Replies Given
|
Your replies to other users's reviews and comments. |
| Type |
Site |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
76
|
N/A
|
Reply of
GCode's Reply
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.
|
05-31-09 01:26am
|
Reply
77
|
N/A
|
Reply of
GCode's Reply
Hm, maybe I'll need to try one of them some day. But I suspect it will be about the difference in how we define "crystal clear" :-).
|
05-30-09 09:33pm
|
Reply
78
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Jay G's Reply
Oh, I see. Well, maybe it's a right time to start fearing ;-).
|
05-30-09 05:22am
|
Reply
79
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Cybertoad's Poll
I do not have ANY fears about my porn use (and yes, I don't think I will become blind because of masturbation too).
|
05-30-09 01:43am
|
Reply
80
|
N/A
|
Reply of
GCode's Reply
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".
|
05-30-09 12:21am
|
Reply
81
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Reply
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.
|
05-29-09 11:57pm
|
Reply
82
|
N/A
|
Reply of
turboshaft's Reply
> 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 :-( ).
|
05-29-09 11:49pm
|
Reply
83
|
N/A
|
Reply of
GCode's Poll
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.
|
05-29-09 02:37am
|
Reply
84
|
Truth Or Sex
(0)
|
Reply of
troglodite's Comment
Thanks a lot for the warning, though IMHO it is more of "Outright Fraud" rather than "Buyer Beware".
|
05-29-09 12:10am
|
Reply
85
|
N/A
|
Reply of
GCode's Poll
"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).
|
05-28-09 10:27pm
|
Reply
86
|
N/A
|
Reply of
turboshaft's Reply
> "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.
|
05-28-09 10:21pm
|
Reply
87
|
N/A
|
Reply of
GCode's Reply
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.
|
05-28-09 10:07pm
|
Reply
88
|
Melissa Midwest
(0)
|
Reply of
RagingBuddhist's Reply
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).
|
05-27-09 05:58am
|
Reply
89
|
N/A
|
Reply of
GCode's Poll
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.
|
05-24-09 12:39am
|
Reply
90
|
VideosZ
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Reply
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 :-(.
|
05-24-09 12:33am
|
Reply
91
|
VideoBox
(0)
|
Reply of
lk2fireone's Reply
> your own opinions should be included.
ESPECIALLY your own opinions.
|
05-22-09 12:06am
|
Reply
92
|
Party Hardcore
(0)
|
Reply of
mbaya's Reply
Thanks.
|
05-21-09 10:21pm
|
Reply
93
|
Fully Clothed Sex
(0)
|
Reply of
monty2222's Reply
> 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 :-).
|
05-21-09 10:17pm
|
Reply
94
|
Fully Clothed Sex
(0)
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Reply
> 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").
|
05-21-09 10:14pm
|
Reply
95
|
VideosZ
(0)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
> 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).
|
05-21-09 12:28am
|
Reply
96
|
Party Hardcore
(0)
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Reply
Thanks :-).
|
05-20-09 09:17pm
|
Reply
97
|
VideosZ
(0)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
> 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).
|
05-20-09 01:34am
|
Reply
98
|
MetArt
(0)
|
Reply of
PinkPanther's Reply
> 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 :-).
|
05-10-09 10:33pm
|
Reply
99
|
N/A
|
Reply of
asmith12's Poll
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.
|
05-10-09 10:25pm
|
Reply
100
|
Ultimate Surrender
(0)
|
Reply of
Jay G's Reply
> If you've watched a lot of porn, a little unpredictability is a good thing.
Exactly, that's probably why I like it too.
|
04-20-09 10:32pm
|
|
