I love hollywood movies in HD while sitting at home. I'm all for HD in mainstream, just don't care for it much in porn. Maybe if the files sizes were smaller and more people knew how to make it look good, it would change my mind.

:thumbsup

This thread can now be closed and locked after this statement.

Been saying it ever since I first arrived. Been wasting my time it seems. :winkwink:

When I arrived here, seven years ago, many screamed Internet surfers do not want my magazine style or quality. They wanted the amateur photographer content they had. Many of them are gone or out of producing content, or producing the content they were telling me the surfers did not want. Yes there are exceptions.

So why are so many programs now announcing they have HD content?

Could it be the industry first sells to itself, affiliates, and secondly to surfers? Think about it, surfers are here to get an erection and jerk off. They're not here to admire the technical skills of the shooter nor the quality of the image. So why are we still selling to ourselves?

Traffic is king. :winkwink:

Exactly.

Hellz yeah! Not bad for just $250

And what if you like hairy girls??
Don't make them all like plastic barbies.

:2 cents:

Eh, HD video just seems to be a selling point and nothing more. And, yeah, the main reason a lot of HD videos online now look like shit is not only because of lighting, but because people don't know how to capture the video and format it correctly. I mean, what's the point of even shooting in HD if you just compress the video so much it looks like garbage anyway?

I gotta' agree about some of the file sizes being ridiculous. Some of my HD video files can be 200 MB's or more. That's why it's smart to offer them in normal and low definition as well. Anyone who offers HD video and only HD video is stupid. You have to have the videos available in smaller sizes for people who could give a crap less about whacking off to high-definition.

I just offer HD as a selling point. I'm sure only a few die-hard "I want to see everything in full detail" members actually download the HD videos. Most members probably just grab the normal resolution, crank one out, and call it good.

Agreed........

Well carry on naysayers, Ill continue to shoot in HD (hdv for the nitpickers lol), and work on ways to deliver higher quality content in a faster more convenient manner to our members. :2 cents:

Paul, I don't know what kind of skin problems the girls you hire may have. Maybe you are casting for models at leper colonies, he he. But I have never seen any serious flaws in the skin of my models that would make them unattractive and I film a lot of girls every month. As long as the model isn't some skank that has serious cellulite or other obvious issues and you have nice lighting and a decent makeup artist I think the models and especially the overall image of the video will always look better not worse in HD than SD. Filming in some flavor of HDV or HD is just a matter of routine now for many porn producers, and you really sound like a Luddite arguing against HD porn. That's not to say one couldn't film a hot scene in SD nowadays, but I would argue that it wouldn't look as good as the same exact scene in higher resolution.

And one final point, yes some of the file sizes are ridiculously large with HD porn. A typical 35 minute movie that I deliver as a WMV or QT file at 1280 x 720 might come out to about 1 Gb or more in file size depending on the bitrate I export at which is obviously huge to download. But the program can break this up into multiple pieces for the surfers and I also am sure to deliver a smaller frame size and lower bitrate for lower bandwidth user and those who do not want to wait.

I actually prefer watching the 480 x 270 size version of these 16 x 9 HDV shot videos. Depending on your monitor I feel it looks sharper than the larger frame size file. It certainly looks better and with more detail than an SD version of the same video if it was encoded (all other things being equal) at say 640 x 480.

Believe me, I''d be happy to go back to SD filming if it was better. Editing and encoding HD is a lot more work for me, the editor, but I think it is worth the effort quality wise. Of course once again it goes without saying that the skill of the producer and lighting matters as much or more than even these technical points

There is a nut for every bolt. Someone has to cater to those consumers who do want it.

Besides taking up more disk space, what makes it more difficult to edit?

I've never shot or edited HD so I honestly don't know.

As HD material 1920 x 1080 is 4 times the size it needs a much more powerful computer and more time to render and make effects.

We are editing are first couple of films in HD and it is FANTASTIC ... I could talk about the lighting and quality of the image but NO this blond models skin just looks great, solid like you could touch it,,, No maybe it won't be there on the web today, but as the web gets faster we can encode it at better and better quality.

Of course its about getting good performances from your models but when you do record them at best you can...

Video destroyed film, HD will cause equally great changes....

I agree. I've seen some of the HD stuff. I'm not a fan of seeing all the zits on the chick's ass

I do believe it's the future though, as soon as the infrastructure allows for fast downloads of large HD files, and people shooting in HD shoot it so that you see less imperfections.

This first point, isn't related to editing per se, but this is perhaps the biggest issue with HD production. One often has to light a set with a lot more and more carefully placed lights. I use two or three times or four times the amount of light I would light the same set for an SD production.

