BTW, I'm just curious: is there a chance to make adjustments to TBP scoring criteria based on results of this poll? I mean that at the point of this writing 44% of PU users have said that they care the most about "Innovativeness of material", and TBP scoring criteria gives only 5 (out of 100) points for "Originality", which looks quite imbalanced compared to this poll; even if we'll assume that some of "innovativeness" goes into TBP "Entertain" score, IMHO it still won't be enough fix this imbalance.
"Innovativeness of material" all the way! Personally I don't see the point in looking at the same old things in ever higher resolution. Give me something which I've never seen before, and I will happily pay for it even if it's in VHS quality (obviously, I will be even happier if it will be at least DVD quality, but the point is that I'm much more lenient to technicalities than to creativeness and the content).
> "Why would anyone want pictures that are bigger than the screen?" argument goes out the window (or out with the smaller monitor).
While I admit I'm not a picture fan, I'm still wondering - how many people REALLY have monitors big enough to care about 4000px-width pictures? Ok, 2000-2500px monitor is more or less standard these days, but 4000px on a single monitor? Not only I've never seen such a beast, I've never heard about anybody who has one.
Personally I'm MUCH less demanding for the encoding. 720 and 1.5Mbit/s (though it should be REALLY GOOD encoding in 1.5Mbit/s) is all what I'm asking from encoding these days. On the other hand, I'm MUCH more demanding to the original shooting; IMHO if footage was shoot on something like my Sony Z1 (and my feeling is that at least 50% of the sites are using something worse, and only about 10% are using something significantly better), it just doesn't make any sense to go as high as 4MBit/s when encoding it. Oh, and PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, no interlacing (one of the reasons why I don't like Z1 - it does NOT have progressive formats), and interlaced footage looks HORRIBLE on any attempt to pan, even after deinterlacing. And don't forget about proper lighting - dull lighting will be dull and unattractive regardless of the megabits spent on encoding.
IMHO his review is still MUCH MORE useful than facts like number of pictures (which can be easily found on TBP, and even if they're not 100% up to date, they're most likely pretty close):
380+ Photo Shoots (avg. 100 pics each)
Hi-Res Pics: N, Model Index: N, Small & Large Pics: N, ZIP Files: N
Watermarks: Yes, medium-sized (all pictures).
Videos: 205+ Videos (approx. 4 min. each)
Full Scenes: N, Multi-Bandwidth: N, Vid Caps: N
Watermarks: Yes, medium-sized (all videos).
Personally I HATE obsession with higher bitrates, ESPECIALLY when increasing them does NOT lead to higher quality. And unfortunately it happens all the time - if somebody makes 1980x1080 6MBit/s encoding out of DVD-quality source, it (surprise, surprise) won't become any better that original (in fact, it will be substantially worse because of resizing). For me for DVD-like stuff 1-2Mbit/s is optimal, HD 1980x1080 of 3-6MBit/s is fine too, but to warrant this increase, it must be REALLY REALLY clear, without blur.
The sad (at least for me) thing is that from my searches, about 80% of the DVDs are EXACTLY THE SAME for VideosZ and VideoBox :-(. Not sure about updates and where it goes, but at this point I don't think they're that much different :-(.
> Funny how it has been categorized as a 'bizarre fetish' by TBP/PU, sex with clothes on doesn't strike me as that outlandish. :-)
:-)). It just proves that bizarre is in the eye of the beholder too :-).
> Thanks for the technical specs too (sorry if I was giving you a hard time in the forum about that stuff). 05-21-09 12:22pm
As you see, I don't mind providing SOME technical details (though don't expect me to make ALL details from your cheatsheet - I'm too lazy for it :-)). On the other hand, I'm sure that it is MUCH MORE important to provide information like types of actions involved or subjective feelings about the technical stuff (like "pictures are 1024, but VERY clear" or "HD vids are 3MBit/s, but blurry").
