Hi-Def .... Is it worth it? - GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

X

Zorgman

Confirmed User

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 6103
Share

Post
#1

Hi-Def .... Is it worth it?

01-26-2007, 09:36 PM

Question for all those video heads out there.

Is HD really needed for filming videos for a paysite?

I don't know too much about HD, but I figure it's only if you have a HD tv or monitor. My boss has me starting to look at camera and we're found the Sony HDR-FX1 is recommended by most sponsors but seems a bit over the top.

---
Tags: None
Paul Markham

Too old to care

Join Date: Jun 2001

Posts: 52942
Share

Post
#2

01-26-2007, 09:58 PM

It's a nice thing to have for the future, but IMHO not for todays Internet.

The quality of the image will do a bit but not much to improve the quality of your porn, in some niches it could make it worse as it will show every zit and mole.

Not sure how good your porn is so don't take this personally. The quality of your porn and photography are two different things.

Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70
Comment
cutievids

Confirmed User

Join Date: Aug 2006

Posts: 773
Share

Post
#3

01-26-2007, 10:43 PM

yeah I generally find with some pics and videos its too good and bright you see when the girl has goos bumps and you can see where she applied make-up

ICQ: 320573202
Comment
Gary_TLX

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2006

Posts: 776
Share

Post
#4

01-26-2007, 11:22 PM

Right now I don't think it's needed, especially not for paysites, but in a few years, your content will be worth more if it's in HD. It's a bit of a headache to shoot HD and don't get me started on editing the stuff. In my opinion it all depends on what you'd like to use the content for.

Quality custom exclusive content:

ICQ: 286786153
email: contact(at)tlxproductions(dot)com
Comment
Fizzgig

Registered User

Join Date: Feb 2004

Posts: 9649
Share

Post
#5

01-27-2007, 01:00 AM

I wouldn't touch it but I don't have that kind of budget.

---'-,-{@ Sassy Grrrl @}-'-,---
Comment
CyberHustler

Masterbaiter

Join Date: Feb 2006

Posts: 28788
Share

Post
#6

01-27-2007, 01:03 AM

seems to be the cool thing to do lately... Test it. If conversions jump from slinging HD then keep doin' it, if not then don't waste ya time.

“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”
Comment
Hunter_ST

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2003

Posts: 763
Share

Post
#7

01-27-2007, 01:05 AM

Shoot in high-def since the price has dropped so much.

But encode it SD (standard def).

The end product, even though it's low def, is decidedly sharper.

And two years down the road, you still have the HD versions and can post them if the web market warrants it.

Enuf said.

Splosh Cash Wet and Messy Fetish Program
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
Comment
Nicolette

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2007

Posts: 274
Share

Post
#8

01-27-2007, 01:05 AM

personally, i think it HD shows too much detail for porn.

www.4realcash.com
email [email protected]
Comment
Zorgman

Confirmed User

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 6103
Share

Post
#9

01-27-2007, 04:11 AM

Ok, those are some good opinions. Thanks guys.
I think the $6000 price tag is a little high compaired to the standard cameras these days. But with saying that, if the content was burnt to DVD and sold then HD might be the way to go.

---
Comment
Peace

Confirmed User

Join Date: Sep 2004

Posts: 5876
Share

Post
#10

01-27-2007, 04:46 AM

Then why asstraffic does HD and they do make money..So there must be difference

Need custom or licensed content? PhotoVideoContent.com
Traffic/affiliates: PrimeAdult.net | ClassyContent relaunch
[email protected] | TG @romAtibet | Teams Peace888
Comment
ucv.karl

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2006

Posts: 498
Share

Post
#11

01-27-2007, 06:12 AM

I don't understand why people could possibly think HDV is 'not ready yet', or 'shows too much detail', or is generally unnecessary for 2007. I couldn't disagree more.

Here is our members size Sample.

People notice the difference between a 1280x720 at ~3.8Mbps and a 640x480 sample at 1.5Mbps.

And the screencaps are perfect for making galleries. No more movie preview images that are lackluster. Everything is top notch.

The bottomline is quality. Currently, HDV is allowing the creation of high quality content that is a dramatic improvement on the current 'standard'.

This is not 2001; people are expecting more.

It's better when you can Switch.
ICQ: 263079754
Comment
StuartD

Sofa King Band

Join Date: Jul 2002

Posts: 29903
Share

Post
#12

01-27-2007, 06:15 AM

Well, video has 2 stages that go by 2 names... regular/old and hi-def/new.
That's how people tend to think of them.

So you can be in with the old or in with the new.

Is it really "needed"? No, but would you rather have the new thing or the old thing? And how much longer will the old thing be around compared to the new thing?

