|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » What’s the big deal about HD video? |
| 1-26 of 26 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 07-08-12 07:44pm - 4550 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
Micha (0)
Active User Posts: 321 Registered: Jul 04, '10 Location: san jose ca |
Oh I just watched one. Never mind. My computer is 3 or 4 years old and has a problem with 1080 lines of resolution. They hiccup, stammer and show artifacts when the FF button is used. My first impulse was to upgrade my vid card and add some RAM, but then comparison made me wonder why. Blu Ray looks great on my 48” Sony, but 1080 on a 27” monitor doesn’t really out shine the 720 videos much at all. I’m perfectly happy viewing erotica on my puter and don’t intend watching them on the big screen, and if that changes, the Sony is computer ready. My problem is that while some paysites offer 1080 as well as 720, many offer only 1080. I have taken to eliminating the 1080 only sites from consideration. The reason? Hard drive space. A 1Gig vid in 720p compares to 3-5 Gigs in 1080p. A marginally better resolution is taking up four times the HDD space. Am I missing something here? unless life also gives you water and sugar, your lemonade is gonna suck. | |
|
||
| 07-08-12 10:13pm - 4550 days | #2 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
Well the first thing is , Size most videos of hi-res are bigger sometimes 4-5 time bigger depending on how they were done, format etc. The second is details, in do you need to see a vagina with razor burn details and pimples ? Well some HD's will do that and give more details then some including me want to see. I still like subtle 80's porn. Third , is most sites with HD do not put out as many updates is my experience as HD is more expensive to have users download due to bandwidth and storage and production can cost more because edit time cost more. It is not unusual for a 20 minute video to have been 25gigs before being edited down to 3-4 gigs . Is it worth is is up to the individual. I think some scenes were great because of HD , but I don't have to have it, the actors and what they do is far more important. to me anyways. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 07-08-12 10:52pm - 4550 days | #3 | |
|
slutty (0)
Active User Posts: 475 Registered: Mar 02, '09 Location: Pennsylvania |
I'm with CT, the players are much more important to me than a moderate improvement in video quality. I almost never download 1080p content, even with a full HD monitor I rarely can tell the difference, on my larger TV I can barely tell. But then, I'm not a hardcore videophile, I'm sure some might prefer the crispest video possible - just not worth the space to me. Bunny Lebowski: I'll suck your cock for a thousand dollars. Brandt: Ah hahahahaha! Wonderful woman. We're all, we're all very fond of her. Very free-spirited. | |
|
||
| 07-09-12 09:07am - 4549 days | #4 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I usually download 1080p, if I have a choice, since external drives are quite cheap and I have a fast connection. 720p is almost as good. As others pointed out there's really not much difference when the HD video is viewed on the computer, but I tend to think of the future. Remember how not too long ago an 800x600 picture was considered quite adequate, as was a 640x480p video. Now they don't look so good on a 1680x1050 monitor. It has been HD all the way for me for quite a few months now. | |
|
||
| 07-09-12 10:24am - 4549 days | #5 | |
|
Reveen (0)
Active User Posts: 96 Registered: Apr 06, '09 |
I have to agree with that, sometimes HD does not flatter a model. Not only razor burns but pimply arses are such a turn off, especially when so many of the in-out in-out scenes focus on the arse, blecch! I recall, probably at least 5/6 years ago now a video of Faith Lightspeed (aka prolific model Ariel/PiperFawn etc etc) in which she had a massive genital wart, I shudder to think at how repulsive that would have been in HD. The things that would probably work the best in HD are the high-end stuff like Joymii or SexArt where they might at least have a make-up artist available who could use concealer or something to cover up pimples and stuff. | |
|
||
| 07-09-12 11:54am - 4549 days | #6 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I always marvel how different tastes are because I prefer to see my models warts and all. Well, genital warts I wouldn't care for either, but you know what I mean. In other words I prefer natural, even if the flaws are obvious, to a cover-up. A bit of make up, fine, but not to cover some innocuous pimple. Leave it be, Reveen.  As one example of my dedication to natural, I am presently subscribing to Art-Lingerie but only download the videos because the pictures are enhanced to a point where the model almost looks artificial. Especially painful were a couple of sets with Faye Reagan that had to be left on the site because she looked like an idealized Faye Reagan and not the porn star I was familiar with. | |