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
++ "Fully Clothed" fetish as advertised
++ additional variety because of different clothing and different handling of it
++ EXCELLENT lighting/cameraguy work
+ decent video quality (including HD WMV @3Mbit/s)
+ EXTREMELY clear pictures (despite lower resolution of 1024x683)
+ weekly updates
+ full scene downloads
+ ZIP-ped picture sets
+ access to the rest of OrgyMax network (including PartyHardcore)
Cons:
-- about the same action all the time (2girls+guy, from oral to full sex)
- pictures are of lower resolution (1024x683)
Bottom Line:
Fully Clothed Sex is one of OrgyMax sites. While I've joined OrgyMax because of PartyHardcore (see my review on it), nevertheless I think FullyClothedSex is an addition worthy spending time on writing it's own review.
Overall, this site is about (surprise, surprise ;-) ) Fully Clothed Sex. Several girls (or guys) gather together, but unlike most of the other sites, they don't rush to undress before having sex. It includes all kinds of mini-variations, from the girl just pulling her skirt up and sliding her panties aside, to the guy tearing away her jeans. Action is usually boy/girl/girl with an occasional boy/boy/girl, always oral and full penetration, no anal (at least I didn't find one). Lighting and cameramen work are EXCELLENT.
Answering questions of Wittiguy in comments: while pictures are still 1024x683, they're EXTREMELY clear (not sure if it was the case before). As for videos, now there is an option to download the whole scene (20-25 minutes), and "standard" WMVs are 640x360 @1.1kbit/s, with HD videos added of 1280x720 @3Mbit/s (though as with PartyHardCore, I think they're on a blurrier side for this bitrate).
Bottom line: while I'm not sure this site could stay on it's own (especially with the price like this), I think it is a very good bonus to those who want to join some other OrgyMax site (probably PartyHardcore, though your tastes may vary). Or if you're into exactly this fetish, it should be a very good shot too.
> When the so-called "gonzo" genre began, there was a lot of creative stuff going on really. But now it's more liekly to be a schmoe with a camera copping a cheap feel off the hired actress.
Well, this is a natural process: when somebody is successful in "gonzo" (or whatever else) genre, immediately lots of guys begin to think "oh, gonzo is the way to make money", and obviously AVERAGE quality goes downhill. But the same natural way they will understand pretty soon that there is NO "easy money" in that genre anymore, and really creative guys will be able to make decent money again (I just hope they didn't leave industry during those difficult for them times).
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
+++ VERY unique idea
++ supposedly amateur girls sucking male strippers in the heat of the party
++ maybe (probably?) there are even REAL amateurs there.
++ action is very hot for supposedly amateur party: stripping, sucking, and up to full sex.
+ decent video quality
+ other OrgyMax sites included
Cons:
-- it unclear how much of the action is staged and how much is "real"
- there are no clear markings when one party ends and another starts; took some time to figure it out.
- price
Bottom Line:
When I first got to PartyHardcore member zone, I was seriously disappointed. The first clip I've got was some action without beginning and without end, just "out of blue". It took some time to realize that every scene is actually splitted into 4 parts, and that it is completely up to me to find out where the whole scene begins and where it ends. I don't have problems with splitting 2-hour-long movie into 4 updates, but guys, you could at least make it clear that these 4 updates are a part of one big scene.
But when I've got past this initial disappointment and understood how PartyHardcore organizes content, things went much better. First of all, it is a REALLY original idea, not to be found anywhere else. It shows a all-girl party with a few male strippers thrown in. Quite obviously, it starts with the stripper guy stripping, but it doesn't end there. Some girls (most likely professional adult models) start sucking the stripper guys and even fucking them, but the most exciting part of the whole thing is that supposedly amateur girls join them too. It is impossible to judge if there are real amateur girls participating in hardcore action, but it indeed looks rather genuine.
Technically videos are of about average to good quality: recent "normal" videos are 640x360 @1.1kbit/s, HD videos are 1280x720 @3Mbit/s, though I'd say HD ones are rather blurry for this kind of size. Recent pictures are suprisingly clear, though not too big in size.
Bottom line: despite outrageously high price, content (and idea) is absolutely unique, so if you're bored from "same old, same old" stuff, and are excited about the idea of real amateur girls having sex during real party, you might want to try it.
> but I doubt they really care about the product they put out.
