|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » What do you consider "HD" quality? |
| 1-14 of 14 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 04-15-08 07:40pm - 6094 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
Goldfish (0)
Active User  Posts: 265 Registered: Jan 19, '08 Location: Boston, MA |
What do you consider "HD" quality? Everyone is excited about watching movies in high definition but when you go to a Web site that has "HD video", how do you know for sure what you're getting? Is it the resolution? dimensions (i.e. widescreen vs. full)? the bit rate? Picture clarity? My personal definition is a resolution of 720 pixels or more. I've heard people argue about the bit rate and other criteria but all I know is it's sold to me as high resolution and looks good or it looks shitty. If it does look bad I don't know if it's due to the bit rate, the type of camera or the video being shot out of focus. (or maybe because they are lying about the high resolution!) Edited on Apr 15, 2008, 07:43pm | |
|
||
| 04-15-08 08:57pm - 6094 days | #2 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
It's really true that the term "hi-rez" gets bandied about for all manners of dimensions ... and resolutions, for that matter. Any site that makes that claim and doesn't explain it in detail, don't take them seriously! But of course large dimensions, high dpi (say 300) in pics, and high bitrates in vids (not sure what the threshold number is for high) don't themselves guarantee good content. There are plenty of ways to fuck it up, and a lot of sites are expert at that. There was a poll or two a while back on this topic. You might want to look it/them up because as I recall some folks were pretty knowledgeable on the subject. (Not me, I'm just trolling around here. ;) I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 04-15-08 09:30pm - 6094 days | #3 | |
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User  Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
"High Definition" is largely a just a popular selling phrase right now. If a website is going to be upfront about it, they'll use the actually industry terms, and in that case, what you are looking for is 720p or preferably 1080p (1080i also exists, but I've never seen a website advertise that). 720p is a resolution of 1280 x 720 pixels. 1080p is a resolution of 1920 x 1080. Now this is just the amount of pixels the video accounts for at a 1:1 size ratio - it also dictates a widescreen aspect ratio. This does not account for the bit rate of the video. Now with standard (almost) loss-less video formats as seen on DVD or Blu-Ray (at least they are as the manufacturer sets them up - there are methods for heavy compression in those formats as well) - the bit rate isn't a factor because they are going to be presented as crisp as they can within that resolution. Of course websites can use whatever format the like, so compression becomes a factor. Generally you are looking for something in the range of 2000kbps - that usually gives pretty crisp video. The main problem with websites offering high definition 1080p video is that they can't afford the costs of industry grade digital movie cameras - the stuff Hollywood uses. So while the cameras are very nice and cost many thousands and are rated for 1080p - they simply don't look as crisp as the picture made by the cameras that filmed "Once Upon A Time In Mexico", for example. All Internal and all its sister sites are perfect examples - they really are filming in 1080p, but the cameras just aren't as good - so the picture looks soft and smooth. You aren't getting ripped off, they just have economic limitations that mean they can't spend 50 grand or whatever on their cameras. Maybe in a few years the better cameras will come down in price. My guess is if you buy Blu-Ray discs from the really big companies, like Playboy - you won't have this problem as they'll have the bankroll that is necessary to do it right. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo Edited on Apr 16, 2008, 12:26am (Toadsith: Technicalities.) | |
|
||
| 04-15-08 10:18pm - 6094 days | #4 | |
|
badandy400 (0)
Active User  Posts: 869 Registered: Mar 02, '08 Location: ohio |
For HD I am not as concerned with resolution as I am useful bitrate. It is not hard to make a 320x240 video into 1080i, hell I can do that myself, and I can make it take more than a GB per minute, but it still looks like shit. It is all about the source. From a good source my capture card makes some stunning video even just using component inputs. But in general from what I have seen online 2 MBit videos look nice at 640x480 and great at 4 MBit. Once you get up to 8 and up they pretty much top off unless you intend to watch them on your big screen. Even then there is not much need for anything above 8 MBit. I as have mentioned on PU before, Toadsith as well, it really depend on the quality of compression and source equipment. A well done 4 MBit video should look absolutely amazing. And a 2 MBit video should be good enough to please most people in quality and be small enough to not need 12 TB of storage to keep everything forever. I am noticing some places are simply stepping up the bitrate with out doing any actual filtering just to the video seem like it would be better when in fact the file size just increased making it harder to store, download, and play. Worth noting though, even Blu-Ray is not lossless. Everything is compressed. My capture card is using component and set to pre-compress and record at 720p and it still take about 700 MB per minute. Doing anything higher runs above my hard drive's write speed of 80 MB/s. The only way to get lossless quality is to connect the camera directly to the computer with HDMI and have a very large and fast striped raid set...and a hell of a machine to go along with it! Again, the cost factor as Toadsith mentioned. Medium budget porn producers simply can not afford this sort of set up yet, and it really is not needed even. Good editing and filtration is all that is really needed to make good porn videos. "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 | |