|
||
| 07-09-12 12:33pm - 4549 days | #7 | |
|
Claypaws (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 144 Registered: May 16, '12 Location: UK |
Thank you for saving me the bother of signing up to that one, messmer. I love Faye Reagan - but not a waxworks version. | |
|
||
| 07-09-12 12:44pm - 4549 days | #8 | |
|
Claypaws (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 144 Registered: May 16, '12 Location: UK |
I am glad you posted this - and for the confirmations of other posters. Neither my 8 year old PC nor my 4 year old laptop can play 1080p video at all. It just freezes at some random frame and keeps going in sound only. My PC's graphics card is not upgradeable (it has an AGP slot only). Video decoding is not memory-intensive. Increasing RAM will not help. It is now very irritating when sites offer only 1080p, giving me even less reason to download video than I already had! As for space, in theory, 1080p video should be 2.25 times the file size of 720p video, for the same encoding quality. Can all modern PCs play 1080p video or is it still possible to buy graphics cards that cannot cope with it? | |
|
||
| 07-09-12 01:39pm - 4549 days | #9 | |
|
Reveen (0)
Active User Posts: 96 Registered: Apr 06, '09 |
I'm not talking about Air-brushing models, I'd be against that as well but when someone is going to do a photoshoot or video then a bit of body makeup to hide some spots is no big deal. I don't mind appendix scars or a bit of cellulite or what have you but I draw the line at big angry spots on a models arse  | |
|
||
| 07-09-12 02:47pm - 4549 days | #10 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Okay, that could be a turn-off, Reveen! | |
|
||
| 07-09-12 02:53pm - 4549 days | #11 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I bought the cheapest PC I could over a year ago. No graphics card, only a chip, yet have absolutely no problem playing any 1080p videos, Claypaws. I think you could retire your 8 year old desk top with little regret because computers have really come down in price since 2004. BTW, I am starting to think of getting myself a more powerful computer for Christmas so that I can play some of the new games that have come out during the past few years, but other than that this >$300 computer does everything else just fine! P.S. Someone suggested recently that I install a good graphics card in my computer and that I could save myself some money that way. I might take that route yet! Edited on Jul 09, 2012, 03:03pm | |
|
||
| 07-09-12 02:58pm - 4549 days | #12 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
That is a marvelous description of the set. Faye Reagan looks perfect, bigger than life, but does remind me a lot of a wax model at Madame Tussaud's!  | |
|
||
| 07-10-12 06:31am - 4548 days | #13 | |||
|
Claypaws (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 144 Registered: May 16, '12 Location: UK |
Thanks, messmer. That is encouraging. It suggests that anything I might build now would have no problem.
I would have huge regrets. It is not the cost that is the issue. I have hundreds of programs installed in this Windows XP machine. Some of them are mathematical programs that I spent months writing myself. Others are a selection of mathematical, audio and graphics applications written by other people. Many would not run on a 64 bit OS, though perhaps they might run on a 32 bit OS in a VM within a 64 bit OS. Not simple though. I built my current PC myself. I am a stickler for proper backup and have three internal hard drives, carefully partitioned to make backup and restore easy. I can restore my entire OS in around 5 minutes and back it up in under 2 minutes. I use externals too. I would build my own PC again. I would never buy a ready made one, even if it would be cheaper. Costings I have done suggest around £1000 to give me the flexibility and ease of use that I want and with full ability to calibrate and profile monitors. Add another £700 to £1000 for spare parts. When I built this PC, it took me about 1 day to build it and install Windows. Then about 3 months to install and configure my programs. Now I reckon it would take only one day to build the PC but 6 months to install and configure programs, if I could even get them all to run at all. That is why an extra £700 to £1000 for spare parts is justified. Otherwise, I could face having to replace a machine again in a couple of years and have to repeat all that installing and configuring. I have enough spare parts to keep this machine running for at least another four years.
