|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » 720p vids are all I need or want |
| 1-23 of 23 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 12-09-13 03:55pm - 4031 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
Micha (0)
Active User Posts: 321 Registered: Jul 04, '10 Location: san jose ca |
720p vids are all I need or want As I’ve ranted before, 720p vids are all I need or want. One can see an amazing difference between 720p and 1080p when watching on a 4-foot screen. On a 27 inch monitor, the difference is negligible, especially when one considers the 3 to 5 times disk space required for storage and the hours of additional download time for the 1080p vids. It used to be that websites would offer both resolutions to satisfy each preference, but that seems to be changing. All of these great new and improved sites that I’d normally jump on in a hot minute, and then I read the review and toss it from my list because the only offer a couple of formats in 1080p. Even if I were to soften my position, bite the bullet, and download the higher resolutions, they don’t play well on my desktop. They’re slow and choppy with artifacts. So, now I’m Jones’en. Most all of the sites on my wish list are disqualified for their limited HD offerings. A message to pornsite administrators : If all you offer is 1080p, You’ll never see any of my money. unless life also gives you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck. | |
|
||
| 12-09-13 04:26pm - 4031 days | #2 | |
|
biker (0)
Active User  Posts: 632 Registered: May 03, '08 Location: milwaukee, wi |
I feel the same way about photos. They are getting larger and there isn't any reason. 1000 wide images works well for me. They have gone to 2000, 3000, 4000, and now I'm seeing 5000 wide. Each jump in size uses memory exponentially. Besides the fact that they will have sets with 400 to 500 pictures that translates to several being basically the same image. A total waste. Warning Will Robinson | |
|
||
| 12-09-13 10:32pm - 4030 days | #3 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
I agree with biker. There are few, if any users who would want or even have the facilities to print out a large poster size image. As long as it fills the screen & looks good & sharp on my monitor, I'm fine with the image size. On a related note, I fail to see why any shots for web publication are taken in vertical format. The horizontal format works so much better for widescreen computer monitors. Cap'n.  Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 12-10-13 12:11am - 4030 days | #4 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Ah, an often discussed subject, Cap'n and both you and I are still left in the dark as to why the Web prefers portrait to landscape.  My dream is to own a complete set in landscape only. Those pictures would look wonderful on my wide screen monitor and TV! | |
|
||
| 12-10-13 01:11am - 4030 days | #5 | |
|
Micha (0)
Active User Posts: 321 Registered: Jul 04, '10 Location: san jose ca |
Yeah, Me too on the photos. You click on a pic and you see a nipple that fills the screen. Scroll for 2 minutes, and there's the navel. But stills are an easy fix in PhotoShop. Changing the size takes 5 seconds. After downloading a 1180p for an hour or so, shrinking that puppy down is beyond my skill set. unless life also gives you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck. | |
|
||
| 12-10-13 06:16am - 4030 days | #6 | |
|
jberryl69 (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,000 Registered: Nov 27, '10 Location: neverland |
I like the 1080 movies, though I don't like the size, it does let me crop out the watermarks without a significant loss of resolution on my edited productions. If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee. If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat! | |
|
||
| 12-10-13 10:12am - 4030 days | #7 | |
|
Micha (0)
Active User Posts: 321 Registered: Jul 04, '10 Location: san jose ca |
jberry wrote ".....it does let me crop out the watermarks without a significant loss of resolution on my edited productions. You edit the vid, or just crop it for viewing ? If editing, what's your software? unless life also gives you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck. | |
|
||
| 12-10-13 10:40am - 4030 days | #8 | |
|
jberryl69 (0)
Disabled User Posts: 1,000 Registered: Nov 27, '10 Location: neverland |
^ I'm doing both - editing and cropping - using Corel VideoStudio Pro X6. If it ain't grits, it must be a Yankee. If you're going to lay her head over the pool table and fuck her throat, get your fucking hand off her throat! | |
|
||
| 12-10-13 11:45am - 4030 days | #9 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Hi Micha, I am always baffled when it comes to comments like the one you made. Is there not a setting in your viewer that allows you to see the whole picture, no matter how many pixels? I use Irfanview and don't have your problem.  | |
|
