HD sucks. I don't know why people make it. I don't know a single surfer that gives a fuck.

Reminds me of color television when it was invented. One more reason to keep people busying TV sets. Nothing more than eyecandy.
I agree, if the content regularly sucks, then it will also suck in HD :1orglaugh

I'm almost 100% sure that those HD samples are actually encoded to H264... hence the awesome quality. Not to mention that most actually come from the source (not HD, but much higher raw footage).

The 'Flash Player 9.0.115.0' requirement gives away the h264 format

Doesnt really matter what codec is used, just so it looks good. The point is it is delivered in super high quality with no buffering instantaneously. So it seems if done properly file size vs quality is becoming less of an issue.

Cave Creek CDN will be offering HD streaming in h.264 Flash 3.0 or Silverlight at the end of April. HD is a challenge on numerous fronts and without a decent delivery system no matter how good it looks users will get frustrated with the wait.

If there are any folks interested in doing a beta trial with us feel free to hit me up on email. or ICQ.

We are underway on this and its been great kicking some ideas around with Brian the last few weeks. :thumbsup

file size VS quality is becoming less of an issue thanks to the codec used. H264 deliver high quality video at small bitrates, hence no need to buffer and wait for long (not to mention that in MP4 files with h264 encoding, is possible to set the buffering time in the header of the file, and as long as the bandwith of the client is plenty, playback will happen almost instantaneously)

besides, unlike the cookie cutter templates most people use to encode their videos, the samples on that page are encoded per scene, and customized depending on the content for each clip. Trying to compare or achieve the quality on those samples with HD porn is completely unrealistic.

Thank you, know what looks good in hd the travel channel. When you show open fields or buildings, for people I dont like it.
Also most of the mainstream stuff they are showing online was shot with betacam or 35mm not hd.

I love when the tour says "true HD video!" and you get in there and they've got some 640x480 WMV files with a bitrate of 1200k or something that look like they were dubbed from a betamax tape.

im sick of hearing this HD bullshit.

half the people talking about HD have no idea what they are talking about.

people who claim to have HD video looks the same as a 720x480 fucking download or stream at 1k.

and how many surfers have a HD Monitor and and HD card in their computer with all the cables that it requires. ANSWER: maybe a tiny fraction.

Again, you are not looking at HD anything without an HD monitor and and HD card in the machine.

Not happening.

some people think that by making their video's aspect ratio 16 x 9 ... they have recorded HD video...... LOL

over your content :)

regardless

http://www.hulu.com/hd/15993 these look far better than any other video ive seen.

maybe im not as up on the hd technologies, but curious why one would need an hd monitor and videocard. as long as u can support the proper resolutions that seems more like some marketing ploy to get people to buy new monitors and video cards. seems like if ur monitor can support displaying 1080lines vertically its already hd...

i like HD poo

Considering many movies are shot with HDV cameras I would say its FAR from completely unrealistic. :winkwink:

I agree!! After checking out different sites to see how they were using HD I came to the conclusion that their isn't really any standard! For the most part I think it is supposed to mean large resolutions and higher quality.

Example. This footage was shot with an xha1 canon HDV camera.

http://www.papag.net/red/Red.mov

this is all true; however, when recording HDV, you are recording to a mini dv tape, and presumabley capturing it with a Firewire cable.
Through this process there are several levels of compression that happen. So unless you capture with some sort of breakout box which are expensive, it is not true HD, it is HDV.

I Invented Fool HD.

I shit you not, bro!!!!

yep HD is a real tangle to sort out and a real bitch to move the files around and render....I think the clients really want two things from HD content, well three things: saying they have HD, 16x9 aspect rations and clean, crisp screen caps. -bmb

btw I've shoot all three hd formats and prefer the hdv and avchad. the 100 megabits kicked my ass on the dvc pro :(

Shooting HD is not of interest to people interested in just making or watching reality porn...

But as anyone can do it the competition will be strong and the value of whats produced low...

HD is mostly used to shift TVs and is difficult to define. Feature films using 4k format of uncompressed data down to 720 line formats.