|
||
| 04-16-08 02:08am - 6094 days | #5 | |
|
Colm4 (0)
Active User  Posts: 117 Registered: Sep 22, '07 Location: Holland |
Can some of you experts tell what the difference is between 1280x720 HD MP4 and 1280x720 HD DivX? Alsscan occasionally has the choice between these 2 formats. The MP4 is almost unplayable on my PC. Like it slows down and stutters a lot. | |
|
||
| 04-16-08 03:47am - 6094 days | #6 | |
|
jd1961 (0)
Active User  Posts: 296 Registered: Jun 07, '07 |
| |
|
||
| 04-16-08 04:33am - 6094 days | #7 | |
|
Colm4 (0)
Active User Posts: 117 Registered: Sep 22, '07 Location: Holland |
It stutters with every player. | |
|
||
| 04-16-08 05:19am - 6094 days | #8 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended  Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
For those interested, a similar subject came up as a PU Poll Question last May. What dimensions would you consider "hi-rez" photos? Former PornUsers Senior Administrator Now at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson | |
|
||
| 04-16-08 10:02am - 6094 days | #9 | |
|
Toadsith (0)
Active User Posts: 936 Registered: Dec 07, '07 Location: USA |
MP4, a.k.a. MPEG-4 Part 14 is a based on Apple's Quicktime format but is considered more universally compatible. Indeed a number of media players like cellphones and mp3 players support the format out-of-the-box. Ironically, I too have found MP4 to be difficult for Quicktime to handle and instead use Nero Showtime that came with my Nero Burning Suite. DVD Playing software may also support it without much issue. I personally prefer DivX as it has matured quite a bit in the last few years and when the compression is too much, the video degrades much more gracefully than with MP4. MP4 tends to either look perfect or get really blocky - it is much more gradual with the current iteration of DivX. DivX also is capable of more compression with similar quality video. A dual or triple pass encoding with DivX can fit a 90 minute movie down to 700MB with almost perfect video accuracy (only a few years ago you had to stick with 1400MB to get acceptable video). Lastly, of course, is that Windows Media Player plays DivX with great ease, and of course the free DivX Player isn't so bad itself. "I'm not a number, I'm a free man!" Second Grand Order Poobah in the Loyal Order of the Water Buffalo | |
|
||
| 04-18-08 02:16am - 6092 days | #10 | |
|
Boobs4ever (0)
Active User  Posts: 4 Registered: May 27, '07 Location: Sweden |
Intersting pole the so called HD quality hype is to much I think. Im not the technical type of guy. But what Badandy and Toadsith is saying makes pretty much sense. If you dont have the original rawfile your working from in good quality it doesnt matter how high bitrate/framerate or resolution the final released file has it cant get better than the source is. Its like tryin to ad texture in a picture that doesnt have any texture to reinforce. Even the DvD quality they somesites promise can bee somewhat disepointing bc of bad source or compression ways. The most common problem I think is many sites doesnt put enough time down on the compression and maximize the quality of there content. Making product only half as good as it could and in general bigger size then needed Peace Love and Understanding :P | |
|
||
| 04-19-08 05:11am - 6091 days | #11 | |
|
JBDICK (0)
Active User  Posts: 160 Registered: Apr 04, '08 Location: Wales, UK |
does HD quality mean Hardcore Definition...sorry just messing... High Definition...I'm VERY impressed with the quality of the video on killergram (both picture and content), most of their files are 250MB no more and I can open them up full screen without picture loss. I don't know how they do it but hands off (no pun intended) to them, Delta White is fit aswell... for the record i did a properties on one of her vid files Delta White_My Tiny Crack Needs Filling.wmv as this is what it said Length : 25 minutes Frame Width : 640 Frame Height : 360 Data rate : 2395kbps Total bitrate : 2395kbps Frame rate : 25 frames/sec Audio Bit rate : 64kbps all I can say is, it was Ding Dong. I have files 3 times bigger than that from ZTOD and they are not as crisp Beautiful Girls Covered in Pearls and No Oysters in Sight | |
|
||
| 04-19-08 12:33pm - 6091 days | #12 | |
|
Goldfish (0)
Active User Posts: 265 Registered: Jan 19, '08 Location: Boston, MA |
All interesting thoughts. JBDICK had a good idea bringing up the sites he found the best quality video. The one that comes to mind for me is Only Cuties. The video quality is great and they don't overcharge for it. I have noticed regular DVDs (not Blu-ray) on my up-convert player look almost as good if not better than some of the HD programming from my cable company. Has anyone had that experience? | |
|
||
| 04-20-10 10:53pm - 5359 days | #13 | |
|
Cybertoad (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,158 Registered: Jan 01, '08 Location: Wash |
Digital desire tend to be setting the grade of nice quality lately. Since 2007 | |
|
||
| 04-21-10 01:19am - 5359 days | #14 | |
|
Ed2009 (0)
Suspended Webmaster  Posts: 509 Registered: Sep 12, '09 Location: Wales, UK |
Both could be exactly the same. MP4 is just a wrapper (like AVI), but if the codec (the actual compression used) used within the wrapper is h264 (probably the most common) then for the same video quality the MP4 file will be noticeably smaller than the DivX. If they are both recorded at the same bitrate then the MP4 will be better quality (assuming the source material is better than the DivX version). It can be extremely confusing.  I always make sure I specify the pixel resolution of videos on my site to be as clear as possible. Your problem sounds like your graphics card has some hardware assistance for decoding DivX files and that some bottleneck in your system is stopping it decoding h264 files fast enough. It could also be your video player or the details of the video format used by ALSscan? Webmaster of StripGameCentral and A Measure of Curiosity. | |
|
||
| 1-14 of 14 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
