This is one of the most depressing theories I've read about why modern movies look like shit now. It is literally to save money on bandwidth. It makes too much sense not to actually be one of the driving factors behind this excessive use of depth of field in everything these days.
>>219861436ummmm in ENGLISH please?
>>219861436I dont get how this would even work in terms of quality
>>219861510>>219861518Basically, the less information there is on screen the less bandwidth you have to use. So if the only thing in focus is a character talking and 70% of the rest of the screen is blurred, you need like 1/5th the bitrate to make that look high def.All of these modern encoders thrive on this because obviously (for good reason) we use variable bitrates, not every shot needs the maximal amount of bitrate to deliver good quality, so a shot that has a ton of visual information in it may need to push 8000kbps to look acceptable at 4k, but if that same shot had less visual information in it (ie it's slathered in depth of field hiding all of the visual information behind a blur) you can get away with half that bitrate.
>>219861436Ironically, the Netflix look is awful in low-bitrate.
isn't netflix all compressed in the first place?
>>219861624maybe we should just kill every executive involved with movies and start over
>>219861436>Some retard on reddit said some retarded shit >Believe it and repost it here Any movies for this feel?
>>219861436they look like shit because people keep watching. stop watching
>>2198616964chan
>>219861436I work at Netflix and I decide which camera lenses are used (not the only thing that I do there mind you) and I can tell you that this redditor has no idea what he's talking about
>>219861695Blocking thirdies from the internet would help too.
>>219861436very interesting theory. Netflix wants to reach places with bad internet so its actually quite plausible.
Let's point out every problem except the most obvious one (incompetence & loss of mentorship programs)
Entire argument is retarded btw.>financial considerations impeding la creatividad bad!Just play the movie in your head if you don't like it.
>>219861696Liar Liar but he just got redpilled and every scene is just him denying the holocaust
>>219861721Sluw-dwelling third worlders browsing the internet on their phones have fuckall to do with decision making in the film industry.
>>219861436>I'm a tiny part of the film industry >My company doesn't even specializes in doing this>I somehow know everything about the thought process of our customer, I can basically read their minds or I'm so high up in this lens company that Netflix just tells me everything Riveting and totally believable. Only if you're extremely retarded of course
>>219861747I'd watch it
>>219861810Even if any of that were true (it isn't) why would they tell them that?>Netflix:Yeah, so we need these camera lenses to make our movies and tv shows as shitty as possible
I love going to 4chan to read random takes taken from reddit and XSuch an original website truly
>>219861747uh, wouldn't that mean he believes that the Holocaust happened? the subversive option would be "main character in Liar Liar becomes advocate for Holocaust remembrance". what comedic point were you making?
>>219861939Seething kike lmfao
>>219861911They came right out and said they write their original shows so that characters repeat themselves so viewers who are scrolling on their phones don't get too lost. Optimizing the look of their content for streaming is more believable than that.
>>219861436Who cares? Just don't watch Netflixslop and if you do, go fuck yourself.
>>219861436>this guy on reddit is totally a professionalDo you also believe that retarded attention seeking faggot here that claims he's a cameraman
>>219862002You got any scenes like that? Would like to see those.
>>219861927what can you expect from zoomers, if they can’t spam emojis they copy and paste, it’s all they know.
>>219862168He might actually work at some lame lens factory and is daydreaming about being in the film industry. Talking to the CEO of Netflix. It's hilarious how pathetic it is.
>>219861696Not OP but I’ve been saying that for like 6 years here at least
>>219861939are you retarded?
>>219861436All media is now made to be cropped into tiktok videos, it's centered on the middle third
>>219861624Surely a pixel is a pixel, so focus shouldn't matterAnd higher bitrate just means more and smaller pixels?>This is what I actually believe>>219862002"They" meaning Matt Damon and Ben Affleck, and they're just repeating standard practice in TV writingSeinfeld repeats things too
>>219861436>Uses less bandwidthIs this even a big deal in 2026?
>>219862358Yes, streaming servies are constantly gutting their streaming quality to save on bandwidth.
>>219861436bring fucking ai right now. Hollywood are such shit
>>219862385>>219862358And they use camera lenses when they make movies or TV shows.We cracked the case, guys, this random post on reddit has to be true.
>>219862404saar
>>219862338>And higher bitrate just means more and smaller pixels?no and you can demonstrably prove this in many, many ways. Here's one way of proving it, which one of these jpegs is bigger and why do you think that is. These images use the same quality settings and have an equal amount of pixels.