This is me on facebook
This is me on twitter
Comment
stickyfingerz

Doin fine

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 24984
Share

Post
#13

01-27-2007, 06:17 AM

If you arent shooting or buying HD content you are falling behind. We shoot only in HD. If I miss a program on TV and download it I get it in HD. I have dual 22" widescreen monitors so works out great for me.
Comment
seven

Confirmed User

Join Date: Apr 2002

Posts: 2697
Share

Post
#14

01-27-2007, 06:22 AM

Originally posted by Zorgman

Ok, those are some good opinions. Thanks guys.
I think the $6000 price tag is a little high compaired to the standard cameras these days. But with saying that, if the content was burnt to DVD and sold then HD might be the way to go.

So I'm assuming you have found a HD-DVD burner? Where did you find it? When I capture my HD and convert to wmv I don't really see any diff in quality.. I think any high quality SD is just as good or even better for the web.

Toy Rev
Rouge Web Design
Comment
stickyfingerz

Doin fine

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 24984
Share

Post
#15

01-27-2007, 06:30 AM

Originally posted by seven

So I'm assuming you have found a HD-DVD burner? Where did you find it? When I capture my HD and convert to wmv I don't really see any diff in quality.. I think any high quality SD is just as good or even better for the web.

Then you are doing it wrong.
Comment
stickyfingerz

Doin fine

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 24984
Share

Post
#16

01-27-2007, 06:32 AM

Originally posted by ucv.karl

I don't understand why people could possibly think HDV is 'not ready yet', or 'shows too much detail', or is generally unnecessary for 2007. I couldn't disagree more.

Here is our members size Sample.

People notice the difference between a 1280x720 at ~3.8Mbps and a 640x480 sample at 1.5Mbps.

And the screencaps are perfect for making galleries. No more movie preview images that are lackluster. Everything is top notch.

The bottomline is quality. Currently, HDV is allowing the creation of high quality content that is a dramatic improvement on the current 'standard'.

This is not 2001; people are expecting more.

Gah I didnt need to see RAMS cock this early in the morning...
Comment
Lykos

Too lazy to set a custom title

Join Date: Apr 2003

Posts: 31027
Share

Post
#17

01-27-2007, 06:36 AM

Nice for future
Comment
HDADULT

Confirmed User

Join Date: Aug 2005

Posts: 1152
Share

Post
#18

01-27-2007, 09:55 AM

Originally posted by ucv.karl

I don't understand why people could possibly think HDV is 'not ready yet', or 'shows too much detail', or is generally unnecessary for 2007. I couldn't disagree more.

Here is our members size Sample.

People notice the difference between a 1280x720 at ~3.8Mbps and a 640x480 sample at 1.5Mbps.

And the screencaps are perfect for making galleries. No more movie preview images that are lackluster. Everything is top notch.

The bottomline is quality. Currently, HDV is allowing the creation of high quality content that is a dramatic improvement on the current 'standard'.

This is not 2001; people are expecting more.

The future of adult you nailed it.

Would you like to play a Game? - War Games, 1983
Comment
Jim_Gunn

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2003

Posts: 5702
Share

Post
#19

01-27-2007, 10:16 AM

High-definition is great, I have been filming in hdv for a year. But from a busy producer's viewpoint it's a pain in the ass, frankly. It takes more care to light the scenes since one needs triple the amount of light to make it look great, you need more care with makeup, more computing power to process the video, more hard drive space to hold it, the editing is slightly trickier depending on what apps that you use and it takes much, much longer encode the finished files to .wmv or quicktime or other finished formats. And for all this extra work, companies are loathe to pay more for scenes.
Comment
tony286

lurker

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 57021
Share

Post
#20

01-27-2007, 10:36 AM

HDV is not HD lets get that straight its a crap format for the consumer.If you have hot content you could shoot it hi 8 and it would sell. My friend is a mainstream Videographer shoots for TV and 98 percent of his shoots are still betacam. You got at least 3 yrs before its the standard and when that time comes it wont be hdv.
Comment
MBS Auto

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2004

Posts: 1725
Share

Post
#21

01-27-2007, 10:40 AM

HD is the best!! more and more channels are providing HD and have you ever seen movies on HD!! they rock!

Shoes and Boot
Comment
woj

<&(©¿©)&>

Join Date: Jul 2002

Posts: 47880
Share

Post
#22

01-27-2007, 12:12 PM

I would shoot in HD, now it may not make much difference... but if you shoot SD now, few years from now your content will be worthless...

Custom Software Development, email: woj#at#wojfun#.#com to discuss details or skype: wojl2000 or gchat: wojfun or telegram: wojl2000
Affiliate program tools: Hosted Galleries Manager Banner Manager Video Manager
Wordpress Affiliate Plugin Pic/Movie of the Day Fansign Generator Zip Manager
Comment
MarkTiarra

Confirmed User

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 3833
Share

Post
#23

01-27-2007, 12:24 PM

I'm actually surprised that this argument rages on. While it's true that we can make many arguments for why it might not be so much better to shoot HD for web use, the only thing that really matters is if it brings in more sales and member retention. The perception of your client / potential client is far more important than the facts and every single comparison I have done has shown that having HD content (and promoting visibly) increases sales on all fronts. To me that's the end of the argument.