Blu ray and video projectors will look best with material shot 1920 x 1080 progressive. Most of this will be very compressed right from the shooting down to delivery.

But if investing in a film costing a few thousand dollars it is worth shooting in HD now to prolong exploitation as bandwidths increase.

The real interest to us is how the HD format allows good lighting composition and sets. And beautiful girls look even more beautiful !

So the HD camera, editing is only part of the equation ...much more money can be spent of lighting, sets, models grading... then the results are fantastic (if you want something more than just fucking)

The irony ( like brassy and goldy) is that video destroyed adult film production has now developed to such a high technical level that is now where film was and presents the same demands on production...

We are not really interested in making porn as we find it boring conservative dull exploitative and shoddy...but HD is a great new tool for making new erotic films for new audiences...

I was just about to say:

pics or stfu.

thank you for making sure I don't have too. :)

480i? No baby, this is 480p! :pimp

I have to agee with most of the points, I don't see any competitive advantage in offering HD.. never believed in it.

its nice footage but doesnt look different than if it was shot with a good sd camera.The only two cameras that the footage blew me away have been red and the ex-1

My point was it could easily be used for a major motion picture and you wouldnt know the diff. Not that it looked better than what hollywood produces. It was in response to the guy saying that it was completely unrealistic that porn could look as good as a trailer such as the ones on hulu produced for mainstream motion pictures. :winkwink:

it's the diff between selling beer and ICE COLD BEER! if you can't see that you might wanna consider a new line of work. $0.02 -bmb

I dont want to step on the old way of thinking here, but to me a similar analogy comes to mind. Owning a video rental store and refusing to rent dvds. Saying people have been happy with VHS for YEARS I dont see any difference or any reason to change. I really can see a point within at most 10 years where our entire way of 2d thinking will be gone. Our way of interfacing with a computer will be totally different. The things we are doing now will seem entirely antiquated in less than a decade. :2 cents:

I still think the next best thing to happen to porn will be Smell-O-Vision

because all the samples on the hulu pages were movies shot in film (not at 1920 pixels wide, but more like 3000+ pixels wide), the edited in native resolution, the resized down to 'HD', then encoded with a custom matrix PER scene at different bitrates with more than 2 passes per scene, then all scenes joined into a final trailer, then the process was repeated for the next trailer.

Of course I know many movies (usually STV) are shot in HDV cameras. but no pro movies (like the trailers at hulu) use such a lossy format to capture raw footage. That's why I said is unrealistic to expect and get the same quality out of a cheap HDV or h.264 HD camera. :)

I mean,

How will that increase my conversion rate and retention? I would be glad to hear some stats from sponsor program owners who offer HD..

What is the end result of jacking off to HD or non HD? looks the same to me..

People were jacking off to non HD for ages so will they stop to get a boner if that will not be HD? Meaning if I will find for example a site with a solo girl that will be turning me on, I don't care if it's HD or not because both will satisfy me.

What I see is that anything long enough that moves and is playable more or less fullscreen does it..

If you get someones eyeballs in front of your paysite and turn him on - I doubt HD will be the factor that will matter to him if to sign up or not.

Your comments posted here, are the reason we haven't gone to Blu-Ray DVDs. Even with the productions value we place on our features, true HD won't hide all the imperfactions.

Only for the USA :disgust


Sorry, currently our video library can only be streamed from within the United States

Hulu is committed to making its content available worldwide. To do so, we must work through a number of legal and business issues, including obtaining international streaming rights. Know that we are working to make this happen and will continue to do so. Given the international background of the Hulu team, we have both a professional and personal interest in bringing Hulu to a global audience.

If you'd like, please leave us your email address and the region in which you live, and we will email you when our videos are available in your area.

1:300 for www.SCOREHD.com

Our HD site has been doing great, consumers are looking for this content.

While I agrea with most of the comments posted on hear as to quality, the computer screen does hide some of the imperfections, that cannot be hidden on a Plasma.

Give us a try, click on my sig and you will see...

Do you have to obtain international streaming rights in order to stream HD worldwide?