>>219862455
>>219862455>>219862463So now you know why focus matters. If only 50% of your image is in focus at any given time, you are using half the amount of bitrate that would be required had it been in full focus. So a cost effective way of saving money on bitrate is absolutely to cover your shots in depth of field because the encoder is going to treat that blurry background as non-important information that does not require a high bitrate to look good.
>>219861810It actually makes a little sense. Netflix is starting to get told by other countries theyre taking up too much bandwidth and need to pay for it
>>219862537I know. Every random post on reddit is actually true. It makes sense. Again. Only if you're extremely retarded.
Fewer calories
>>219862338All digital visuals are encoded in one way or another and it's not simply "color red in pixel 0,300" repeated separately for all pixels except in raw formats (which the average user never deals with)
https://netflixtechblog.com/optimized-shot-based-encodes-for-4k-now-streaming-47b516b10bbb?gi=d25b7eb36207Fig. 1: Example of a thriller-drama episode showing new highest bitrate of 11.8 Mbps
>>219862699Fig. 3: Example of a sitcom episode with less action showing new highest bitrate of 6.6 Mbps>Sometimes we ingest a title that would need more bits at the highest end of the quality spectrum — even higher than the 16 Mbps limit of the fixed-bitrate ladder. For example,> a rock concert with fast-changing lighting effects and other details or> a wildlife documentary with fast action and/or challenging spatial details.
>>219862734>>219862699I was always aware that Netflix (and others) streamed sub-par quality videos but these are absolutely horrendous. Remind me to pirate absolutely everything from now on
>>219862841A:10 V:10thanks YIFY
>>219862627>>219862455thanks friendsI still don't truly understand the technicals but at least I kind of get it, it's like compressed or sumfin and the more variation within the image - imagine, the more distinctly coloured pixels within a particular grid sector - the more informationally complex the image, and the less compression is possibleIt's like how you can have two text documents, each 10,000 characters, but one's an excerpt from a novel and the other is just>You are a homosexualcopy-pasted 500 times, the latter can be compressed down much smaller.Something like that?Here's a question: did TV, either broadcast or cable, have this same type of bandwidth problem, and if so did the networks impose similar limitations on the cinematography?
>>219862876kekHey, at least I'm not paying for it
>>219862889probably, that's why tv-movies and movies have different grammar>color>contrast ratios>number of closeups
I don't know if it's true, but I read speculation that streaming platforms apply denoising filters to anything shot on film because film grain makes the image more complex (ie needs higher bitrate). Seems crazy but there are tons of people who buy new tvs and leave frame interpolation on and see nothing wrong.
>>219863041>film grain makes the image more complextruehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shannon%E2%80%93Hartley_theorem
>>219863041>>219863082blurays thankfully leaves all this stuff intact but the future is grim because it's gonna be all digital and most of these streamer giants do not care about quality at all. I'm autistic enough to notice this and love seeing the texture of the image
>>219861436Is there anything more pathetic than starting a thread with a screenshot of some fag's post on reddit?
>>219863161At least it's not one of the hundreds of daily /pol/nigger threads on this board.
>>219861436Depth of field and other blurs hide low effort put into backgrounds and whatever else should be there. Games have created more and more blurs the last decade and they both look awful and ruin performance.
>>219863132Even UHDs are compressed. There's enough space to make it unnoticeable but some companies don't give a fuck and do a shitty job anyway. Still better than streaming but annoying as he'll if you're cursed with autism.
>>219862699Thanks yify the graph.
>>219862889>the more informationally complex the image, and the less compression is possibleExactly.TV is all digital now so the same limitations apply there also. I don't know much about analog, I'm not even sure if any compression was applied at all because I doubt consumer electronics back then could decode shit
>>219861436>blur the background to save bandwidth>cinematographers start to use ridiculous low levels of light>the compression artifacts become more apparentyou win some, you lose some
>>219863675Modern cinematographers can't illuminate for shit in general
>>219862516>>219861624I can understand how some Twitch streamer would care about that, but would Hollywood or even Netflix really care about the file size? I guess Netflix might for their streaming but I assumed they had resources where they wouldn't really care about that if it meant sacrificing quality.
