Thanks for the props Paul, well it will definitely be an argument I will push once the day D comes, which should be soon..

Just for illustration, apart from the fact that our stuff is totally insuited for HD as far as it's real people from the street, we are actually offering the live feed at 503 kbps and recorded stuff from 863 to 1500 kbps - don't remember a complain regarding this, plus the retention is above the standars I suppose.

I mean there is always a space to improve, therefore flash streaming and other things are in consideration but so far this wasn't a problem we would face.

The way I believe we will be able to increase the retention is to work on the gaming / interactive / variety programming factor of the site - like we have seen a notable increase in viewing time spent once introduced the saturdays live swingers nights.

I guess to improve the variety of the content and interaction is the key, yet if you want to sell the same thing as the others - then HD might be a plus, I agree.

When you can't buy any SD cameras will you guys be running your material through a VHS recorder just to maintain that nice shitty look of porn you all like?

http://www.cinemaerotique.com/Traile...toryCinema.wmv


A picture is worth a......

The Medium is the Message.

not to sure on this one mr gunn. isn't the software in only to convert m2t to a format that adobe can work with since adobe can't handle HDV in it's native format? or couldn't in the beginning anyway, not sure what adobe's up to now.

it might better to edit in an uncompressed format however it seems like wasted render time to me.

vegas is fine for working with m2t's. even edited some uncompressed HD from the panisonic in vegas. no problem... just got the 'raylight' plugin

BTW we've gone to a quad core machine for renders.... kicks serious butt over a dual core. something to consider if you're going to be working in HDV.

-bmb

Some people thought that "horseless carriages" were shit as well... and they rode their horses into the twilight.

Online porn is not for Luddites.

Premiere Pro can handle native M2T editing since ver. 2.0 just like Vegas does. So a plugin like Aspect HD is no longer a necessity to edit HDV in Premiere Pro CS3. I have been using it for so long it just became part of my workflow ever since ver. 1.5.1. There are a few specific advantages to edit with the Cineform codec over native M2T, but they only matter in some specific circumstances. One thing the plugin does is it allows one to get away with using a slower processor to edit HDV with real time effects, like the older dual core Pentium D I have on one of my editing machines.

I also have a Core2Duo for my secondary editing machine that I mostly use for batch video encoding. A Core2Quad will surely be my next pc purchase. I have enough going on here simultaneously here in my office that I just keep adding to the collection of computers never really replacing them. Each machine will often be separately be running some process, like one capturing a tape; another batch encoding videos while a third pc upload files through ftp and I am checking my email on my laptop while my designer works in Photoshop or Flash in my old P4.

Why do you foolishly assume that just because something is in HD that it is superior? How about creating and selling a better fantasy. Why do you think true amateur sites, revenge sites and voyeur sites do so well? Because it's HOT!!! Those people don't care about what it's shot in. They care about it being REAL porn and not the polished turds that are shitted out every day in the "professional" porn market.

I will stand by this until the day I die: It doesn't matter the format so long as it's hot to watch and gets the consumer off. VHS, DVD, SD, HD, Mobile Phone Cams, Webcams... and whatever comes next. If it's hot, it will sell. The problem is, and going back to my first statement, many (not all) of the people shooting in HD is shooting worse quality content than when they where shooting in SD.

HD is just a bonus on the side for surfers... I don't think it was ever there for initial download for instant gratification... it's just a little added bonus.. vid caps look good, if they like the scene then most of them download it, you score better on review sites by offering multiple formats, and it just sounds/looks cool on the tour when people see you offer HD

:upsidedow

Well said.:thumbsup

Demo is set at 640x360 but handles 854x480 with no issues too.

http://www.cavecreek.com/HD-Flash-CDN.php

Scrub through the video to any spot and will play instantly. :winkwink:

clean :thumbsup

great bitch and a great vid

Thanks Al, that means a lot coming from you. There is also a VC1 encoded version for Silverlight. Btw not sure if it was you or Vee I sent an email to the other day about a link package, but didnt hear back yet. :winkwink:

thank you :) send it to my email, I will pass it to Vee :thumbsup

We picked up a Canon HV-30 last week and after shooting a few scenes on it I have to say the quality is fucking amazing compared to our GL2... Most the scenes were shot outdoors in natural sunlight though so no idea how it'll work under lower light situations.

That is impressive. If it can keep this level of quality at true HD sizes and b/w requirements this is huge.
I'd like to learn more about this for my clients so whoever deals with this technology directly please contact me.
Thanks!

Bryan L is the man to talk to. But if you want some other demo vids hit me up icq and email are in sig. I dont work for cavecreek but glad to explain it all more for you. :thumbsup

That is saying a lot as I loved shooting your wedding with the GL2. Have an HV10 and Xha1 canon. Love em both. :thumbsup

Appreciate that, Ryan, thank you.
I'd like somebody to show me pricing structures, technical requirements, and go into details of how this could be implemented on an existing site's infrastructure.

I'll hit you up to check out your vids as well. :)

Thanks!

COMPLETELY agree. It may just be because I'm a girl and thus am more bitchy/superficial/catty/whatever, but it always bothers me when I'm looking through content and see ass pimples, scars, uneven skintones, etc etc... and HD makes it so much worse.

Well the benefit being higher quality girls to shoot. :winkwink::2 cents:

I said it before and say it again: if done properly, pimples and wrinkles are not an issue even in HD.

bump......its wateva

I guess I'll be the first to say 95% of you don't know what the hell you're talking about. Let me first state the obvious; Yes, HD is the future. Yes, connections will get faster. Yes, 720p is considered "high def", and 1920x1080 interlaced is considered high definition as well. And yes, consumers will demand higher resolution.

To the nay-sayers that are saying porn shouldn't be high def because porn-sluts don't look good in high resolution, you are completely and utterly stupid and I'll say keep it up, because I'll have the sales / retention that you will never see.

Where is the logic in saying low resolution content is better because you see less flaws in the model? You don't seriously believe that, do you?

Oh well, I couldn't really care less I suppose... keep on believing that. Ignorance is bliss.

I guess that's why I love GFY. Because deep down, I really love retards.

Without question it is the future because everyone wants to shoot in HD now. And yes, speeds are getting faster in some parts of the world so the video will be able to be accessed better in the future.

With that said, I don't think porn should stay in SD because of flaws. What I said is too many of you have moved from SD, where your content looked great, to HD and now it looks like ass.

What I also said is, it doesn't matter the format as long as it's hot. I've seen hotter videos from cell phones than just about any "pro" sites on the net. Why? Because it's real. Real sex, hot sex and a good fantasy will always prevail over the latest gadgets and formats.

If the quality of the image counted to the surfer Tube sites would not be getting any traffic at all. OK they only get it because it's free, but you miss the point. The millions of surfers on Tube sites do not see the point of paying for a brilliantly clear image of porn that's shot by a guy who's more interested in the techie shit than the porno.

Most people selling porn on the Internet are webmasters, few are porn consumers and fewer even understand why the members that do sign are paying for it when so much is free. Talking for 4 pages on the merits or problems of a HD image shows how much you guys know about the reasons people pay for porn. And until you understand that you will be left trying to sell the same old shit, just in HD instead of SD and left trying to persuade more webmasters affiliates to send more traffic to more sites that miss out on what makes the guy sign up.

Someone told me something in the beginning of my sales career that still rings true. Empathy with the buyer is the key to selling. And I'm sure most of you have heard me say "Vegetarians make bad butchers."

It does not matter a flying fuck to the surfer if it's in HD, SD or any fucking D. It matters if it stokes his imagination enough to make him want to join THIS site. Start understanding that and you start empathising with the surfer. Yesterday was about sending as much traffic as possible, tomorrow will be about converting it. Having mediocre porn in HD is not going to cut it.

If the quality of the image mattered to the porn consumer then Playboy, Penthouse and other top class mags would of out sold the middle and lower range ones. They never ever did. The same goes for videos, cable and Internet porn. The quality of the image that sells porn is the quality of the image in the viewers imagination. Get that right and you sell over and over again.

Shame you didn't invent the ability to shut the fuck up. :2 cents:

But when the guy creating it is a techie and thinks the quality of the image, the lighting, the speed and other thing that gets a techie's dick are the most important things then he will go for that.

If the main reason you have for selling a site is the clarity of the image you really have lost the plot as far as the surfer is concerned. It's irrelevant to the general porn buyer. Maybe us concentrating on things that impressed us have been the main reason we find it so hard to sell.

xenigo I really truly, whole hearted, 101% wish you were right. I would love this to be right. In fact I'm getting a hard on dreaming that you have it right. LOL

But we all know the consumer does not demand this and we know you are saying it to influence webmasters not surfers. Because if you were right it would be great for us. Tubes can't deliver the quality you tell us the consumer demands. It's really that simple. Tubes are collecting traffic like nothing, crap shit product that the consumer will put up with, jerk off to and move on. If you were right and the consumer demanded HD Tubes would be losing traffic. A surfer does not need HD to jerk off never did, never will and sadly never going to need it. AND I do mean sadly because the simplest way to make millions would be we all move to HD.

Reasons why a surfer becomes a member.
The sample he saw triggered something in his imagination that told him he needed to see more.
The site he went to satisfied him it has the porn he loves in sufficient quantity to warrant spending money.

Getting those two right are tough and why so many of you think traffic is the key. Along with getting the image in HD. :winkwink:

I am not boasting that our content does either.

The consumer will demand this in the future. They may not right this second, but to try to convince yourself otherwise is incredibly short-sighted. When I'm watching a SD signal of a television show, and I know there's an HD version, I flip it to the HD version.

Everyone I know does the same thing. I don't buy DVD's anymore, I buy Blu-Ray discs. There is no way a consumer will choose a low-def version over a high-def version of something that's essentially the same.

Porn is no different.

Excellent post Paul and very true. My friend shoots for mainstream tv fox, cnn, etc. They are having him shoot betacam with a 16x9 lens,thats sd not hd. He figures it will be at least another two years til he will have to switch. This is how he makes his living fulltime.

[sarcasm]
No that can't be right. After all there are people in this world that still buy typewriters, fuck that computer thing, I'm sticking with a typewriter. My typewriter customers DO NOT want to have to upgrade all their hardware in order to user a computer. I mean really do consumers really need that kind of thing? To be able to surf the web? Im sticking to paper. :2 cents: [/sarcasm]