Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham
We're shooting normal people, well to be honest not shooting at the moment, we are too busy putting up the old content. Normal people have normal skin and that has normal imperfections. Sometimes that leads to a distraction.
A scene that works in SD might not work in HD and if you understand porn you will know why. It has nothing to do with the quality of the visual image, it's about the imagined image.
I don't know if you're a good or bad photographer or a good or bad pornographer. The jobs are very very different. A photographers tools are his cameras, a pornographers tools are his models. Both can use their imagination.
If you want to show me some samples I will be happy to comment on them. I'm known as a hard audience, about the same as members.  |
Paul, don't be patronizing, you are not the only veteran VHS, DVD and web porn producer here. If you are hiring "normal people" maybe that is your problem with such bad skin problems showing up everywhere. I try to hire superior specimens of mostly American female youth and beauty, who have skin good enough to hold up under higher resolution, with some success. :-)
But of course, SD still has its place. I actually agree with DWB and Boss that the trannys and ugly freaks don't need higher resolution! I have been putting up some of my older material on Clips4Sale this week, all shot in SD with only small, low-res screen caps to illustrate the content and I have been successfully selling clips for $6-$10 and 30-50 minute lesbian scenes for $30/pop all week at 320 x 240! Obviously those customers aren't looking for superior resolution. But who is to say that they wouldn't enjoy it more in hi-res if they had access to it?
There is nothing wrong with still filming in SD if it works for you, but going forward it seems silly to me to actually take a philosophical position against it, or divert the argument with simple truisms like how photographers and pornographers create eroticism using their imagination.