I think THIS is the primary reason for the sad state of US porn, but I hope it will be cured rather quickly (in a matter of a few years) when profits from poor porn will drop to zero, and only the creative and unique DVDs and sites will be able to survive (up to now anybody who wanted to shoot porn, was able to make money, now it's about to change).
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
++ huge selection of DVDs
++ rather good quality
+ search feature with both keywords and categories
+ "DVD Collection" and "Scene Collection" features
+ frequent updates (though with this number of DVDs already existing I don't really care)
Cons:
--- pre-checked cross-sales
-- with a few exceptions, same old, same old.
- no WMV format
- categories are quite limited and mostly about action types (Oral, Anal, DP and so on)
- no option to download whole DVD at once
Bottom Line:
I've tried VideosZ as a typical DVD video site, and it is indeed such a site. For somebody didn't try such sites before, I would describe it as a huuuuge adult video store with your regular DVDs on the shelves, with the only (though very important) difference being that all those DVDs are virtual and are essentially free (as long as you're paying for your monthly membership).
As in your usual "adult video store", DVD selection can be rather large, but unfortunately it's essentially the same old thing, with 99% being very similar, all shoot in cheap motel, with little or no attention to lighting or cameraguy work, with the only difference being what kind of actions you can find inside, but even the different actions are very limited and cannot keep attention for a long time. If actions on the milder side, you usually get better girls, if actions are on wilder side, you usually get worse girls, down to outright ugly ones. Overall, IMHO this whole site is very good in showing the crisis of the adult industry in general, and IMHO this crisis is not because of sites like PornTube or financial meltdown, but because of lack of creativity of those guys who're making DVDs and adult sites. Sure, there are a few notable exceptions, like Private DVDs (though even Private doesn't look too good on VideosZ, not sure if it's just poor selection there, or Private has also went downhill recently) and kink.com web sites, but in general it looks that this whole industry is in the midst of a big creativity crisis.
Back to VideosZ review. As I've said, as a "syndication" site it merely reflects rather sad state of the whole industry. For me it felt rather boring.
Technically site is not bad, with a rather decent search feature (though it would be better to have categories not only on action types, like "Double Blowjob", but also on type of setting). "DVD Collection" and "Scene Collection" are convenient additions. What annoyed me was VideosZ's selection of video formats. In Windows-dominated world I personally consider forcing me to install DivX as an insult, and I'm not crazy about MP4 on Windows PC too; gimme WMV, and I welcome the rest as nice extras, but lack of WMV creates an additional hassle for me which I don't like.
Bottom line: VideosZ a very good example of a "typical DVD site", with the biggest problem being lack of creativity by DVD publishers. The rest is quite ok, and if you're not bored from "same old, same old" stuff, it might be worth a try. I would rate VideosZ at decent 80, but I feel obligated to penalize it for pre-checked cross-sales, so overall score goes down to 75.
> If you enjoy softer nude stuff well-presented with gorgeous babes - updated daily, this sites's pretty awesome.
Do you mind if I amend it a bit? "If you enjoy softer nude stuff well-presented with gorgeous babes WITH BORED "I'M THE QUEEN AND YOU'RE DIRT" EXPRESSION CLEARLY WRITTEN ON THEIR FACES" - updated daily, this sites's pretty awesome." would be MUCH better description IMHO :-).
If no one have been REALLY abused, then it was just a blatant attack on free speech, nothing less. Who can say what one of thousands of communities will consider as "obscene" tomorrow? Maybe some community will consider anything gay (not sex, but even mentioning that there are gay people) as obscene and unacceptable? Or maybe some community will consider "anything which doesn't show certain religious practice" as unacceptable and obscene? Ok, in reality it isn't that bad (yet), but I'm afraid it still can become a beginning of a slippery road towards prohibiting speech just because some community doesn't like this kind of speech.
Another thing which outrages me is jail term. Max Hardcore got 4 years in jail. 4 years just because somebody didn't like the content he made. It is the same one can get for manslaughter. Isn't it obvious that even comparing these two things is ridiculous and outrageous?
