|
|||||
|
| Porn Users Forum » FILE SIZE |
| 1-18 of 18 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
| 10-04-10 08:05am - 5193 days | Original Post - #1 | |
|
Denner (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,217 Registered: Mar 03, '07 Location: Denmark |
FILE SIZE This thread is inspired by messmers last comment: https://www.pornusers.com/replies_view.html?id=53415 Where has the hunt for high quality videos and photosets taken us regarding how many MB and even Gb we have to download? I got for now three paysites in mind: Brazzers Inthecrack Naughty America ........and a couple of others OK, they GOT - sometimes - an alternative for lower sizes, but why do they have to make - let's go for vid-files here - so damn large files. Been downloading some 4-5 Gb files and at the same time an alternative 7-800 Mb for the same vid - I honestly cannot see any difference at my screen... Are they overdoing things or what do others say here??? "I don't drink anymore - I freeze it, and eat it like a popcicle" | |
|
||
| 10-04-10 08:38am - 5193 days | #2 | |
|
mistresskent (0)
Active Webmaster  Posts: 188 Registered: Feb 02, '09 Location: Kent, UK |
I personally think its good to make your file sizes Large, but like you say.. for you there is little point.. but for some they like to chop it around and put it onto the big screen.. there you would see a major difference. A happy medium could be found I reckon x Mistress Kent xx http://www.mistresskent.com http://www.mistresskent.co.uk | |
|
||
| 10-04-10 09:01am - 5193 days | #3 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
I've seen the size of a single photo at some high quality photo sites (like Metart) are up to 3 - 4 MB. On my PC monitor I can't tell the difference in qaulity or detail between a photo that is 4 MB and one that is 100 KB, which is 40 times smaller. But I still mainly download the higher sized photosets. So I am wasting a huge amount of disk space. But I think, at the back of my mind, that maybe I will start to view these photos/videos on a big-screen TV someday. But until that happens, I am really wasting a huge amount of disk space, and increasing my download times as well, especially with the slow DSL connection I have. I should really stick with the lower quality/lower sized photos, except for the really exceptional sets. It used to be that an entire photoset was much smaller than the current size of a single photo. I think it's more bragging rights than extra real value of the image with the larger size. But I keep getting sucked into downloading the biggest size photosets. And I keep thinking about the next hard drive I have to buy to store these files. Lead me not into temptation, because I will fail every time. | |
|
||
| 10-04-10 09:21am - 5193 days | #4 | |
|
hodayathink (0)
Active User Posts: 312 Registered: Mar 27, '09 Location: Illinois |
In the end, it's all about choice. Most of the places I've subscribed to that have that huge, high-def option, also have other lower quality options for people that value their hard drive space more (at least for video). And you can't really fault them for giving more options for how you want to watch their content, can you? | |
|
||
| 10-04-10 09:31am - 5193 days | #5 | |
|
lk2fireone (0)
Active User Posts: 3,618 Registered: Nov 14, '08 Location: CA |
Yes, I can fault them for giving more options to watch their content, especially when it eats up my hard drive space and forces me to spend more buying extra hard drives. The devil leads us into temptation. It's a conspiracy between porn producers and the hard drive makers. Don't you realize the dangers to your pocket book? Geez, how long has it been since I heard the words "pocket book"? (Pocket book was a small purse or billfold used to carry money.) That kind of dates me as belonging to the senior citizen class.  | |
|
||
| 10-04-10 09:33am - 5193 days | #6 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
See my reply to you through the link you provided, Denner. I have nothing against a huge, crystal clear picture but would like to be offered more choices other than small and large! Medium is fine with me because on my monitor it looks great. I generally like the videos provided by Anilos and Nubiles, they look wonderful on my monitor even though they are not HDs technically and they don't take up too much space on my hard drive either. If every site followed their model I'd be happy! Correction, just checked the dimensions of an Anilos file and technically they are HD at 720p. And only between 200-400 MB. Edited on Oct 04, 2010, 09:41am | |
|
||
| 10-04-10 10:02am - 5193 days | #7 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
