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:

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?