>>219862425yeah saar. fuck Netflix. fuck Hollywood. bring ai
>>219862699for comparison
>>219863851If you were hired to make something for Netflix, and they had recommendations for cameras, would you fight back? Auteurs exist, but they are not the driving force of most projects now. This is like in the 50's or 60's when most films were made in black and white, simply to cut cost. There were bigger projects that went for full color. I would debunk the bandwidth reason as being the sole driving force for this decision though. Shallow depth of field and filming like "TV" over movies is in general cheaper production. More set up is more expensive, less is quicker and saves money.
Wasn't it Battlestar Galactica that started this stylistic meddling trend when they shot the miniseries in 16mm with such extreme grain that their bitrate allocations couldn't cope with it, and every Sci-Fi channel series from that point forwards was mandated to be shot in digital?
>>219863851>but would Hollywood or even Netflix really care about the file size?Clearly they care, because Netflix has some of the lowest bitrates out of all the streaming services, none of which are particularly high by the way. A 1080p bluray sits at around 30mbps bitrate, netflix at 1080p you're lucky if you get 6mbps, more like you'll sit in a range between 3-5mbps, even lower if you're using their latest AV1 encoder (as low as 1mpbs) So they could triple their bitrates and it still wouldn't be at the quality of a bluray. Their 4k rips have lower bitrates than 1080p blurays do.
>>219863161>Is there anything more pathetic than starting a thread with a screenshot of some fag's post on reddit?Scouring the board for threads to complain about
>>219863675Goddamn we're back in the DivX days.
>>219864987Based BSG
>>219861436I figured this out watching the Scrubs and MitM reboots back to back with the original series. The reboots had blurry backgrounds while the original series had equal focus on the backgrounds and foregrounds. Once you see how every show and movie have PS3 game backgrounds, you can’t unsee it.
>>219863675Is there supposed to be a difference? Looks the same on my phone.
Streaming>Lower quality due to bitrates and internet speeds>Literally lower quality film making because of that>No physical release, stuck forever on servers in inferior quality>Can be removed whenever>Can be retroactively censored and changed>Have to keep paying to access itStreaming is the great cancer of entertainment.
>>219861436Unsub from Netflix, morons
>>219865714yeah the scrubs reboot looks so bad because of it, which is crazy because they actually do have a whole set built. Everything that does this excessive DOF shit just winds up looking like cheap commercials, it's so sickening
>>219861436>>219861624is that why Ultra HD has a shitfilter?
>>219861436it's the netflixization of cinema
>>219861436I noticed camera works sucks these days, it's too shaky and zoomed in
It's not just bitrate. Deep focus requires good looking and meaningful backgrounds, intentional lighting, blocking. If you can blur everything out but your actor with shallow DOF, who gives a fuck what's behind them? Who cares about lighting? It's just going to be a big blur anyways. This is all about saving money - minimizing planning, minimizing time on set, minimizing equipment, minimizing crew. Churn that goyslop out. And whatever your problem is, it can outsourced to a third world production studio and fixed in post.
>>219861436shallow dop w/ a good lens looks good, but it is a shitty reason to do it.
>>219863249In games they are completely retarded, yes, because they're trying to emulate a physical effect of a glass optic focusing on something to look "cinematic". In film it can be good, not for saving bandwidth but to bring attention to a key moment of an actor's performance. It can have a certain aesthetic, for example if there are lights in the background.
>>219861436i have camera lenses and you have to trust me.
I am a pirate and an encoder and I don't have a clue what the fuck is that faggot trying to say.
>>219863976>>219862734Could you please explain what exactly I'm supposed to be looking at here? I'm genuinely interested, but I don't know anything about this stuff
>>219861927What else you got going on?
>>219861695oy vey
>>219862338I think some people already kind of explained this but the easiest way to explain is that all modern file types use compression. And compression when used for computers basically means converting the data in an instruction to reconstruct it.If the inctruction of "make 1000 pixels that look very similar and only get a bit redder here" is shorter than repeating the pixel's position and color 1000 times then that is successful compression.The more bespoke unpatterned detail in a file, the less a computer will be able to compress that image in few steps of large repeated instructions, the more amount of data it will have to send to fill all the pixels on the screen.
>>219870952I'm gonna simplify it further for the retards that can't grasp it.BLURRY SMOOTH AREAS = LESS DATA TO TRANSFERSHARP AREAS WITH LOTS OF DETAILS = MORE DATA TO TRANSFER
>>219861696It's entirely in-line with the soullessness and overall enshittification of all aspects of life though, and with each passing day, reality becomes stranger than fiction.
