|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » Brazzers Network - Do you think video quality is poor? |
| 1-14 of 14 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 03-08-09 06:51am - 5730 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
user2000 (0)
Suspended Posts: 28 Registered: Jun 07, '08 Location: UK |
Brazzers Network - Do you think video quality is poor? I've recently joined Brazzers, and although I like a lot of the content, I've been rather surprised that even new stuff is sub-standard in terms of video quality. For example, days-old new videos from their frequently updated sites can be about 350Mb for 30mins (or more) of footage, that being the largest file size offered in WMV format. It looks fine in say a 6" window on my laptop, but blow it up to full screen, and fuzzyness and pixelation around moving objects is immediately noticeable. I'd hope good quality on a 12" laptop screen was not too much to expect, but in video after video, the same annoying screen artifacts appear. I emphasize that this is new footage, not old archive stuff. I'm more used to videobox, which would provide a 30min film in 500Mb or more, this looking fine on a 12" laptop and pretty good on a 17" PC monitor. Although Videobox's definition of 'DVD quality' is something I've always disagreed with (a 9Gb DVD, split into 3 or 4 scenes, does not equal 0.5Gb each!) the end quality is good enough for you to feel you're watching the model, not the screen image problems instead. I agree there's a need to offer lower image quality for those with smaller media players or else download speed/size limitations, but it costs nothing to offer brand new footage at true high quality too. Does anyone agree with me? I'm not sure I'll be renewing Brazzers, at this rate. | |
|
||
| 03-08-09 11:02am - 5730 days | #2 | |
|
ControllingMind (0)
Suspended  Posts: 52 Registered: Jan 29, '09 Location: Inside An Unseen Force |
Yes I agree, Brazzers 640x480 wmv movies seemed a bit lacking in quality. It doesn't look like they are going to change things anytime soon either. They label themselves the best site in the world, yet they are lagging behind a lot of other sites for vid quality. Brazzers have tried to put members off asking about this, by saying that the file sizes would be too large, which is a bit of hypocrisy in itself since the same team has 1GB standard downloads on Mofozzers college bash scenes. They have also said they would not do both SD and HD formats, which causes members who want the smaller standard downloads to slate the inclusion of HD. In this day and age we all have good internet connections and large hard drives to cope with HD movies. IMO Brazzers has gone downhill, too concerned about bringing out another moneyspinner site mofos to keep pace with reality kings, than working on making the site better. | |
|
||
| 03-08-09 11:29am - 5730 days | #3 | |
|
user2000 (0)
Suspended Posts: 28 Registered: Jun 07, '08 Location: UK |
LostFaith, glad to hear it's not just me! Many of us spend a lot of time, money & effort getting hold of reliable high speed internet connections precisely because we want video downloads. Whilst Brazzers seem to have set up a serious porn network, failing to provide enough quality for even satisfactory laptop use is just bizarre. It's not like they even sell higher resolution as an option either, at perhaps a higher price (as Videobox slant their subscriptions rates versus file quality). It's simply not there. And being creators of their own content, surely recorded with high quality professional video gear, it must be just a simple PC batch processing exercise to reprocess a stack of them at higher quality. I've got to say, that unless this changes, I will not be renewing. It's just a weird decision, the best I can guess is that it's hiding some other problem such as capacity congestion at their servers, which would get worse if longer/larger downloads were taking place. But good old Videobox can get this right just ripping commercial DVD's. Someone at Brazzers needs to wake up to market forces, or watch their subscribers walk away. | |
|
||
| 03-10-09 02:47am - 5728 days | #4 | |
|
shooterbo (0)
Active User  Posts: 185 Registered: Apr 25, '07 |
I dont think they use Hi-Def yet on any of their sites. It's easy to spot. | |
|
||
| 03-10-09 09:23am - 5728 days | #5 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User  Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