If somebody doesn't like his videos (personally I don't), it is perfectly ok to write that they're disgusting (which they IMHO are), it is ok to call for sites like PU to remove Max from their listings, but sending a guy to jail just because you disagree with him? Imagine that you're arguing with somebody, and after your next phrase your opponent calls for police and you and up in jail for years, just because what you've said violates some "community standards". Ouch.
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
Pros:
+++ absolutely unique concept
++ unscripted real wrestling
++ girls are mostly friendly to each other during the wrestling (though not in last round)
+ nice girls
+ good video quality (up to HD 1280x720 at about 1.5Mbit/s)
+ updated 5 times a month (with FULL episode every time)
+ user feedback and comments
+ easy site navigation
+ full movie download (instead of ZIPs).
Cons:
- action in the last round is scripted
- not too much variety in the last round
- ZIPped video download seems to be gone (replaced with full movie download)
Bottom Line:
Recently I re-joined UltimateSurrender and found that now it became even better (sorry for marketing-speak, but that's exactly my feeling).
The site is about girls wrestling almost nude to nude while getting extra points for actions like opponent pussy fingering, smothering her face with pussy and so on. Every match starts with girls wearing panties (recently bikinis were introduced), but they are removed very quickly (panties removal of the opponent means 5 points, so they have an incentive to do it). After the wrestling, winner (with the most points) gets to punish the loser in the so-called "final round", which usually includes mild humiliation, strap-on action (sometimes anal), forced pussy licking and so on.
Kink.com says that wrestling is unscripted, and I do believe it (they're about the only site I believe is unscripted); recently they even started to do some matches in front of live audience. Final round though is scripted almost for sure (or at least very strict restrictions are placed on the winners), which obviously reduces variety of final round a bit.
Video quality is very decent (up to HD 1280x720 at about 1.5Mbit/s; non-HD is also quite good with 960x540 at about 1MBit/s, pictures can be downloaded as ZIPs, recently an option to download whole video has been introduced (instead of ZIP with video parts).
Since my previous review UltimateSurrender has made several improvements, which contributed to making the site "even better". Most importantly,
they introduced tag team matches; one cannot overestimate their importance, they change the game and overall feeling COMPLETELY. The next thing was that they have made tag team matches translated 'live' and in front of live audience (which added some additional twist and adds a bit of variety). As for more minor changes, they have introduced bikinis (IMHO nice touch, but would be nicer if points are given for top removal too), provided a bit better video quality and
fixed problems with their previous crappy login system (now it works like a breeze, no need to relogin after leaving session unattended for a few hours).
Overall, after coming to this site once again, I almost lost doubt that as of now, it is THE VERY BEST site on the net for me personally, so I've upgraded it's rating to 98 (the very first 98 I've ever set on PornUsers).
Bottom line: if you are not scared by "girls-only" action and by the very concept of female wrestling, you shall at least take a look at their tour pages; BTW, better samples about this and the other kink.com sites can be found on free-hardcore.com . Admittedly, it is so unusual, that it can be "love-it-or-hate-it", but if you like the tour and samples, I think you will like it inside too.
My humble understanding of it is that NTFS normally reserves 10% of the file size for the future file growth. It helps to reduce fragmentation in the beginning, but on the flip side it means as soon as disk usage reaches 90%, there is no contiguous space left, as all free space is contained in those "reserved" chunks. As soon as this point is reached, NTFS starts to use all that micro-chunks as a space for further files, which obviously makes fragmentation of these new files sky-rocket, which in turn leads to the system being slowed down A LOT.
Disclaimer: this is just my understanding, if somebody KNOWS how it really works, please don't hit me too hard :-).
> NTSF was the only formatting a PC user should ever use.
Ahem. I don't want to start a flame on this topic (there are lots of other much interesting topics to flame on :-) ), but NTFS has two big disadvantages:
1. while it is indeed more difficult to crash it, it is also much more difficult to retrieve something from it if it crashes.
2. NTFS slows to a crawl (IMHO much worse) on reaching magic number of "90% used" (and speed doesn't necessarily comes back when you're back to below-90%). I even think I know why, but this is beyond the scope of this poll :-).
Protecting Minors We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.
DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.
To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.
