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

471–479 of 479 posts

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#471

Post by Nursie »

matt-attack wrote: post #458
Nursie wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cool, so people that want that effect on their movies can use it, it hardly sounds like something everyone would want every time though. Or is impressionism the only valid art form? Also - > happens to be at that perfect balance between ... Yeah na, it's just what you're used to.

See my other sibling reply regarding the "conditioning" argument.

I'm afraid I don't really buy that. I know, having lived through the transition away from PAL/NTSC and (worse) VHS that people will make arguments as to how the old tech softened things, made them look nicer, softer etc. How such and such an existing standard is perfect, and does this, this and this to the brain. How HD is unnecessary and just shows off actor's bad skin and who wants that?

Habituation is powerful, and even if this effect you're talking about does exist, well firstly it's not going to be appropriate for every subject matter. Secondly the technological limitations which led the industry to arrive at that standardised framerate, the chance of that landing on some sort of optimum spot... it's just not believable.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#472

Post by hef19898 »

shagie wrote: post #469
hef19898 wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is some nice equipment! I'm kind of envious, especially if you find time to shoot all of that somewhat regularly. I was that close to pull the trigger on a great condition 80-200 f2.8 Af-D, but then I realized that the, again manual focus, 80-200 f4.5 just sits in a shelf... But heck, is that old thing sharp, I'd say on par with the 50mm. Regarding teleconverters, the old 300mm works incredible with the equally…

It's been a while. My last dedicated time was 2017 (the eclipse). When I lived in California, I went to Lee Vining for two weeks in October every year. http://shagie.deviantart.com https://shagie.smugmug.com And then there was '09 after I was laid off and just drove around for a few months. Outside of that... I really haven't had the time in the past several years to take a dedicated chunk off and just go . Maybe thi…

Those shots are beautiful! I hope you find some time this year, it is difficult when you hold a day job, but someone has to pay for all the trips and such!

I'll look for some used, affordable Kenko rings then, the only G lens I have is the 24-120, all others are either AF of Ai-S ones.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#473

Post by whstl »

antifa wrote: post #468
whstl wrote: post #431

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Lost finale was definitely disappointing, but at some point it was expected. At some point it became clear that the mystery was just a huge MacGuffin, and the writers had painted themselves into a corner. I think that taught newer generations of Showrunners to not make the same mistake. Modern shows like Breaking Bad and Dark managed to finish right on time with perfect endings. (GoT however...)

> I think that taught newer generations of Showrunners to not make the same mistake I'm worried the opposite lesson is being learned here. Most shows "build up" then not worry if it's actually going somewhere or even can have a good ending. Nowadays the exit strategy is first and doremost a cancelation or the next writer's problem.

Yeah, that's hard to disagree with. That's definitely true for a lot of Netflix series.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#474

Post by andsoitis »

ulizzle wrote: post #56
andsoitis wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

But if you look at the chart two years, you'll see how even if it's building up, it's still a steep drop compared to their high point circa in 2021.

Short term knee jerk reaction. Most people in the world with broadband connections still don’t have streaming TV, but everyone wants to watch shows and movies. Netflix is best positioned, focused, and has a stellar leadership team.

Let’s compare notes on stock price in 5 years.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#477

Post by woodruffw »

dylan604 wrote: post #301
woodruffw wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>some of the fastest lenses available at the time ?? more like ever. are you suggesting that we have lenses widely available that are faster today?

This is an unnecessarily hostile reading. I just wasn't sure that it was the fastest lens at the time, and I didn't want to say something incorrect.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#478

Post by vanilla_nut »

jedberg wrote: post #203
vanilla_nut wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sort of? Netflix paid an upfront cost for its own content, but a recurring fee for third party content. So they try to push users to consume their content, which they'll own forever, as a bargaining chip and savings potential when the time comes to renegotiate those recurring fees. So nobody's paying them, but Netflix effectively pays more (in the long run) to show you third party content and would prefer you watch c…

This is actually backwards. First party content costs Netflix more. They license everything the same way -- paying someone else for the content. For example, they didn't make Squid Games or Wednesday. They just got an exclusive deal for a period of time. This actually costs a lot more than licensing already existing content, because they have to pay extra for the exclusive rights and they have to pay enough to cover…

Good point. Is it correct to say that on a long enough timescale, self-produced content is cheaper than licensed content? Or is the production cost so high that that basically doesn't matter?

Makes a lot of sense to push the content that folks can ONLY get on your platform, since that's a reason for customers to stick around. It's too bad they overdo it to the point where I actively dismiss (and get annoyed by constant promotions of) Netflix shows unless a personal friend indicates one is actually worth watching.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#479

Post by jedberg »

vanilla_nut wrote: post #478
jedberg wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is actually backwards. First party content costs Netflix more. They license everything the same way -- paying someone else for the content. For example, they didn't make Squid Games or Wednesday. They just got an exclusive deal for a period of time. This actually costs a lot more than licensing already existing content, because they have to pay extra for the exclusive rights and they have to pay enough to cover…

Good point. Is it correct to say that on a long enough timescale, self-produced content is cheaper than licensed content ? Or is the production cost so high that that basically doesn't matter? Makes a lot of sense to push the content that folks can ONLY get on your platform, since that's a reason for customers to stick around. It's too bad they overdo it to the point where I actively dismiss (and get annoyed by const…

> Is it correct to say that on a long enough timescale, self-produced content is cheaper than licensed content? Or is the production cost so high that that basically doesn't matter?

Depends on the production but it definitely isn't rule or trend. For example, look at this page with costs to make each episode:

https://movieweb.com/best-sitcoms-of-the-2000s-ranked/

Many of those are Netflix originals. What it means to be an original is that it was on Netflix first and it's the only place you can find it at first. And back in the day, that only applied to the USA (now Netflix does worldwide rights, but House of Cards for example premiered on other networks in Europe at the same time it was released on Netflix).

But once that contract expires, anyone can license it for the next go around. Generally Netflix does a long license and locks up IP rights to prevent that, but that just makes them have to pay even more for the content.

If you look at the cost per hour streamed, the originals definitely aren't the best -- stuff like a show from the 1960s that they got super cheap that ends up being super popular end up there. But the originals are the prestige items, so they're willing to be less efficient there for the unquantifiable brand boost.

Post reply on HN