Brazzers has no HD stuff anywhere. I would not see it being an issue for someone their size to produce their new stuff in higher definition. The site is approaching a TB the way it is, I am not sure but they may be over it already. Point being there is no reason for them to not have a high definition option a long with the lower options. I for one do not mind downloading huge files if the quality is good. They are 600 MB or so already, so what is the problem with making them a bit larger to make them look better. If they end up being 1.5 Gb that is fine by me, I download them at Videobox daily. And for those who are not willing to do that, they can just continue downloading which ever option they prefer. This is the one thing that keeps them below Videobox in book. If they get high definition going for the pictures and videos they might just debunk Videoboxand take my 100. As I have said in other places, my scoring logic says only one site can be a 100 and it must be the absolute best site I know of. "For example, badandy400 has taken it upon himself to become the one man Library of Congress for porn with a collection that surely will be in Guinness Book of World Records some day." ~Toadsith~ PU Interview | |
|
||
| 03-10-09 02:11pm - 5728 days | #6 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Just a quick question, badandy, are Videobox now offering videos in HD? I'd rejoin in a minute! | |
|
||
| 03-10-09 02:24pm - 5728 days | #7 | |
|
user2000 (0)
Suspended Posts: 28 Registered: Jun 07, '08 Location: UK |
I'm not sure what your definition of HD is, but Videobox have recently doubled a lot of their 30min stuff to 1 or 1.2Gb, not that I'd say is was especially needed for ordinary viewing. But Brazzers are way behind in the weeds, seriously undermining their massive site network for an easily corrected problem. I hope they're reading this. | |
|
||
| 03-10-09 07:58pm - 5728 days | #8 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
There stuff is still 480 at Videobox. So no, there is nothing at is 1080 or anything in that range. It is still the same as it was coming off the DVD. I will venture to say that the newer stuff does look pretty nice, but they are limited by the origonal quality. "For example, badandy400 has taken it upon himself to become the one man Library of Congress for porn with a collection that surely will be in Guinness Book of World Records some day." ~Toadsith~ PU Interview | |
|
||
| 03-11-09 02:09am - 5727 days | #9 | |
|
james4096 (0)
Suspended Posts: 132 Registered: Mar 02, '09 |
Brazzers stuff doesn't look fantastic, and it's definitely not HD, but I find it to be acceptable. Also, the file sizes are pretty big compared to the actual quality of the movies. I have to admit that I would never download a single scene over 1 gb unless it had one of my favorite actresses in it. Also I watch my pr0n on my old xbox using xbmc, and it can't handle HD, so I guess it doesn't bug me too much. We all love videobox, but most of their stuff is older and even at the highest quality it cannot be considered HD. | |
|
||
| 03-11-09 04:10pm - 5727 days | #10 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Thanks for the answer. I think I misunderstood what badandy wrote. When he mentioned files being 1.5 Gigs in size and that he downloaded them at Videobox daily, I automatically assumed they were HD which is, for me, either 1280x720 or 1920x1080 (FTV, ITC quality). | |
|
||
| 03-11-09 04:11pm - 5727 days | #11 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
Thanks, badandy! | |
|
||
| 03-11-09 07:41pm - 5727 days | #12 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
That is exactly what we are here for. That and hopefully have people like Brazzers figure out that they are falling behind. No wonder they have to keep offering $10 memberships. I just got an offer the other day for $8 per month! "For example, badandy400 has taken it upon himself to become the one man Library of Congress for porn with a collection that surely will be in Guinness Book of World Records some day." ~Toadsith~ PU Interview | |
|
||
| 03-12-09 10:50am - 5726 days | #13 | |
|
uscue (0)
Active User Posts: 13 Registered: Mar 01, '07 Location: USA |
I don't get it. I'm an electronics person (not by craft, just by being into videos and movies and such for a long time) and have a great Mac. The videos for Brazzers look fine to me, although sometimes I can see where the quality looks bad (closeups look grainy every once in a while). Now that I think about it as I write, maybe that's the problem everyone's noticing, which I understand. However, I think the quality problems should actually be laid out by people instead of just listing the ratio..that way we can see if the "quality" problems would affect our preferences. Just saying there's no Hi-Def option doesn't mean anything to me when buying because I never download Hi-Def options on any of the sits...I get by on the smaller file sizes that look just fine, just not perfect. But, if you say closeups can be grainy every once in a while on a site, then I understand the gripe better and can make a better decision on if I join. | |
|
||
| 04-04-09 05:03am - 5703 days | #14 | |
|
wiild1 (0)
Unverified User Posts: 52 Registered: Apr 14, '07 Location: UK |
Yeah quality is way too bad for a site that has freshly produced exclusive content. They would make more money if they upgraded quality; maybe they don't need to go for full HD but a jump to decent quality would pay off. | |
|
||
| 1-14 of 14 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
