| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
201
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Reply
Not only that, but also to make decent 1980x1080, it's necessary to make it at 10+MBit/s, otherwise it's pointless. And those who have 1980x1080 (to say "we have HD") encoded @ 1MBit/s are just playing good old number game implying "the bigger - the better" (like those played with CRT monitor inch sizes or with CPU GHz in the past).
|
07-18-08 06:28am
|
Reply
202
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
This thing is quite complicated, see detailed explanation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlace
In short - some (actually most) HD cameras now use modes like 1080i (where 'i' stands for 'interlace'), opposed to 1080p (where 'p' stands for 'progressive'). When you shoot with 1080i (or any other 'i') camera, it makes every frame out of 2 half-frames: first one consists from even 1-pixel rows, second one - from odd 1-pixel rows. But as they're made with some delay between them, fast movement can easily lead to considerable shifts between odd and even rows, and at least to my eye it looks REALLY UGLY and annoying. Obviously, the effect is the most easily seen when camera is panning (because it means that the whole picture moves quite fast).
Editing software can try to deal with it, making "deinterlace", but it has it's drawbacks (loss of detail and so on). But to make things worse, sometimes encoding process seems to re-introduce interlacing back; this I'm not really sure of, but it certainly looks sometimes, even on big non-adult company DVDs :-(.
So I'm not sure what really contributes to this unpleasant effect of interlacing (camera or encoding), but what I know for sure that I really HATE it and it spoils all the fun for me.
|
07-18-08 06:13am
|
Reply
203
|
N/A
|
Reply of
moshic's Poll
At this point I still prefer REALLY GOOD DVD quality (720x480 or similar) to poor "HD" 1280x720 (and please please PLEASE no interlace - it looks HORRIBLE on any panning).
|
07-16-08 10:57am
|
Reply
204
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Denner's Poll
I've found that PU reviews as MUCH more relevant than TBP ones, and only if there are no PU reviews or if they're inconclusive, then I go to TBP.
|
06-16-08 08:06am
|
Reply
205
|
Strip Game Central
(0)
|
Reply of
ace of aces's Reply
> everything is rubbish i have seen until now :(
Exactly my point :-(.
|
06-16-08 06:41am
|
Reply
206
|
Strip Game Central
(0)
|
Reply of
ace of aces's Reply
> are the games playable
No.
> and is ther a video strip poker content?
Not sure what exactly you mean, but I think site doesn't have videos at all.
> do you know a good site withe strip poker content?
Finding attractive girls strip-dancing on video is a challenge these days :-(. Finding it in "strip poker" setting is even bigger challenge :-((. Please let me know if you know/find some.
|
06-16-08 06:17am
|
Reply
207
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Reply
> Besides, I am preparing for when the evil people take porn away from
> us, this way I should have enough to last me a very long time! Kinda
> like people stocking up on food and ammo just in case the shit hits the
> fan.
:-) :-).
|
05-21-08 04:13pm
|
Review
208
|
4 Real Swingers
(0)
85.0
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
+ genuine real swingers
+ recent videos are of very good quality (not Hollywood and not Private DVDs, but still quite good 1280x720).
+ occasional acting guys as cameraguys is an interesting twist adding reality feeling
+ variety (what about DP scene shot completely in infrared? :-))
+ decent post-processing (especially for amateur clips)
+ active forum
+ calendar of recent and upcoming updates
+ overall excellent job of webmaster |
| Cons: |
- some models look booored while doing it
- older videos are of poor quality
- even not so old videos (720x480) have significant visible interlacing, so ONLY most recent ones are good
- cameraguy work sometimes isn't too good |
| Bottom Line: |
it is a quite a unique site aiming at showing real swingers, and I should admit it's the best such attempt I've seen to date. Formally it consists of a bunch of individual model sites under single umbrella, but essentially done by the same people and very consistent.