Retired Pornosticator
Comment
Nicolette

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2007

Posts: 274
Share

Post
#24

01-27-2007, 12:26 PM

Originally posted by MarkTiarra

I'm actually surprised that this argument rages on. While it's true that we can make many arguments for why it might not be so much better to shoot HD for web use, the only thing that really matters is if it brings in more sales and member retention. The perception of your client / potential client is far more important than the facts and every single comparison I have done has shown that having HD content (and promoting visibly) increases sales on all fronts. To me that's the end of the argument.

i cannot argue that....very good point

www.4realcash.com
email [email protected]
Comment
latinasojourn

Confirmed User

Join Date: Oct 2003

Posts: 3191
Share

Post
#25

01-27-2007, 02:31 PM

Originally posted by seven

So I'm assuming you have found a HD-DVD burner? Where did you find it? When I capture my HD and convert to wmv I don't really see any diff in quality.. I think any high quality SD is just as good or even better for the web.

the big capital expense in production is modeling fees.

shooting in the latest technology (both hi res digicam and HD video) with models who do not date their looks gives a longer shelf life to the product and higher total ROI over time.
Comment
Zorgman

Confirmed User

Join Date: Aug 2002

Posts: 6103
Share

Post
#26

01-27-2007, 04:40 PM

Thanks again guys. I will take this to my boss. In the end he's the one paying for it, but I think I will recommend HD for shooting as it's the future interest we're looking for, not right now.

---
Comment
seven

Confirmed User

Join Date: Apr 2002

Posts: 2697
Share

Post
#27

02-01-2007, 09:21 AM

Originally posted by stickyfingerz

Then you are doing it wrong.

Or maybe your eyes are deceiving you. Here are 4 myths about HD:
http://reviews.cnet.com/4520-6500_7-...2.html?tag=nav

Myth #1: HD camcorder video is higher quality than SD.
If the only determinant of quality were resolution, this might be true. But, as with digital cameras, it takes a lot more than just sheer numbers of pixels to produce a good picture. The lens, the dynamic range of the sensor(s), and the image processing and compression algorithms can be far more important.

Myth #2: An HD camcorder complements HDTV better than an SD model.
Don't confuse the resolution component of HD with its aspect ratio. Almost any camcorder these days can record wide-screen video if you simply want to fill up that 16:9 flat panel.

Myth #3: If they cost the same, an HD model is a more future-proof choice than an SD model.
As the clash between Blu-ray and HD-DVD illustrates, being cutting edge does not insure against obsolescence, even in the short run. Furthermore, the only real way to stave off the future is to opt for the best video quality you can afford--you're less likely to become disenchanted with a great camcorder than a model bought because it was last year's media darling.

Myth #4: If it's not HD, it's not cutting edge.
Plenty of technological change is happening in the camcorder category without limiting yourself to HD. A small and stylish chassis, the ability to record on flash media, and great still photography capabilities will all preserve your gadget mojo.

Toy Rev
Rouge Web Design
Comment
Expo_Vids

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jul 2005

Posts: 1162
Share

Post
#28

02-01-2007, 09:23 AM

Originally posted by tony404

HDV is not HD lets get that straight its a crap format for the consumer.If you have hot content you could shoot it hi 8 and it would sell. My friend is a mainstream Videographer shoots for TV and 98 percent of his shoots are still betacam. You got at least 3 yrs before its the standard and when that time comes it wont be hdv.

Yeah, but isn't it fun watching the herd run to crappy HDV?

Squirting pussies convert like mad!!! @ Suirting 101
Comment
jact

Confirmed User

Join Date: Sep 2002

Posts: 9134
Share

Post
#29

02-01-2007, 09:29 AM

Damn, I need to email Mayor that he's doing it all wrong!

Free agent
Comment
seven

Confirmed User

Join Date: Apr 2002

Posts: 2697
Share

Post
#30

02-01-2007, 12:05 PM

Originally posted by ucv.karl

I don't understand why people could possibly think HDV is 'not ready yet', or 'shows too much detail', or is generally unnecessary for 2007. I couldn't disagree more.

Here is our members size Sample.

People notice the difference between a 1280x720 at ~3.8Mbps and a 640x480 sample at 1.5Mbps.

And the screencaps are perfect for making galleries. No more movie preview images that are lackluster. Everything is top notch.

The bottomline is quality. Currently, HDV is allowing the creation of high quality content that is a dramatic improvement on the current 'standard'.

This is not 2001; people are expecting more.

Even a SD could look just as good as that HD sample if put in a 1280x720 at ~3.8Mbps. If you mean HD=widescreen, almost any camcorder these days can record wide-screen video it's not unique to HD format but I have to agree with you about the screencaps, yes, they're usually a bit better than screencaps from SD but it's just too much trouble and time-consuming to go HD just for those screencaps, I'd rather get still pics of the scene which would be better than any screencaps HD or SD.

Toy Rev
Rouge Web Design
Comment

Previous template Next

Working...