Anyway as far as editing itself- for one it does take up quadruple or so of the file space, which starts to get eaten up fast if you film a lot. Then, depending on your workflow, it takes longer to capture, at least in my case, since I use the Cineform Aspect HD software in conjunction with Premiere Pro which immediately converts the HDV footage to a form of AVI with the Cineform codec. (There are a couple of minor advantages to this as opposed to editing the m2t's directly.)

But the worst part is the render time after you edit a video. Even back in SD days, I would always render my movies out to a large intermediate AVI file from the editing app and then bring that file into a professional 3rd party video encoding app like Cleaner XL to batch convert to multiple formats and frame sizes and simultaneously add the watermarks. And this render process takes 2 to 3 times real time even on a Core2Duo pc as opposed to 1/3rd to 1/2 of real time when working with SD footage.

Also the rare glitches in a mini-DV tape also tend to have much more deleterious effects with HDV footage, resulting in longer digital dropouts. And lastly again, depending on your workflow I find that capturing tends to be a little more fragile. In other words, there tends to be more crashes or issues as the computer processors get overtaxed resulting in occasional incomplete captures when I use scene detect. Overall, capturing and editing HDV is a bit more finicky on all my pcs in different ways even though I have the workflow pretty much down.

Still despite all this, and also because most companies I work with want hi-def footage, it is worth the effort because it can be used to create much high resolution and better looking videos with more detail.

When I bought my HD camera, I ended up having to buy a whole new PC just to edit the damn video because my old PC just wasn't powerful enough.

wow very good points man....But if models are great then lets shoot HD...What about HD stereo shooting? do you think it is better to shoot streo in SD?

We're shooting normal people, well to be honest not shooting at the moment, we are too busy putting up the old content. Normal people have normal skin and that has normal imperfections. Sometimes that leads to a distraction.

A scene that works in SD might not work in HD and if you understand porn you will know why. It has nothing to do with the quality of the visual image, it's about the imagined image.

I don't know if you're a good or bad photographer or a good or bad pornographer. The jobs are very very different. A photographers tools are his cameras, a pornographers tools are his models. Both can use their imagination.

If you want to show me some samples I will be happy to comment on them. I'm known as a hard audience, about the same as members. :winkwink:

Are you talking two camera shoots?

Trust me this market is not ready for two camera shoots. LOL

So I suppose you guys won't be using 5.1 sound either ....:winkwink:

Some great debating in this thread :thumbsup

it sounds great thru the 2 dollar speakers most surfers use. lol

Well we are shooting SD today instead of HD because of this thread. I now know the error of my ways..... :(





























NOT lol 2 girl shoot with girls that we CAN shoot HD with no worries :winkwink:

cant check that, im not in the US :(

DWB makes complete sense with his opinions!

This is one of the main reasons why our networks havent gone straight HDV..
We only have 2-3 sites completed that will be launched that will be 100% HDV

With 80 new scenes per month it would truly be burdensome and costly for our company
to completely go 100% HDV.

Plus, we shoot some fucked up looking chicks...Real Amateur first timers, pregnant chics, huge meloms and I mean HUGE!
as well as midget lovers, cumbrushers, human toiletbowls BBW's etc If its fucked up content you name it we git it! lol

I think you get my point!

The problem is not the format it is shot on...but the fact that porn is considered semi legal.

Most of it is crap...A lot of the punters so sexually repressed that for them the fact that it is "forbidden" is the thrill, the dirtier the better (form and content) hence the arms race of shock ...double p etc...

Like drugs as they are illegal the quality is rubbish - they can be cut with rat poison - you're not going to complain...

Whole sections of the pop don't view porn, not because they object to it (except for the degrading way some treat women ) but because it is so unerotic..."The Girl with the Pearl Earing" is more sexy than 90% of porn. And that has no nudity not even a kiss... or the BW movies of the 50's like "Double Indemnity" when they kiss it is erotic...

Porn is strange is the sense that so shit hot in marketing and use of the web, but so conservative and unimaginative in what it produces... take MET ART with the earnings they have you'd think they could try a little more imagination in their photography...but no a few basic set ups repeated ad nauseum....

Both society and the porn business seem happy to live in a ghetto...

It would be interesting to see what would happen if we broke out...

do you shoot content? porn is not erotic because the good erotic shooters can't make a living in porn. it's takes time to shoot evocative images. the peeps the shoot porn are typically in it for the sex and could care less about any quality or eroticism. think DL, JL etc. other than a few fetish sites, and 1-2 or other programs, program owners could care less for quality either. their interest is only in profit. they buy the cheapest content thy can.

that and the fact that the peeps controlling this girls care only for money. I can shoot incredible erotic imagery however I would have to pay my clients to post it. the client budgets are so low the production cost are so high, the amount of content so unrealistic what do you expect?