These guys and girls look as they're doing it for real (at least most of the time); it's full of conversations which show it's indeed for real, and most of them are having fun. On the other hand, sometimes models have such a boored expression on the face, that it ruins much of reality feeling; fortunately it doesn't happen too often (personally I especially liked Brooke for her "live" face).
Variety is excellent - any kind of group action is here (except for anything MM), up at least to 3+3, with significant amount of anal and DP thrown in, and occasional twists like infrared shot or interracial guy.
Technically recent videos are VERY good (VERY decent 1280x720 at 3Mbit/s), but more earlier ones aren't so good; even 720x480 has interlacing problems which pretty much ruin quality when panning.
Website is excellent too, it has lots of features to make it more enjoyable (like search through all the sub-sites or slideshow); the only thing I found missing is ZIPped picture download.
Bottom line: VERY decent site for lovers of amateur orgy sites with not so amateurish quality; for lovers of this niche it is HIGHLY recommended (it would get even higher rating if not for some boored model faces). |
|
05-21-08 12:51pm
Replies (0)
|
Reply
209
|
N/A
|
Reply of
kkman112's Reply
> I've never joined any trial. To pay a few bucks for any trial for a few
> days and have to remember to cancel if I do not like the site or be
> charged full price automatically is just too much of an issue. I
> research a site a lot and then make my decision to join or not to join.
Ditto.
|
05-21-08 05:03am
|
Reply
210
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Reply
As I've said, they should allow you to download your 105 movies, but I'm just curious - what are you going to do with all that stuff? 105 movies even if they're 20min each is an awful lot of movies which will take 30-something hours to watch :-).
|
05-21-08 04:50am
|
Reply
211
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Poll
> meeting directors and reps of production companies that I've pissed off with my reviews
For me it would be an upside :-).
|
05-20-08 08:07am
|
Reply
212
|
4 Real Swingers
(0)
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Review
> -No DP on Anna
There is one, posted on April 20th 2008. The guys should be listening :-).
|
05-19-08 01:26pm
|
Reply
213
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Comment
> it is not my fault if their servers stop the download at 87%!!!
It could be your fault, or your ISP fault, or their servers, or their ISP, or any ISP in between. IMHO it doesn't matter: as they can't be 100% sure it's not their fault, they should allow to resume stopped download not counting it as "full" download.
|
05-17-08 08:20am
|
Reply
214
|
Mature Toilet Sluts
(0)
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Reply
> Sometimes it requires as little acknowledgment as taking the document
> into your possession.
As far as I've heard, usually in such cases courts are VERY reluctant to upheld these conditions :-), so it's mostly a weapon of frightening customers who're going to complain. Still, whenever I notice such conditions, I feel that such guys are trying to cheat me, so why I should do business with them, especially if there is a choice?
|
05-16-08 04:10pm
|
Reply
215
|
Society SM
(0)
|
Reply of
apoctom's Reply
Well, let's hope they will hear you :-).
|
05-16-08 10:48am
|
Reply
216
|
Society SM
(0)
|
Reply of
apoctom's Reply
> even 2 scenes per week would be a great improvement
Sure it would be, but (taking into account that NOBODY does it for this niche) is it realistic to expect it? Among other things, it would increase their cost 2-fold but will it bring them 2x more customers? I doubt so.
|
05-16-08 10:34am
|
Reply
217
|
Society SM
(0)
|
Reply of
apoctom's Review
> it really bombed out on update frequency
IMHO once per week is definitely not bad for this kind of content. Same SexAndSumbission and FuckedAndBound you're referring to have 1 update per week too (SexAndSumbission sometimes gives "BONUS UPDATES" out of schedule but they're as they sound - irregular bonus updates once in a while). Or "Society SM" has it less frequent than once a week?
|
05-16-08 08:59am
|
Reply
218
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Davit's Reply
> This is because (and this is FACT) 83.6% of such analyses are not
> accurate. That's with a margin of error of 4.
