While I agree that we don't need "yet another hardcore site", I'm still sure that I'd like to see a lot more of QUALITY hardcore sites. And really QUALITY site IMHO is not about resolution and even not about cameraguy work and lighting. QUALITY site is the "jerkable off" (or should it be "jerkoffable"?) one, and surprisingly 99% of hardcore sites are NOT jerkable off these days; most of the sites present the very same thing, without any fantasy; creativity is VERY RARE, and IMHO creativity is the MUST to make site a QUAILTY one.
So my feeling is that while we indeed have TONS and TONS of hardcore site, very few really qualify as QUALITY ones, and therefore we need more of them.
> However, I think that the demo might have been the wrong choice for which video to promote for their site.
Nice to know, thanks. With this information, maybe I'll eventually try them :-).
> when I compare to the other sites that used 640 X 480 or 720 X 480 in the range of 1,000 to 1,500 kbps which I thought was the debate to begin with.
I won't argue that 4MBit/s is better than 1MBit/s :-). What I'm trying to argue is that even 4MBit/s doesn't guarantee quality in any way (and is still worse than best of DVDs made 10+ years ago), and is often far from being "crystal clear". Also from my perspective things like lighting and cameraguy work are much more important than sheer bitrate (within certain limits of course).
As for comparing HD to blue-ray - you're right about the lack of the bandwidth for downloaded clips compared to blue-ray, but given this lack of bandwidth maybe it's not a good idea for websites to release 1980x1080 video clips, and it's better for them to stay with less ambitious DVD-resolution? What I personally REALLY hate is when somebody makes (and obviously markets) something like "true 1980x1080 HD video" which wass in fact shot with poor lighting on Sony Z1 (or equivalent) camera; then it doesn't matter how much bitrate they will throw into encoding, it will still look HORRIBLE no matter what.
> I can account for them being just as good or even better than the hundreds of DVD's I've rented.
Wait, but DVDs have nothing to do with HD :-), to compare apples to apples, you should compare HD to Blue-Ray.
> That's strange that you find the lighting for that site to be bad
I've found it bad for at least one specific point in demo video (around 0:03 in the video I've referred to). Do you agree that specific half-second was far from being "crystal clear"? And them, from the fact that site owners even cannot find enough material to make REALLY good DEMO video, I obviously have doubts about the quality inside (if you would make demo for the home page of your site, you would make it THE BEST POSSIBLE way, wouldn't you?).
> if you found videos better than this, I'd like to know which sites so I can check them out.
Easy. Take a look at almost any Private DVD, and at least some Diabolic DVDs (for example, their Panochitas series). While DVD is 10+-year old technology now, and is below freezing point on "how hot/cool it is" scale, it still beats "great advanced modern stuff" hands down, especially when it is used professionally. And no encoding can possibly fix problems with poor cameras used by almost all of the sites.
I've took a look at InFocusGirls' "High Definition Free Sample Movie" (from their home page). Well, SOME FRAGMENTS of it are indeed crystal clear, but to tell that ALL OF IT is crystal clear is IMHO an big exaggeration. Take a look at fragment of that sample clip at about 0:03; IMHO it's VERY far from being "crystal clear" (not to mention poor lighting, which BTW is IMHO completely unforgivable for a site like this). And as I expect them to combine "the best of the best" into promo HD video like this, I'm even afraid to think of how most of the clips inside look.
Crystal clear 1280 video? Frankly, yet to see one, even at 4MBit/s. And at 2G/hour I don't think it's worth it (I prefer to fit my collection on single HDD, it's so much simpler to manage it that way), so at this time I prefer to stick to non-HD versions which IMHO tend to be much clearer and crispier these days; in addition, bringing poorly lighted scene into HD will just highlight this poor lighting.
> So, I'm not saying your wrong or that videos at that rate can't be
> good, but for some of the prices I spend for sites and it being mid
> 2009, these videos are absolutely horrid for the most part on a lot
> of sites still.
Well, if we agree that it is not about sheer bitrates, but about OVERALL QUALITY, I'm with you :-). BTW, it once again brings us to importance of mentioning NOT only TBP-like "dry facts" in reviews, but also to mention subjective things like "encoding is horrible for this bitrate".
48" is way too large to fit into my laptop, so I don't think I'll have one, EVER :-). And also there are several other issues related to 4000px today, see my reply to turboshaft.
> I understand 4000 px is huge today...but in the future it could
> simply be standard, even if the displays really don't get any bigger.
> I am talking more from a collector's point of view, so I want my smut
> to age like a fine wine, except you get to drink it over and over
> again for as long as you have it!
2 comments:
1. In ideal world, you're right, in practice it just won't happen. While it would be nice to see things made back in 80s in HD, with current pace of technology older formats can easily become obsolete in a matter of 1-2 years. On the other hand, what's the big deal? There will be new sites with new material in 1-2 years :-).
2. Resolution itself is a rather poor metrics of the quality. I'd rather take crisp 2000px than blurry 4000px (and when camera matrix is working close to the edge, blurriness often shows up; it can be quite easily fixed at the expense of resolution, but as long as people are comparing numbers, not pictures, websites won't an incentive to do it :-( ).
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.
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.
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.
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 :-).
> That done, I'd view her stuff right before going to her place,
> thinking, "Wow, I'M going to bone this babe! For REAL!"
I think I'd react the same way.
> Does anyone think that a stuntman would allow himself to be set on
> fire for that big scene without first putting some protection on?
Right, they take precautions - EXACTLY PRECAUTIONS THAT THEY THINK ARE APPROPRIATE. Why models should be denied THE SAME CHOICE?
> Yes some of them do get hurt, but it's not because of the lack of precautions.
Come on, when anybody get hurt in an accident it's ALMOST ALWAYS because of the lack of precautions, and is ALWAYS this way for stunts (to start with, they could easily refuse to participate in the particular stunt if they consider it too risky). BTW, the same is true for car accidents - the very basic precaution is to avoid driving completely, but very few people are taking it.
IMHO it is MUCH more complicated than simple "people have contracted some serious illnesses". People get infected and even get killed in all kinds of jobs (starting with medical ones), so IMHO just mere EXISTENCE of the chance doesn't make some thing "too bad" or not, for me it is important to know HOW BIG this chance is. To complete analogy with stuntman - some of them die or get permanently injured, but this doesn't mean that I won't watch "regular" movies which include stunts. Also it's quite obvious that using condoms does not GUARANTEE anything, it just reduces the chance, which again supports my point of view that it is all about "HOW BIG the chance is". EVERYTHING has some risk, even driving to work (this one is probably MUCH higher than any job-related risk BTW), so I tend to consider SOME risks as "normal" (yes, it is very sad if somebody dies in the car accident, but we won't give up cars because of it, will we?)
Now to the "HOW BIG the chance is" question for condomless porn - while I don't have any statistics on it (maybe somebody has? - then it would be interesting to compare it to statistics on stuntman injuries), I've got a feeling that with all the people who REALLY HATE porn, any such cases would be made VERY high-profile as a tool to fight porn, so as I don't hear of it every second day, it shouldn't be too bad even as it stands now. This obviously is just a wild speculation on my part, and I will be glad to see any real statistics (which in turn can make me reconsider my view of condomless porn).
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.