Paul, don't be patronizing, you are not the only veteran VHS, DVD and web porn producer here. If you are hiring "normal people" maybe that is your problem with such bad skin problems showing up everywhere. I try to hire superior specimens of mostly American female youth and beauty, who have skin good enough to hold up under higher resolution, with some success. :-)


But of course, SD still has its place. I actually agree with DWB and Boss that the trannys and ugly freaks don't need higher resolution! I have been putting up some of my older material on Clips4Sale this week, all shot in SD with only small, low-res screen caps to illustrate the content and I have been successfully selling clips for $6-$10 and 30-50 minute lesbian scenes for $30/pop all week at 320 x 240! Obviously those customers aren't looking for superior resolution. But who is to say that they wouldn't enjoy it more in hi-res if they had access to it?

There is nothing wrong with still filming in SD if it works for you, but going forward it seems silly to me to actually take a philosophical position against it, or divert the argument with simple truisms like how photographers and pornographers create eroticism using their imagination.

jim, thanks for the pop up hell for looking at your samples!

Those aren't my sites with pop ups. You probably followed a link to the main page of a site that I filmed for an affiliate program. I usually email clients interested in hiring me direct links to more detailed video or photo samples because they don't just want to see someone else's tour that I have no control over.

For all of those doubting HD on the Internet. Here is my advice:

1. Setup a 45"+ HDTV or HD projector
2. Download a 320x240 @ 500kbps, a 640x480 @ 1000kbps and a 1920x1080 @ 8000kbps movie from some paysites.
3. Watch them all on your HDTV or HD projector

You'll understand why HD downloaded over the Internet is the future of content.

Yes we shoot all our own content. As quality falls and quantity goes up we have decided to go in the opposite direction... We are shooting less and putting more effort in to each production. We feel that the better the film the longer we will exploit it. We see that we will be able to make a film in HD delivery it now on MPEG, then maybe as a CD image in a year or so, then in 3 years as a HD ...
But that is only a little bit of the production, we are spending more time on lighting, music, getting good sound using professional microphones...you now how sexy a girls voice can be recorded on a high quality microphone? And yes I am going to mix to stereo and 5:1 ...maybe a bit for fun ...but also we want to make material that is proud to be erotic and good

We also feel that there is an audience out there that is not catered for at all, women, couples, and people who think sex is healthy and want to watch it in an open and honest way. Sadly society pushes erotic material in one pigeon hole.

We have not found these matters to be problems, are clients seen to be very happy with our site and films...we have to crack the marketing and increase our profile...

That is so spammy. :1orglaugh And patronizing.

To me porn has never been about the resolution of the image, so long as it duped, printed or uploaeded right. It's about what I can do with the models given and how I can get across to them my ideas on the fantast I want to create.

I will not pick a model or restrict myself to picking models because they have skin that will look good on HD. I'm looking for girls who will look good when I close my eyes and imagine what they're doing to me. The day I move to HD I restrict myself to firstly skin, secondly personality.

Of course I could make a better judgment if I saw some samples, let's see some links and we can all judge.

Paul it is ...We shoot and i can sell you the cameras as well..www.banging3d.com
www.3dorgazm.com ( i think) also there is a way to convirt content from 2 d to 3d and i know how to do it?

Ok so we should just do away with video all together and go back to maybe audio porn, or erotic stories I guess.:1orglaugh Future is in higher resolution and faster delivery to the consumer. Period. People can believe what they want but there are not too many vhs sales now adays.

Very good quality

Now that works. :thumbsup

Only saw the clips and if the scenes are as good it works. Not because it's 3D, because it's good porn.

3D looks interesting, how do we get the glasses?

The future is good or even great porn.

I am going to concentrate on porn that 50,000 other people can't shoot. Not worry about shooting the same old scenes everyone else is shooting so I have to go to HD to appear to be doing something different.

And there in a nutshell is the problem with porn. 50,000 people shooting the same thing. So the marketing men have to spend a fortune telling everyone why their product is better than the next mans. When in truth few of them are any different.

And it has nothing to do with the money spent, camera used, lighting or editing. It's down to raw talent. The talent of the producer and talent of the models.

Sadly both are lacking today. I got a Private DVD a few months ago from my mate Max. Big budget, good script, good locations, well shot. But it was awful. Because they had everything right except for one thing. The porn.

www.banging3d.com looks good, not because of the the quality of the image, but the girls looked as real as they can n a porn film. Achieve a fantasy that convinces people to get an erection and the last thing the guy is worried about is the image resolution.

