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

31–40 of 479 posts

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#31

Post by Arainach »

ulizzle wrote: post #16
kqr wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm highly skeptical of the technical claims you're making here. Quality photography paper has about 10 stops of dynamic range (which is why the zone system for composition and printing goes up to X). While the negatives themselves may have slightly more dynamic range, there's also the clarkvision page[1] indicating they, in fact, have less dynamic range. This makes sense: you have less area to work with, and need to…

Do you disagree that film looks better than digital?

I do. The talk of dynamic range, etc. is nonsense. That may have been true in 2008, but sensor technology has improved incredibly,

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#32

Post by jcelerier »

jmondi wrote: post #22
ulizzle wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you disagree that film looks better than digital?

This is a completely subjective opinion though. One person could prefer film, and another digital. What does this prove?

Maybe it's subjective, but if you ask X million random people and, say, 51% prefer film, then film is better than digital in the only metric that matters (which is, "people liking it"). In practice I'd guess it'd be more 70/80%...

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#33

Post by oxfordmale »

sho_hn wrote: post #2

I decided not to watch their Sandman adaptation despite generally positive reviews because the unmistakable and garing Netflix aesthetic of the trailers soured me on the prospect. It's like they ruined a graphic novel with an AI style transfer to "in the style of Netlix".

I am happy for Sandman to have this slightly surreal aesthetic, as it fits with the story line. It can be more annoying in "real life" stories.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#34

Post by AstixAndBelix »

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…

This is utterly false and bordering religious beliefs.

Steve Yedlin has dedicated decades of his life to ultimately prove [1] that digital and film can achieve the same exact look, save for the fact that digital is infinitely easier to deal with.

[1] https://yedlin.net/DisplayPrepDemo/index.html

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#35

Post by miohtama »

ulizzle wrote: post #16
kqr wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm highly skeptical of the technical claims you're making here. Quality photography paper has about 10 stops of dynamic range (which is why the zone system for composition and printing goes up to X). While the negatives themselves may have slightly more dynamic range, there's also the clarkvision page[1] indicating they, in fact, have less dynamic range. This makes sense: you have less area to work with, and need to…

Do you disagree that film looks better than digital?

There is nothing film can do that digital photography cannot do today. Any claims of film superiority must be based on subjective interpretation and existing familiarity with film like look.

Digital cinema can 100% emulate film like look if they wish to add rendering artifacts.

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#38

Post by MengerSponge »

ulizzle wrote: post #16
kqr wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm highly skeptical of the technical claims you're making here. Quality photography paper has about 10 stops of dynamic range (which is why the zone system for composition and printing goes up to X). While the negatives themselves may have slightly more dynamic range, there's also the clarkvision page[1] indicating they, in fact, have less dynamic range. This makes sense: you have less area to work with, and need to…

Do you disagree that film looks better than digital?

Film was a lot more expensive, so there's a selection bias. Digital is newer, so we haven't yet benefited from survivor bias.

In the hands of a sufficiently talented team, film does not look better than digital, because digital can be made to look just like film: https://www.polygon.com/2020/2/6/21125680/film-vs-digital-de...

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#39

Post by the_af »

indigodaddy wrote: post #3

Don’t watch Netflix movies. Watch actual lower budget/indie movies like Red Rocket that still look and feel like movies..

Note that TFA is not arguing that Netflix movies are bad as movies, it's just making an observation about how they look (which the author dislikes).

Re: The contagious visual blandness of Netflix

#40

Post by WhyNotHugo »

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 background. Like, imagine sitting down for dinner, you focus on your sandwich and suddenly the plate and table are blurred and out of focus. It's exaggerated to the point where it seems more unrealistic than if they hadn't done any post-prod.

Post reply on HN