the Holywood golden age for https://ymcinema.com/2022/09/26/lighting-a-desert-magnificen...

> Another user mentioned that shooting on film required a level of forethought, planning, and patience that digital simply doesn’t

Yes, it also means that you can't take risks, because every foot of film cost a fuckton to process, you have to rush it to get developed, then view the rushes, print the stuff you like or re-shoot. reshoots are very expensive. If you miss a shot, then you are fucked, because it'll blow a hole in your budget.

digital allows instant playback, much less reset, and longer shooting in much more challenging lighting situations. For example Barry lyndon could be shot without custom lenses.

Digital allows multi camera shooting, meaning that you can get much better acting from everyone, because a "two shot" takes half the time.

So to the meat: "all of netflixs looks the same"

No, you are looking at fashion. Colour and feel of a TV show is completely under the control of the producers/directors/DoP. They colours you are seeing are a conscious choice. When the next Coen brothers movie pops up, you'll see a rush to have warm, low contrast rich colour movies again.

Marvel movies look like that, because they chose to.

Marvel Tv series look like that, because it was a choice.

They respond to fashion, which means that at the moment shit is dark and grundgy, because thats what's in.

Black and white will come around shortly.

TL;DR: the author is talking shit about stuff they are making assumptions about. none of the data there is accurate. Its just a reworked classic: "everything was better in the old days, the youth don't put any effort into the craft" which given that this is literally the tail end of the golden era of TV is utter risible bollocks.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#292

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…

its nothing to do with LEDs

all shots are conformed before they are graded. That means that they shoot a macbeth chart every time they change the lighting, allowing for people to make all the shots look the same before they start to fiddle with the colours.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#293
Stranger Things immediately came to mind when I read the headline. Aside from the amateurish writing and the storyline that quickly became complete non-sense, the look and feel of the show was very much the equivalent of a fast-food chain. Overly saturated colors, everything looks punchy and overly sharp.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#294
Yes, hello. It seems to be a matter of emphasis and sane defaults. Narrative is all about controlling emphasis. Film vs digital changes the default choices around which you build emphasis. Noise is an unreasonably effective tool for creating depth to contain emphatic range, so removing it from the defaults is going to create affective flatness on the margin.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#295
post #285

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There were lots of reports of this with the hobbit, e.g. https://theweek.com/articles/469863/why-isthe-hobbit-making-... . Being on a big screen probably makes it much worse. Also I’d conjecture video games are different. It’s like driving a car. Since you are directly controlling the camera usually, I think this helps your brain avoid nausea. Although there’s plenty of people who can’t play FPS either because it mak…

Those reports were about the imax version though, and I have personally seen that happen in imax theaters showing 24fps content. That’s field of view, not framerate.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#296
With all the special effects and video postprocessing in photos and films today, it's no surprise they look unnatural. I think we're seeing in film and TV the same phenom that's already big in photography and music — digitally filtered and synthesized media feels unnatural. Well duh. It is.

Video and audio are being compressed to exclude noise and 'purify' the primary signal to make the product pop (something that's also making TV ads feel very unnatural today). But this isn't new of course. For decades, postproduction and direction of film and TV has been simplified and its primary signals boosted to make more impact. The cost, IMHO, is that acting has taken a back seat to visuals and background audio, creating the zombified chesspiece actors of today, which are also a big part of this “uncanny valley” of all forms of video. The result is expressive subtleties present in our remaining great actors (who are now age 60+) like Judy Dench or Daniel Day-Lewis are absent in nearly all actors under age 40, unless they got their start in stage or outside American media, where the practice of overproduction has not been as rampant.

I think what we're seeing is simply the viral spread of special effects, digitization, and overproduction into all of media, with video simply suffering its effects last.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#297
post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It is an aesthetic choice. Not one I would make, but it is one. By drenching everything in one monchrome color gradient it is also easier to hide bad set design, costume and VFX. Doing a crystal clear shot with a steady camera, full color and a believeable effect is much harder to pull off (and thus: more expensive). Technically nothing speaks against doing any other style of lighting and coloration, but then you can…

The color tone is used by the artists to impart a mood. Sticking with the GoT theme, looking at the drab colors of Winterfell, Castle Black, etc are meant to convey the dreary nature of the cold. The drab colors of Kings Landing vs the vibrant colors of Dorn or High Garden. When done right, they can serve a purpose that helps the story. No story serving purpose comes from the trend following styles.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Wizard of Oz is color magic.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s hard to argue that it’s an intentional artistic choice if the overwhelming majority of compositions use it. It would be like saying a Monet being viewed through oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere is an artistic choice.

Not necessarily because art does happen in eras. So maybe everyone were impressionists for a batch of years it was the de jure way to paint but in a 100 years it moved on but we still appreciate them. Sure, 48FPS may be the way of the future but that doesn't mean the flavor of 24 FPS won't be appreciated in the future.

No it doesn’t. Lots of different artistic schools have existed at once all through history. Just because some style was invented doesn’t mean that everyone dropped what they were doing and became surrealists.

There are people painting what would be considered impressionist painting now (literally now, I have a friend who frequently paints on sundays and texted to ask before writing this).

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#300

as someone who used to work at a digital intermediary (DI) company (think photoshop filters but for film) most of this is bollocks. > But every time I watch something made before 2000, it looks so beautiful to me No, the author is confusing nostalgia with aesthetics. Heat for example is a great movie, fun story, good suspense. It looks ok, but its colours are all over the place. you don't notice it, because its an ol…

> most of us can observe

Percieve.

Sorry for nitpicking

Post reply on HN