It's one of priorities, porn before techno. Any one can buy a HD camera, it's a matter of a few weeks to learn how to light it. Try lighting Kodachrome and discover the problems when it gets back from the lab. :Oh crap

It takes talent and experience to learn how to manage a model in a porn scene.

To do well in todays porn industry you have to cut yourself apart from the others, apart and above. You can do that by giving the affiliates more money, tools and what ever. Or you can by just converting more of their traffic.

How to do this is the hard part, solve that and you find marketing easier.

So how do you cut yourself apart and above from the competition?

Not by buying a HD camera. How much are they $8,000 all in? Was different back in the days of beta cam when the kit did cut out the weak. $30,000 was the starting price for a good Beta Cam SP, the lens could cost more than the cameras today. :winkwink:

Try this. Think of an idea that has not been done, yet will still sell, or been done badly, think of how to give it a new twist. Look at the others close to or the failed ones and work out where they went wrong. Then find a producer who will make a movie that will create the fantasy.

We talk endlessly on how good promoting niches is. It's great when you have a site run by someone who understand the niche because the surfer is not spoilt for choice. He can't go to 100 other sites and get exactly the same porn, shot the same way, with the same girls and all claiming to be exclusive. He has to stay where he is.

Transfer that situation to mainstream porn and you have a winner. Only one problem. You can't shoot it on a budget of $2,000 for a hardcore scene or 5 solo girl scenes for $1,500. Shooting porn like that you end up with the same porn everyone else has. All exclusive clones of each other. (Please don't tell us you spend $3,000 on a scene, you know what I mean.)

Yes this week you're 1 of 100 with a site in DH, next week it will be 1 in 120, and so on. A HD camera comes out of a box. Porn is far harder to buy.

Now if you can shoot those scenes that are very different and mainstream in HD, you have an even better product. I still doubt the guys jerking off for 15, minutes in their office will give a dam about the image quality. If that were so DVD sales would not be falling over to us on the Net.

And there is the truth, we are not doing as well as we were. But we are doing a lot better than DVD. Put a porn DVD onto your plasma screen and next to it your computer screen and compare the difference. Well there is no comparison in the image quality.

Well, although I don't know of any site beeing a direct competition to us at the moment, as far as we are not paying talent but work with real people only and are a livecam / video hybrid, even if there was - we are not talking about something that would be disqualifying to the porn surfer.

We are talking about something you look for on the web, you sign up in the privacy of your home, for something you want to keep in private and you will still get a crisp / fullscreen porn.

At the moment when members will start to ASK for it, then it's time to consider a change, but it haven't happened yet, therefore I was also curious about stats.

I can see a future in HD for high end stuff like Wicked for example, but - as well as many people will be praising glamour models and "quality" over amateur stuff, I actually see the same parallel in HD vs. SD.

If it's good enough to find its audience and make the surfer pay and if you have exclusive content, where is the competitive disadvantage at the end?

It came to me last night how to explain how I think the content of the movie is more important than the camera it was shot with. I was watching When Harry Met Sally and in the movie is a scene where they are watching Casablanca. Then it hit me.

Am I worried that When Harry Met Sally is shot in HD, or Casablanca is in B/W, grainy and poor sound and do we turn off or not watch so many great classic movies because of the image quality? No we watch them over and over again.

I spent $2,000 to see Cream 3 years ago. did I do it because there are 500 bands like them?

If it all comes down to traffic then we are left with sites full of nothing but filler content, exclusive filler content it may be but still nothing to distinguish them from the next site. The members see no difference and soon move on to the next site doing the same thing with only a different model.

Now look at sites that do have something so different or better than the other 95% out there. Site like Big sister, Party Hardcore and today I saw that ShemaleYum.com is the first site to reach CCBILLs limit on rebills. OK it may be spam. I would bet none of these sites retain and convert like they do because of the image quality.

So if you're thinking of launching or promoting a new site think about doing something different that's not on every other site in the niche. Not at image quality.

You may not hit the heights of Casablanca. But at least you won't be selling a site with little to separate it from the others.

Goddamn I hate agreeing with Paul Markham, but I do.

There is no doubt it's the future. The problem is most guys can't make it look as good as the stuff you have. If EVERYONE shot HD and it looked like your content... shit, I'm all about it and would suck it up for the download time.

Truth is, you guys are in a league of your own. :thumbsup

Shit I watch old VHS my dad found at the dump at home! It's great! :-D

-Ben

Everyone once in a blue moon it has to happen.

WRONG ! These films were all shot on 35mm film with professional cameras and crews. Even Casablanca's negative has HD quality and resolution. You would not be watching them if they had been shot on VHS