I think there is an issue even for photo collectors too.. ( as detailed on my recent thread ) ...especially where there are no options on download size. Typically these days some sites are up around the 70 - 80 Meg per zip file. This is an issue for avid collectors of both video & photosets. 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! | |
|
||
| 10-04-10 01:00pm - 5193 days | #8 | |
|
Wittyguy (0)
Active User  Posts: 1,138 Registered: Feb 04, '08 Location: Left Coast, USA |
When it comes to vids, there does need to be some compromise. Frankly, I'd rather not have a 2-3 gig sized vid file chewing up disk space but when your only other option is a 300 mb file (say for a 30 minute vid) then quality wins over space in my book. I'm quite happy with a 700 mb to 1 gig sized file for a 30 minute vid; the only way I think you'd notice a dramatic difference in quality is if you play your vids on your t.v. in which case bigger is most always better. I think part of this trend is sites wanting to brag about having HD quality vids so they create these massive files that don't really transfer through the quality (not true HD) just to make the claim that they too have HD vids. I think giant photo sizes are just an example of lazy editing. Just cause you have a camera that take 12 mb pictures doesn't mean that you have to show them that way. Pictures greater than a few hundred kb are mostly a waste in terms of the quality not transferring through ... unless you like seeing pics on your 60" HD t.v. I think most of the photographers just don't think about file size any more since it's gotten fairly cheap and, in comparison to vids, the pics don't take up much of a sites total server footprint. Thus, the editors simply sort and crop, leaving the sizes unchanged or minimally changed. This isn't much of an issue and in fact we might appreciate the big pics more in the future. The bigger crime here is sites that still think 900x600 pixel photos are more than adequate for customers. | |
|
||
| 10-04-10 02:34pm - 5193 days | #9 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
Well, I'm gonna be the stinker here and say "hurray" for big file sizes, both in pics and videos. I don't mind a 640x480 video if the quality is good enough, and sometimes I'll take that or a similar option over the behemoths, but it's nice to have the choice, which I sometimes take. With photos, I used to say things like "3 mb? Way too much!" but I don't any more. I'd rather get the full-out real and non-degraded pictures, and then I'll make the decision as to whether they get reduced. I remember how shitty the quality was just a few years ago. Now it's so much better! I wouldn't want to kill the Golden Goose. I say: Keep 'em huge! I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. | |
|
||
| 10-04-10 02:43pm - 5193 days | #10 | |
|
Khan (0)
Suspended  Posts: 1,737 Registered: Jan 05, '07 Location: USA |
ROFL ... now how did I know that would be your feeling on this subject?  Former PornUsers Senior AdministratorNow at: MyPorn.com "To get your ideas across use small words, big ideas, and short sentences."-John Henry Patterson | |
|
||
| 10-04-10 03:26pm - 5193 days | #11 | |
|
RagingBuddhist (0)
Disabled User  Posts: 893 Registered: Jan 23, '07 |
For me, huge video file sizes are almost a must. I think I re-encode more than half of what I download so as to chop out the stuff I don't want to see in a scene. Anytime you re-encode a file, there's some loss of quality, so starting with the best picture I can get means megs - and lots of 'em! The same goes for pictures, even though the loss of quality when cropping isn't as obvious as it is with video. Sarcasm is a body's natural defense against stupidity. | |
|
||
| 10-04-10 04:54pm - 5193 days | #12 | |
|
Capn (0)
Active User Posts: 1,740 Registered: Sep 05, '09 Location: Near the Beer! |
I am not knocking the increase in quality. My criticism was aimed at the lack of flexibility in zip downloads & also sloppy editing of both video & photosets. No point in having great quality when 80% of what you have to download is of no value to you.  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! | |
|
||
| 10-04-10 05:56pm - 5192 days | #13 | |
|
Drooler (0)
Disabled User Posts: 1,831 Registered: Mar 11, '07 Location: USA |
