There's no real HD porn yet.

Just because your vids are 1280x720 it doesn't mean is true HD. A 3Mbps encode at this resolution looks like crap. Might as well stick with SD (and it will look better actually).

HD is all about resolution. Obviously the surfer will be watching most of the HD porn in their computers, so here: DE-INTERLACE... or shoot/edit progressive. I seriously don't understand how many big companies offer interlaced content in both SD/HD.

Then.. use a better codec, something like H264 maybe, you know... modern and able to keep HD detail at decent bitrates. And of course, bump the bitrate! at least 6Mbps re-encode to keep the quality up.

But what do I know. lol

A few weeks ago I bought a HDV camera and I am just playing around with it. So this other guy who is an affiliate manager of a very successful program looks at me while he screens my first attempts of shooting with the HDV camera and he tells me that screenshots from my cam will probably look better than most people's photos ..... I don't have the time to edit HD video, but maybe I should rather use screenshots of the camcorder than using a DSLR to shoot content!

I find a lot of the problem is not the person shooting the content but the person who encodes and hosts the content making it look like shit and killing it.

HDV is a recording format.
It's not another version of HD or sub-HD or anything like that.

Think of it as a way of getting HD.

There are many ways, like HDV, DVC Pro HD, AVCHD, and so on.

If you shoot using a HDV camera you will still get FULL HD.

Technically anything larger than standard TV format (simplified, in the US that's 720x 480) can be considered HD. (more info)

Consumers are usually confronted with two major resolutions:
1920x1080 (aka 1080i if footage is interlaced; 1080p if progressive)
and
1280 x 720 (almost always 720p - progressive)

However, there are many resolutions that can qualify as HD.

For example, if you look at a large number of TVs that are advertized as "High Definition" you'll notice that many are actually not displaying 1920x1080 but other resolutions.
That's still HD mind you.


One way of providing adult content via HD and still honor the fact that most consumers want immediate satisfaction is to provide the footage in different formats.
For example, I always published large resolution movies for download, and then another smaller version in Flash (with Flash Media Server, so everything played instantly without waiting).

Hope this helps a little :)

You are right that all footage should be deinterlaced for online use. But I think a lot of you HD naysayers are just trying to be contrarian. In my experience the amount and quality of light in the original production matters much more than the video bitrate alone. A 1280 x 720 WMV for example where the hdv footage was really well lit to begin with will look WAY better and have more detail which you can see especially in the hair and saliva and background even at a 3500 Kbps video bitrate than a standard def 640 x 480 SD file at the same bitrate will. It's a night and day difference that no one can mistake. Maybe you guys are looking at badly shot HD footage, but I know when I shoot HDV and take the time to light it correctly and encode it to the best of my ability even at a moderate bitrate to keep the file size down, there is no way that one could suggest that some comparably lit SD footage looks as good or better, on a 'ceteris paribus' comparison, that is all other things being equal.

interesting thread

HD is shit.

I have a HD tv and HD cable. I don't need to see the newscasters fucking pores on their faces. It looks horrible.

Too much quality is not always a good thing.

bahahaha, indeed.... :1orglaugh

To U.S residents that dont think HD quality is possible to be delivered to the consumer. Go here.

http://www.hulu.com/hd/ Play any of the trailers. Click the fullscreen button. Im watching HD trailers with 0 buffering full screen at 1680x1050 resolution on a 22" screen. Quality where you can see hair follicles with no problem. I hook it up to a 52" plasma via svideo or dvi and I can watch it on there at nearly the same quality. We should be pushing in the same direction as mainstream. :2 cents:

That's what younger, prettier newscasters are for. :)

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: