|
[QUOTE=Paul Markham;17988955]
If the scene is good the future is fine. Tube prove the viewer doesn't NEED HD to jerk off.
It's a nice bonus, however for many not worth paying $1 a day for. Will viewers watching porn be put off by seeing every wart, pimple and scar in HD?
We sell an illusion of what is real. The closer we get to that illusion the better it is.
If the illusion is spoilt by bad shooting, bad acting, bad faking then the illusion is shattered. If the scene contains more close ups of genitalia than is required it loses it's illusion, because most pussies and asses look the same.
QUOTE]
If you had used a HD camera I think you would know that girls can look better than in SD.
Tubes and free porn LOOK TERRIBLE if blown up on to a large HD TV.
Don't hire girls covered in spots, use powder for the odd one. All pussies and asses are different, as different as a face.
What is this "quality" you are going to add to this shoot ?
For this content I believe people will pay and will have to pay for the bandwidth and the production quality. Of course there is a market for free and cheap porn, there is free and cheap drama on TV, and there is cinema people pay to see, HBO people pay to see, and still people buying quality material on disc.
I you add little value to the shoot then why should people pay to see it?
It is like you have never seen good photography, good cinema or TV...why should porn be judged any differently from other media?
Your logic would be "It looks more real people being killed on amateur video" therefore Hollywood should shoot all its films like "Blair Witch", but they don't and audiences like films in cinemas shot professionally.
Do you still think you can't change lenses on a DSLR ?
|