||
| 12-10-13 11:47am - 4030 days | #10 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
Sorry to hijack the thread again.  Try seemetease.com BTW the review listed is out of date as it has relaunched as a photo based site The webmaster is a first rate guy who is open to any input on striptease photography. Whilst most of the outfits might not please you as yet  he has taken on board the horizontal format & exclusively uses it now.  Cap'n. Admiral of the PU Hindenburg. 2009 PU AwardHilarious Post of the Year 2010 PU Award ( I would have preferred it to be Helpful Post of the Year for Guys who Hate 'Retail Therapy' ) :0/ Sanity is in the eye of the Beholder! | |
|
||
| 12-10-13 11:58am - 4030 days | #11 | |
|
Ed2009 (0)
Suspended Webmaster  Posts: 509 Registered: Sep 12, '09 Location: Wales, UK |
My sites moved up to 2048 pixel wide photos years ago and for 2 or 3 years after the upgrade I held polls to ask my customers if they wanted even higher resolution pics, but the result was always the same - the vast majority were happy to go no higher than 2048 pixels. Lots of my competitors would advertise ever increasing picture sizes but I just stuck with what my customers wanted. I don't foresee any future increases in picture size, certainly not until 4K monitors become the norm (assuming they EVER do). Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity. | |
|
||
| 12-10-13 12:32pm - 4030 days | #12 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
I agree with the original opinion in that 720p works just fine for me and even though I dig pics I don't really need 5000 pixels to get the point across. I mostly take this position because I don't want to be loaded down with external hard drives, not to mention paying for them even though they are relatively cheap now a days. The only argument I really see against this is if you're taking the future into consideration. When I was a kid we had a 19" tv which was fine, I couldn't imagine having a really big one in the space we had (aka - a 30" tv). Today, I can't imagine regularly watching the tubervision on anything less than a 40" HD model (I hope that's not because I'm "going blind") in a space about the same size as we had when I was kid. In the not distant future you're going to find your desk is monitor, you can roll up and stick up a mat on any wall to be monitor, hell - you're going to find entire walls that are monitors at prices that won't entirely break the bank. The future for vids and pics will probably be even more supersized than today. Maybe I'm just old fashioned but I guess I don't expect the porn to better or be more meaningful if I can see a closeup of a vagina the size of a refridgerator so I'll stick with my wimpy small collection that looks fine on a 23" monitor. | |
|
||
| 12-10-13 05:33pm - 4030 days | #13 | |
|
Micha (0)
Active User Posts: 321 Registered: Jul 04, '10 Location: san jose ca |
messmer rote: Is there not a setting in your viewer that allows you to see the whole picture, no matter how many pixels? Sure if the photo resides on my puter. I have that problem on individual websites when I click a thumbnail And get a huge image at 100%. I may have overstated the time it takes to scroll. By viewer, do you mean browser?...............nevermind, I just googled Irfanview . I don't have a viewer. I rely on the one that is onboard Windows, it seems quite adequate. I have no experience with add-on viewers. Any advantages to them? I just click on the icon in my file manager and the image appears. It's one of the things in life that has remained uncomplicated unless life also gives you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck. Edited on Dec 10, 2013, 05:43pm | |
|
||
| 12-10-13 05:41pm - 4030 days | #14 | |
|
happyending (0)
Active User Posts: 15 Registered: Aug 04, '09 Location: Mars |
I prefer 4k or 2160p movies and 36 megapixel photography. 4k movies are the future. Amazon has some cheap 4k monitor/TV for as low as $400. | |
|
||
| 12-10-13 11:56pm - 4029 days | #15 | ||
|
otoh (0)
Active User Posts: 159 Registered: Sep 17, '10 Location: UK |
For images I'm happy to download up to, say, 4K. The reason being, my current monitor is, 2K (1920x1080) but what with all these super-high-res/retina screens in mobiles and tablets, I can see 24" monitors (as opposed to TVs) being 3-4K in the relatively near future and it would be nice to see pics fill it.
Subject to that, of course - would be so much better if they were all landscape! That's just pictures, though. For movies it's different: firstly because although my monitor will display 1080, on a moving image I really can't see any difference in detail between 1080 and 720, so I go for 720. As to 4K movies/TV, I am really struggling to see the point - the difference between 720 and 1080 is actually only detectable if you have a very large screen and/or sit very close to it - in most situations, it's not resolvable by eye. So why they think we need 4K...
