I think the example image at the top of the article does a perfectly fine job of showing the "something" they're refering to, but it's only going to help those few who have already noticed that something, and haven't put their finger on what it actualy is. For readers who haven't noticed the effect, a few comparison images wouldn't hurt.
I don't have links unfortunately.
I think it‘s an AI generated text: a lot of filler words, no clear message and restates again and again a basic concept.
I just cannot understand people’s aversion to including images in instances where the core point of the article or project is visual technology.
It does not take long to take a screenshot or two of either what you’re discussing, as in the case of this article, or what your project is capable of, as in the case of that CSS framework.
‘A picture is worth a thousand words’ has never rung truer in situations regarding visual technology.
GitHub is one of the most valuable troves of information we have on the entire Internet, certainly - and represents countless hours of work from millions of people all over the world, openly contributing and sharing knowledge and tools with others, without the interest of profit.
I don’t think there are many other websites in the world that align with HN’s values more than GitHub. It’s almost invaluable to humanity.
I guess the idea is that the bots can take over writing bug fixes for Windows.
- Apple TV: not sure how - iOS: blocks screenshots (you get a black frame)
Not disagreeing with you, but just answering the implied question of…
> I just cannot understand people…
If I’m creating a CSS framework anyway, I’ve gotta test it. It literally takes 2 seconds - literally - to hit CMD+Shift+4 (I don’t know the Windows equivalent) - and when I publish to GitHub and write my readme, it takes another handful of seconds to add that image into the article.
Since that GitHub page is about a CSS framework, people are much more likely to download, use, fork or contribute to it - if you’ve spent this less than ten seconds to help your potential users out.
There’s lots and lots of utilities and articles for which you wouldn’t need to use screenshots as examples - command line utilities, certain frameworks, etc - but this article is an example of the opposite.
The reason I can’t understand people who would do that - especially in the example of said CSS framework - is if you’ve spent all this time working on something like that, and you’re choosing to share it with people - why not undergo that ~10-15 second long process for their sake?
There is absolutely no reason shooting in 4K HDR on the approved cameras and then going through Netflix compression would result in any of the things they are talking about at the start (moody lighting, etc etc). This is just a stylistic choice when shot / lit / edited. In fact shooting on one of Netflix approved cameras and shooting in something like 4K HDR ProRess or DNxHD gives you a ton MORE flexiblity to colour correct your footage for a completely different look after the fact. If they wanted to they could re-edit The Sandman right now and make the whole thing an insanely colourful show. Goodluck doing that shooting in compressed H264.
TLDR: Netflix just likes greenlighting a lot of angsty content and that kind of content gets lit, shot, and colour corrected like this (current day). Its just the current style at the time. It also looks really impressive if you do have a 4K HDR TV and maximizes the higher dynamic range.
1: No, it doesn't.
b) there are some copyright law problems with screenshots
If you don’t already have a feeling for what this “Netflix look” is, maybe the article just isn’t written for you?
There’s a limit, of course, you expect the reader to be alphabetized, have watched a couple of Netflix movies, etc. but this one may have gone a bit too far on the reader’s assumptions.
Also, I have a background in camera department, post production color grading, etc, so I'm assuming I am the target audience. I also knew what the "netflix look" looked like in my head just from the title. You kind of have to be in the industry to properly know what "look" means. Like when everyone talks about that "Cooke look", you just know what they mean.
Lol, the irony in that sentence did make me chuckle. I mean if you have a background in film (production, etc...) and didn't read the article Im not sure why you commented in the first place? HN was always a place for good discussion, usually about the posted article and (to me which doesnt really matter) the article was very clear. But in the same breathe every article is never meant for every person so maybe its just that.
From the discussions on how Ozark is blue, the battle scene in GoT (yes, it's HBO) was too dark, the action movie with one of the Chrises was orange, etc. It's all just a giving of an opinion on someone else's art. Why in the world did Van Gogh make Starry Night blue? Why is there a wedge shape in DaVinci's Last Supper. It's a level of bloviating.
We all like different things, so you do you
I 100% agree which is why I started with that article probably isn't for you. Especially since you didn't read it but posted as if you had. I get it, no one is the seer of all things I just thought the article was accurate, easy to read and explained the point well. Absolutely to each their own.