I think that is a good idea. I wish I had that option myself. | |||
|
||||
| 07-10-12 11:59am - 4548 days | #14 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
^ @ claypaws: I can see now where you would be reluctant to part with your present computer. I don't do any heavy work with mine and can easily replace whatever I lose if I get a new one because all my porn is stashed on externals, so it's basically a download of Firefox, Thunderbird, Open Office, Irfanview and TrueCrypt and I'm back in business. Just curious because I'm not a techie: why couldn't you go with a powerful Graphics Card? Wouldn't that allow you to watch 1080p on an up-to-date monitor? BTW, I wish you lived in Canada. I have a three year old computer sitting in my storage area and according to my brother who strongly suspects the reason why it broke down keeps telling me that most likely it's simply a memory problem and all I have to do is open the machine switch the memory around to see which is the bad one, replace it, and I could be back to having a nice computer that actually has more graphics power than my present one. Pitiful! But true!  | |
|
||
| 07-10-12 05:27pm - 4548 days | #15 | |||||
|
Claypaws (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 144 Registered: May 16, '12 Location: UK |
Mine too. The big problem for me is the hundreds of programs! Though I know you understand that already.
Oh for the simplicity of that. I could build and configure a system like that in a day. How many icons do you have on your desktop? I have 162 - and those are just the most frequently used things!
Modern graphics cards have a PCI-E interface. That refers to the shape of the male copper pins on the edge of the card. They fit into the female PCI-E slot of the motherboard. My motherboard predates PCI-E. Its graphics card slot has a different shape, called AGP. You cannot buy AGP cards anymore. PCI-E cards do not fit. You cannot update a motherboard without replacing everything - CPU, memory, the lot.
...which is such a small country that it is easy to visit any other Canadian. 
Just need to remove a memory module and see if the computer works without it. If it does, that was the faulty one. Memory comes in about 100 different types. Getting the right one is the tricky part. I have spare memory modules for my PC in my store cupboard. | |||||
|
||||||
| 07-10-12 05:45pm - 4548 days | #16 | |
|
RagingBuddhist (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 893 Registered: Jan 23, '07 |
I had to go to a UK site to see it for certain, but I didn't think they'd done away with AGP cards altogether on your side of the big pond. Not too long ago, I upgraded the video on a co-worker's dinosaur of a computer - and very nicely cheap in this age of the PCI-E! I don't know what the specs are on your current machine, but I wouldn't rule out an upgrade just yet. Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupidity. | |
|
||
| 07-10-12 07:23pm - 4548 days | #17 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Just a quick reply to Claypaws because it is getting real late: a) it wouldn't be a long trip for you, I live right along the Atlantic Coast, so get over here and help me, b) I don't dare take a computer apart, not even to the extent of taking off the cover and c) I have seven icons on my desktop including the Recycle Bin!  | |
|
||
| 07-10-12 08:25pm - 4548 days | #18 | |
|
Reveen (0)
Active User Posts: 96 Registered: Apr 06, '09 |
Also your psu may not have the right connectors for the graphics card. I built my current pc about 6 months ago and threw in a Gainward GTX560 phantom 2gb card and it required 2 6 pin power connectors from the power supply unit. There are some amazing motherboards and cpu's out there, I don't regret upgrading one bit. Next upgrade I plan on making is to install a ssd and throw the OS on that, should go like greased stink | |
|
||
| 07-11-12 03:21am - 4548 days | #19 | |
|
Claypaws (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 144 Registered: May 16, '12 Location: UK |
Thanks for that, RagingBuddhist. You are right. There is still AGP stock available. Of course, it is old stock as they went out of production years ago. I had a read through some of the reviews. I guess that many of those cards would still not play 1080p video because that requires GPU hardware acceleration of a suitable kind for the modern video and the cards were produced before video needed that kind of hardware acceleration. Some of them might happen to work though. But getting a driver to install and work looks like a total nightmare. Some users found that only the driver included on the CD works. Others found it didn't and had to download drivers from manufacturers' sites. The latest drivers did not work but some earlier ones did and some didn't. Others found only the latest drivers worked. Looking on AMD's support site, there are loads of versions and they also refer elsewhere for driver support for certain features. There are also reports of needing to do things with audio drivers in order to get the graphics driver to work. Add to that the fact that my Anti Virus has problems with some graphics drivers and causes the system to freeze when an external hard drive is connected. Ya know, since I hardly ever watch video anyway, as I am nearly exclusively interested in photos, I think I shall not attempt a graphics card update. But for some reason, I find myself tempted to try. Not sure why as I would not watch the video anyway! | |
|
||
| 07-11-12 03:34am - 4548 days | #20 | ||
|
Claypaws (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 144 Registered: May 16, '12 Location: UK |
Thanks, Reveen. Yes, in some of the card reviews, I see people struggling with that problem too. It seems that the only straightforward way with hardware is to buy all the components at the same time while they are all within about 6 months of original issue. Built in obsolescence kicks in remarkably fast with computers. All the manufacturers' claims of future proofing and upgradability (is that a real word?) are marketing hype. What you start off with is what you get, largely.