Well, you could have lower quality and, all other things being equal, how much would be of value to you then? There are sites that do well with flexibility in zips and those that don't. WalterBosque, for example, doesn't. You only download a zip of the biggest size. (But at least NOW they have zips!) MetModels and ALS Scans (and ALS Angels) have good size options. I even think that Twistys' 1600's and 3000's are an acceptable selection of choices. (The same can't be said for the style of photos they put out.) Actually, for me, under 50 percent is certainly what I download from any given site. What I do download gets maybe a 20 percent reduction at most, which is tossing out pics of the girl staring into space or making faces I don't like or the last 10 (of 15) almost-the-same pussy closeups. Oh, I should mention those shots in which the girl takes up about 20 percent (or less) of the space in the photo as she's being dwarfed by a wall or a tree or building or some stupid thing like that. (And I'm sitting at my computer asking, "What in the FUCK do you think you're doing? I mean, who the FUCK wants THAT?") It's a pain to have to chuck things out on a regular basis, but to me the alternative would be worse: the editors deciding what MORE to throw out instead of me deciding that. They don't know what I like; only I do. (Funny, this has a familiar ring to it.) There used to be an active site called SnapGirls, which I reviewed over 3 years ago. Each photoset had only 24 pics. I always wondered what I could have seen had the editing not been so tight. So the point is that you're going to have pay some kind of price no matter what the site does. I'd rather there be more than less, at least to a point. I mean, if you get into those sites that do over 400 pics per photoset, well, that's REALLY a pot of coffee or two. I wanted something new, so I left England for New England. Edited on Oct 04, 2010, 06:11pm | |
|
||
| 10-04-10 06:40pm - 5192 days | #14 | |
|
pat362 (0)
Active User  Posts: 3,575 Registered: Jan 23, '07 Location: canada |
I don't want choice. I need choice. If all a site has to offer are large 1G video files then my allowed download quota for that month will get used up real fast and I'll have to either wait until the next month or pay the very high penalties. I'd gladly download the gigantic HD files if it wasn't for my quota but until that chnages then I'll stick with the 400mb H264 or wmv files. Surpisingly they are quite good. Long live the Brown Coats. | |
|
||
| 10-04-10 11:17pm - 5192 days | #15 | |
|
slutty (0)
Active User Posts: 475 Registered: Mar 02, '09 Location: Pennsylvania |
I still don't get the need for super high quality photosets, unless you do a lot of cropping yourself or a great deal of zooming in. Who has a monitor with high enough resolution for it to matter? Even looking at these photosets on a large screen TV doesn't really matter, as who has a TV with that high of a resolution, - I doubt they even exist... As for videos, I think at some sites the file sizes can get a bit insane. Also, bitrate is the controlling factor on quality, not native resolution (some sites encode stuff at a really low bitrate at 1280x720, just to call it HD, but it certainly isn't). Like others have said, as long as there are options I don't really care, I rarely download videos larger than 1 GB or photosets larger than 100 MB... 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. | |
|
||
| 10-05-10 08:58am - 5192 days | #16 | |
|
messmer (0)
Disabled User Posts: 2,582 Registered: Sep 12, '07 Location: Canada |
I agree with your remarks and wonder why I keep downloading super high resolution pictures when it takes so much scrolling if you want to see them in all their glory. I usually watch the pictures reduced in size so that they'll fit my monitor anyway. I guess it's the thought of how terrible my 800x600px sets look now that keeps me getting the latest and biggest and best. Preparing for the future, I guess. Sure is hard on the storage, though. | |
|
||
| 10-05-10 12:02pm - 5192 days | #17 | |
|
happyending (0)
Active User Posts: 15 Registered: Aug 04, '09 Location: Mars |
For comparison. Brazzers 1080p 12 Mbps WMV High Profile (6 month membership required) Brazzers 1080p 8 Mbps MP4 High Profile NaughtyAmerica 1080p 8 Mbps MP4 Main Profile RealityKings 1080p 10 Mbps MP4 High Profile Bangbros 720p 3.5 Mbps MP4 High Profile Typical Adult BD-25 Blu-ray 1080p 17 Mbps MP4 High Profile I want the best quality 1080p possible. I do not keep my downloads, usually, I watch once and delete. | |
|
||
| 10-05-10 06:57pm - 5191 days | #18 | |
|
Rob12 (0)
Active User Posts: 22 Registered: Aug 16, '10 Location: canada |
Yeah 2 sites come to mind Evil Angel and Naughty America, if you d/l the high resolution vids its very high . I found that using the lower resolution is faster and the quality isn't too bad. I have a program to convert wmv to avi and can make the vids a little sharper definition. Just got a note from my IP that I'm nearing the limit to my downloads, so it cancel Evil Angel. Rob12 Rob12 | |
|
||
| 1-18 of 18 Posts | Page 1 |
| Thread Nav : Refresh Page | First Post | Last Post | Porn Forum Home |
|
