Do You Consider a Country's Size and Film Quality?

I've noticed something interesting after years of watching movies: the impact of a country's origin on the quality and quantity of films. I find myself considering not just the country of origin but also its population. For instance, larger countries like Russia have more landscapes and areas to film, yet I often prefer films from smaller countries like Czechoslovakia. Even though Russia is much larger, I've seen better movies from Czechoslovakia and more mediocre ones from Russia.
When discussing the origins of the best films, I tend to think about the quality per capita. While I might find more American movies I like compared to Italian ones simply due to volume, I believe Italy has a better ratio of good to bad movies.
As for China, despite its vast population, I rarely come across Chinese films that are highly recommended, especially from the 1930s to the 1970s, when Japan seemed to have a more prominent film industry.

__________________
https://www.youtube.com/c/LoyalOpposition

Hungary and Czechoslovakia indeed have crazy population-to-film-quality ratios. Sweden, too.

__________________
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.

Interesting question, never thought about it like that.
From a certain point in time/date my experience has been that South Korea has the highest ratio. I have actually never seen a 'bad' South Korean film.. like 0. (By 'bad' I mean useless/meaningless/garbage/can't even finish..bad).

__________________
Letterboxd
Entertainment log

Hell, Bergman himself could compare to some countries I imagine.

There is a combination of factors at play here and population is more of a byproduct than an actual index. The larger a country, the bigger the chance that it will have a stronger economy and thus a higher volume of films produced. That means that funds for film making can be distributed more easily and to people who aren't necessarily talented enough to make quality films. This can throw off the ratio of 'good' to 'bad' films.

I would assume there is a peak point in which countries have a strong enough economy (which is somewhat related to size) to produce an adequate amount of films, which is not large enough for anyone with a song in their heart to be included, so the most talented professionals get a large share of the pie and therefore the aforementioned ratio seems better.

Of course there are other things to consider such as a tradition for creating films (which could be translated as whether the above conditions existed in the past), political stability (if a country is at war creating films seems an afterthought, though in the aftermath the chaos that ensued seems to inspire good films) and in general a democratic environment (this doesn't necessarily influence the quality of films, but rather the freedom to not have the final product censored). Kieslowski, Tarkovski and Kurosawa are just some examples that spring to mind in the latest point.

This is current population (millions) per entry in my best films list (238 films):

Hong Kong 2.3
France 2.6
USA 2.7
Denmark 3.0
Armenia 3.0
UK 3.4
Italy 4.2
Taiwan 4.6
Sweden 5.0
Ireland 5.0
Czechoslovakia 11.0
Germany 12.0
Belgium 12.0
Japan 17.9
Russia 18.0
Colombia 26.0
Turkiye 42.5
Iran 44.5
Spain 48.0
Korea 52.0
Brazil 107.5
Mexico 128.0
India 354.3
China 1412.0


If I do it based on my top 100, then I get this:

Hong Kong 2.3
Ireland 5.0
UK 5.6
France 5.7
Taiwan 5.8
Denmark 6.0
USA 6.8
Czechoslovakia 11.0
Italy 11.8
Japan 31.3
Russia 48.0
Turkiye 85.0
Iran 89.0
Brazil 215.0
India 708.5

Russia would like a word, comrade.

The same can be said about China, which is why I referred to democratic conditions as another factor that could potentially influence both the quantity and the quality of films produced. Especially since making films is rarely a solitary activity so you can't just pick up a camera and shoot like you would be picking up a pen and paper and write a novel.

Your view is arguably supported by the fact that by my judgement, greater China's 8 greatest films are:

Dragon Inn
A Touch of Zen
Taipei Story
Vive L'Amour
Goodbye, Dragon Inn
Days of Being Wild
In the Mood for Love
Homecoming

All made in Hong Kong or Taiwan (which have a combined population of around 2-3% of China).

This is a good point, and well put. In aggregate, it's population + wealth. And TBH I'd take the latter over the former if you forced me to choose which is more likely to correlate to quality filmmaking.

This is, again, in aggregate, there will always be exceptions. But it's very similar to the Olympics, in that wealthier countries have more people who can dedicate themselves to, for lack of a better description, optional pursuits.

I don't think they correlate. Also consider always the arthouse/festival filter (which by the way tends to favor the European gaze a lot in detriment of other industries/latitudes). I like many Soviet prestige films, but I cringe at some of the Soviet popular comedies I've seen. Similar could be said for several countries; for every Bergman there's ten Swedish directors making films for their local networks that you are likely not going to dig. Czechoslovakia or Hungary were highlighted for their cinema of political subversion/resistance, but that doesn't mean it was the only thing they were making at the time, that every Czech film is Closely watched trains or above in quality, depth and overall international interest.

Also you guys are talking about Chinese cinema in very broad terms considering there have been like six or even seven waves, or as they are called, "generations", all having distinct authors and styles. Like the country itself, the Chinese film industry is simply too vast and diverse to make generalizations.