You know you could easily offer 848x480 (widescreen SD) with a decent bitrate/passes, and most people will think of this as HD? ;)

my penis is HD

well you can drive a 74 pinto and get everywhere you want to go. eventually (sooner than you think) sites with SD won't 'look relevant' anymore. and yes it ultimately comes down to traffic. and think about this: you think your site is the ONLY site a suffer will see and you'll be the ONLY site with content on that model? very unrealistic if you ask me. $0.02 -bmb

You can downconvert HD to SD anyways. If you shoot in HD then your content can stay more current in the future.

i sell memberships to hd branded sites on a consistent basis. there is a market.

Man Sticky and Bradley should a get a job selling HD camera's lol You guys use the same talking points I heard at a sony seminar trying to push hd hard. My friend is a mainstream TV videographer and most of his work is still on betacam just a fyi.
A mainstream dv mag, spoke about hd is not catching on like it was supposed to and youtube showed everyone video quality isnt as important as content.

i hear tv-video-game-movie junkies blather on all day about hd and blue ray. out in the real world, it is a big fucking thing for people who like to be in front of a (non-computer) screen in their leisure hours.

You guys railing against HD sound silly. Assuming all other things being equal (and you are not filming tranny porn) why the hell would you want to film in SD rather than HD? The apparent quality to the end user is much higher with some form of HDV or HD filming, there is no way to deny that. (I won't make a distinction between HDV and other HD for this purpose) Again, don't compare some badly shot HD porn, to the best shot SD porn. Make it a fair comparison. Compare your own best work, or that of someone you respect that is well lit, with attractive models and good makeup, and just change the camera from an SD camera to a HDV camera leaving all other things equal. There is no way that you couldn't see the difference in the perceived quality of the image, especially in the details even if the video editor encoded the hdv footage to a mere say 3500 Kbps bitrate at 1280 x 720. Yes the file sizes will be bigger but you can always offer smaller frame sizes for smaller files.

Great post and spot on. The problem is sometimes the money top programs are prepared to pay a shooter, pay peanuts get monkies.

Plus the thinking that the image quality = porn quality. Techies think yes, porn consumers might be thinking no. Because after joining sites that with HD content that got it wrong they start to think HD is a bad thing.

As others have pointed out all HD does is expose flaws of those who can't use it.

Producing porn is not about image quality. It's about fantasy creation quality.

You can shoot the best lighting, best image, best production porn film and watch it to realise it's shit porn. Or you can shoot poor lighting, poor image, poor production film and watch to realise it's great porn. Only techies will disagree with me. :winkwink:

It's about the image created in the viewers brain, not the image on the screen. I like Jay's work. Not because it's good photography, it's because it's good pornography. It's good photography as well.

I'm digitising all the stuff I was shooting in the 1980s and 1990s, some of the image quality is poor. So why do members love it? They vote high for the vintage scenes over and over again. Eva is selling it on clips4sale, I know it's wrong :winkwink:, and the sales and traffic are awesome. Why when the image is so poor? (Some of the girls are amateur and some professional.)

It's because the girls were usually teasing the fuck out of me behind the camera. They are getting off and enjoying themselves, the orgasms are real and the girls are real. OK some of them ham it up for the camera, but the comparison with todays models is awesome. Character and personality is what makes porn. The character and personality of the people in front and behind the camera.

The reason IMO is two fold. Girls today are more aggressive and loutish than they were 20 years ago, not a good thing for porn. Plus there is too much work for them shot by people who have lost the art of directing them. There are many exceptions but when an industry thinks the route to more sales is the image quality and not the porn quality the results are obvious.

Bingo. That is my whole point.

I just told you some of the reasons. But another one is few models and even fewer make up artists can cover all the skin imperfections on models. HD works best on top end productions, Amateur, Gonzo, etc does not need it. So unless the models have flawless skin and the make up artist knows what they are doing the over all effect is to show more clearly the flaws that bring the fantasy crashing down.

The people impressed with image quality are not usually the guys with a credit card in one hand and their dick in the other one. :winkwink:

Spot on. Problem is techies (sponsors and affiliates) are turned on by HD. They think everyone is. The surfer's not thinking about image quality and if he is you lost the erection and sale. :winkwink: