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

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