ssd would probably help a bit. I have my OS on a separate HDD but it is more for ease of backup and restore than for speed. I have never been one for upgrading things. Once I have something that works, I like to use it until it no longer works and cannot be repaired. I have had my hi-fi speakers for 40 years. Speed does not bother me. But this 1080p video thing bugs me, even though I find video much less satisfying than photos and rarely even try to watch any. | ||
|
|||
| 07-11-12 03:44am - 4548 days | #21 | |
|
Claypaws (0)
Suspended Webmaster Posts: 144 Registered: May 16, '12 Location: UK |
Aha, messmer. Only a little hop across the pond required then. For some reason, it is scary opening up a PC even when you have done it hundreds of times and built them from scratch. They are very shy creatures and they have a habit of sulking after you open them up. 7 icons. That is funny. | |
|
||
| 07-12-12 03:16pm - 4546 days | #22 | |
|
manholelover (0)
Active User  Posts: 37 Registered: Jun 17, '11 Location: London, UK |
Well, I haven't been here in months, but thanks to gaypornlover's messages I'm back. And i must say I've missed you all. Anyway, back to issue in hand. I, like I suspect all my fellow PUs here, I love porn because I'm a bit of a voyeur.... And I like to see the real thing, that's as close to natural a sometimes smudged laptop screen can allow. So I love HD. Yes, people have spots on their arses, but that only endears them more to me. I don't always download the HD versions though, mainly because it takes too long. But I kind of think HD was made for porn.... | |
|
||
| 07-14-12 12:46pm - 4544 days | #23 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Hey, welcome back, manholelover! Do you download wmv or mp4 files. The reason I ask is that many of our members needlessly download wmv not realizing that an mp4 file's picture is just as good if not better and that the file itself is about half the size of a wmv one. Of course, there has to be a choice first! | |
|
||
| 07-14-12 02:02pm - 4544 days | #24 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
Guess there is HD because there are so many varied points of use. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 07-15-12 10:40am - 4543 days | #25 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
If anyone has ever read my comments on HD videos than you know that I tend to avoid them simply because they eat too much bandwith and I'm limited to 120G per month before I get overcharged. There's another huge reason why HD is not that great and it is in regards to a models perceived beauty vs the reality. One of the best example I can think of right now is Cameron Diaz who has a beautiful face until you see it in HD. Her beauty tends to disapear below all her acne and other skin blemishes and that tends to break the fantasy. In porn it is even worse because you just don't get to see the models face but her entire body. There are some really beautiful porn models that look great in standard definition but less so when seen in HD. I think I've stopped counting the number of scene that are hard to watch because no one thought to use makeup to hide the razor burns, pimples, skin blemishes and what not on the models body and it looks pretty bad in standard Definition so it must look awful in HD. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 07-15-12 02:19pm - 4543 days | #26 | |
|
elephant (0)
Active User  Posts: 585 Registered: Jan 11, '07 |
Yeah I'm getting more like this , sometimes it is really hard to see much of an improvement with the 1080p and when they are into 2 gb territory its hard to justify why I really need them. Some part of me says I do though lol and its hard sometimes making that decision to go for the lower one. "Women are like tricks by sleight of hand, Which, to admire, we should not understand." WILLIAM CONGREVE | |
|
||
| 1-26 of 26 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