Sure. But my analysis doesn't fall within these 83.6%. Undoubtedly. :-)
|
05-16-08 05:01am
|
Reply
219
|
Mature Toilet Sluts
(0)
|
Reply of
Goldfish's Reply
> doesn't it make more sense to give us your experiences with five or ten > sites you've actually joined?
My understanding this is a completely different thing. The question as I read it was about sites out there, not about sites one cares to join (which means pre-selection process, especially for PU users). I think poll results confirm my interpretation too (I don't think that somebody was mistreated by 75% of the sites he joined).
> if there is disclosure of elements in the site that you may not like > in the free area or the terms and conditions, isn't that ethical
> business practice? I think it is.
Yes, and you should note that there were several sites I've considered "probably ethical but definitely not worth to join", so it's not about liking or disliking free area, but an estimate of chances of them lying in free area (if garbage site doesn't promise anything, it's ok, but if it says they have daily updates, it's suspicious). About terms and conditions, I didn't say these guys are necessarily unethical, but outrageous terms and conditions make me quite suspicious, so I wrote "unethical: unclear" for them. Sure this whole exercise is all about personal interpretation, but I hope mine isn't too far out :-).
|
05-16-08 04:44am
|
Reply
220
|
N/A
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Reply
I think there is a BIG difference between "sites I would never join" and dishonest sites. Let me explain. If dead site does NOT say it has any updates, why it is dishonest? It can be completely not worth your money, but as long as they didn't say they have any updates, I don't see why it's unethical. If somebody markets complete crap as complete crap, IMHO it's ok (and it's his problem, not mine, when he goes out of business).
|
05-16-08 03:42am
|
Reply
221
|
Mature Toilet Sluts
(0)
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Reply
> In business in general it is common practice to reserve as many rights as you can think of...
You're right, but on the other hand everything has it's limits. I'm reading documents I'm signing VERY carefully, and I'm sure that if my bank would write "we reserve the right to charge you for excessive inquiries at our sole discretion", I wouldn't be a client of that bank :-).
|
05-16-08 03:35am
|
Reply
222
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Vegas Ken's Poll
Ok, here goes result of "10 RANDOM sites" mini-research: after researching 10 RANDOM sites it was found that about 50% (52 with a margin of error of 15) of the sites are likely to use unethical practices. The most likely unethical practices, as expected, were suspicion of misleading previews (about 40%) and PRE-CHECKED "special offers" (30%). Some sites exhibited both unethical practices).
After some deliberations with myself, I've decided that prize for the "most unethical site out of these 10 RANDOM sites" goes to "Bare Legs".
Summary of last 5 reviews follows (with details available in Comments, under "Random Site comment" title, for first 5 sites see above):
Mia Baby - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: VERY likely. Chances of being unethical are estimated at 80%.
Pornstar Pay Per View / AEBN Video On Demand - PU review: 1, rating 84, TBP review: 80. IMHO unethical: NO. Chances of being unethical: very low.
Mature Toilet Sluts - here goes the price of reviewing RANDOM sites :-(. IMHO unethical: unclear (Terms and Conditions are outrageous, but it's unclear if they were ever used against members). Chances of being unethical are estimated at 50%.
Bare Legs - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: YES (suspicious promise of DAILY updates, and "Join for FREE" combined with Epoch's PRE-CHECKED offer auto-renewing at 39.95). Chances of being unethical: 100%.
Sweet Asian Teens - no PU reviews, no TBP reviews. IMHO unethical: YES (somewhat suspicious promise of 500hrs of HD, and another PRE-CHECKED offer auto-renewing at 29.95). Chances of being unethical: 100%.
|
05-15-08 03:57pm
|
Comment
223
|
Sweet Asian Teens
(0)
|
|
05-15-08 03:46pm
Replies (0)
|
Comment
224
|
Sweet Asian Teens
(0)
|
|
05-15-08 03:41pm
Replies (0)
|
Comment
225
|
Bare Legs
(0)
|
|
05-15-08 03:33pm
Replies (0)
|