Download Handbrake. Easy to use and will re-rip/resize/etc your movies. I do it often - sometimes to resize 1080s, but also to re-encode high bitrate films. Eg SexArt - whose production values are high - encode 720p at 2mbps and they look just fine; Twisty's, bafflingly, used 10mbps to create huge files with no appreciable benefit. This also applies to pictures; some sites are far too conservative, and could be more aggressive with absolutely no visible lack of quality. Here SexArt have gone the other way, with some sets of 1GB - not really necessary for pictures! | ||
|
|||
| 01-04-14 06:39pm - 4005 days | #16 | |
|
qvtta (0)
Active User Posts: 20 Registered: Jan 17, '13 Location: Finland |
I like it alot when a site offers fully every possible quality. It shows that they want to have the best experience for people with mobile devices, people with slow computers and people with really powerful computers. Eventhough i only have 720p monitor i always take the Full HD movie if possible, because i rather have the best quality if oneday the stuff becomes unavailable. Besides, it's not really a big deal to me to have bunch of 1-3Gb files stored when i have storage of almost 4Tb. | |
|
||
| 01-05-14 12:54pm - 4004 days | #17 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Just a short and possibly dumb question. I am tempted to buy a bigger monitor but have a low power computer with a built-in Intel Graphics chip. So the question is, do you need computer power (better graphics chip or card) for a larger monitor or does it come with the monitor? | |
|
||
| 01-05-14 01:01pm - 4004 days | #18 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Sorry, Micha, just came across your reply. And you are right, of course, I was thinking of watching pictures on my computer but not at web sites where you indeed have to scroll quite often. Must try the viewer that comes with Windows 7, it never occured to me to use that one because I am so used to Irfanview and ACDsee before that. | |
|
||
| 01-05-14 02:54pm - 4004 days | #19 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
You might possibly need to upgrade your video card, depending on the resolution of the monitor (higher with a bigger display size). In terms of what a monitor comes with, it's usually just cables--not necessarily the one you need, but more than likely it will--and possibly software on a CD or through the manufacturer's site, though you can ignore that (crapware). Here's a site with a little more explanation. Your best bet will be to find out exactly what video card your computer currently has and the maximum resolution that it will display. In theory you would be able to display a lower resolution on a bigger display (if your video card can't handle its max resolution) but it would start to look shitty--essentially a "zoomed in" look where everything is bigger because of the bigger display space. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 01-05-14 04:00pm - 4004 days | #20 | |
|
jook (0)
Active User  Posts: 325 Registered: Dec 22, '13 Location: jersey city |
I totally agree. I have a 27" iMac and I don't think the resolution gets much better. I notice absolutely no difference with 1080p except that it takes umpteen times as long to download it. Even slightly lower than 720p is sufficient. I started a thread on video players, but this is more apropos here - of all the players I've used, iTunes with Snow Leopard has the best quality and is awesome with 720p videos. | |
|
||
| 01-05-14 04:54pm - 4004 days | #21 | |
|
Parsnip (0)
Active User Posts: 39 Registered: Oct 29, '13 Location: Atlanta, Georgia |
At home I watch on a 50in HD tv. 1080p definitely looks much better and is well worth it. A decent 720p at a good bitrate is OK. Lower resolutions just look baaad. As for photos - the max size is usually what comes off the camera I should think. As long as they've done a "save for web", the size shouldn't be too great. I always download the largest size, as I have stuff that is 10 years old that still looks OK - if I'd download lower res versions then I'd have nothing worth watching from that time. | |
|
||
| 01-06-14 06:49pm - 4003 days | #22 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Thanks, turbo! I think my question might be solved some other way since the graphics are starting to act up on my present computer and I have never liked just having a graphics chip because I can't play most of the newer games with it, so sometime soon I am going to get me a power computer with a sizzling graphics card! I miss gaming! | |
|
||
| 01-06-14 10:46pm - 4002 days | #23 | |
|
turboshaft (0)
Active User Posts: 1,958 Registered: Apr 01, '08 |
Well, messmer, in that case you opened up a whole new can of worms; computer gaming, or just building a gaming rig is the subject of entire sites. Have fun!  BTW: I play my games on a PS3 and only own Macs right now, so I really can't steer you in any significant directions regarding PC gaming, much less building a proper setup. Hopefully other PU'ers here have some relevant advice. "It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A foreign substance is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hardcore Commie works." - Gen. Jack D. Rippper, Dr. Stranglove | |
|
||
| 1-23 of 23 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
