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

[Zorgman]

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.

[Paul Markham]

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.

[cutievids]

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

[Gary_TLX]

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.

[Fizzgig]

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

[CyberHustler]

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.

[Hunter_ST]

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.

[Nicolette]

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

[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.

[Peace]

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

[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.

[StuartD]

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?

[stickyfingerz]

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.

[seven]

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.

[stickyfingerz]

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.

[stickyfingerz]

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...

[Lykos]

Nice for future

[HDADULT]

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.

[Jim_Gunn]

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.

[tony286]

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.

[MBS Auto]

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

[woj]

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...

[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.

[Nicolette]

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

[latinasojourn]

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.

[Zorgman]

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.

[seven]

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.

[Expo_Vids]

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?

[jact]

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

[seven]

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.