| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
Toadsith (0)
|
Useful review, thanks - repetitiveness in these super-niche sites is a real difficult hurdle - though I must say the unique nature of this site's content has me intrigued. I hadn't realized until today that they had gotten rid of the Token system (I know, I'm behind on that one) - I've been rather interested in the site for awhile, so I may have to join now that it has been unleashed.
I took a quick ganger (the action, not the waterfowl) at their "What's New" page and I think the best answer to your question about update regularity is one video and two photo sets per week, with a little bit of wiggle room... It would be nice if they put a date on the coming soon stuff though.
|
03-06-08 03:51pm
Reply To Message
|
2
|
WeeWillyWinky (0)
|
Thanks for the good review, Davit. This one is on my short list and most likely I'll be signing up very soon. Since acquiring a 22 inch monitor I've had a yen for huge, clear pics. Since I can't have these beautiful women actually use my face as a chair, this might be the next best thing. ;)
|
03-06-08 04:30pm
Reply To Message
|
3
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #2 - WeeWillyWinky :
Oh, wow. You are in for something else. I mean, with the 22" monitor. Jaysis.
|
03-06-08 05:53pm
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Toadsith (0)
|
REPLY TO #3 - Drooler :
Bah - I'm saving up for a 1080p HD DLP Digital Projector - image diagonal: 100 inches! Of course the downfall to this is that the system total price, when including the screen, the projector, the ceiling mount and the extended cabling means a price tag reaching into the mid two grand.... Yes, it may be a few months before that comes to fruition. So I suppose having a 22" display today has its benefits.
No matter - Blu-Ray won, must upgrade!
Cheers!
|
03-06-08 09:46pm
Reply To Message
|
5
|
williamj (0)
|
great review...I agree with everything your saying. Its really a great site.
|
03-07-08 09:25am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
RagingBuddhist (Disabled)
|
32" 1080p monitor/tv here. Believe me, you won't be disappointed if you've got hi-def. But make sure you've got the processor to run the 1920 vids. I'm overclocked - running at 3.6 ghz - and I sometimes have to reboot to keep them from running smoothly. Seems I'm settling for the 1280 resolution - but they look GOOD!
|
03-07-08 04:15pm
Reply To Message
|
7
|
Davit (0)
|
REPLY TO #6 - RagingBuddhist :
Yeah - the 1280x720 movies are crystal clear on my 17" monitor, and the colours are so natural. I haven't felt the need to go higher than that (not that my processor could really handle it anyway).
To be honest though, I have downloaded the vast majority in the 640x360 version, after weighing 'picture quality' versus 'size of file on my hard disk' and 'speed of responsiveness of my media player'. I find these are still very good quality, and the close-ups are still very detailed. It just gets a little bit pixelly where there's fast movement, and the colours are a bit less vibrant. But the brain is very good at dismissing that, when the action is so hot.
|
03-07-08 04:31pm
Reply To Message
|
8
|
RagingBuddhist (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #7 - Davit :
That getting pixelly, as you call it, is called ghosting - something I've yet to see eliminated on any LCD monitor. Damn shame the powers that be (capitalist marketing) won out and sold us all on flat screens. I tried like hell to find a large CRT monitor that's hi-def but they just don't seem to make 'em anymore. Maybe someone following this thread has seen one online somewhere?
|
03-07-08 06:45pm
Reply To Message
|
9
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #8 - RagingBuddhist :
This is why I still use a CRT monitor, even though it's a dinky 17" by today's standards. I spent perhaps 10 minutes with the flat screen that came with my latest PC and I just couldn't stand the halos at the edges.
|
03-08-08 04:31am
Reply To Message
|
10
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
One thing I'd like to add to Davit's comprehensive review is the amount of annotation done for the videos. Those notes have really helped me to decide which videos I wanted to download. And they're very frank, such as the notes on the ass massage of Michaela Fenclova (Evelin at TheCrack) being done with male hands, which some may not like.
Very few sites include this much in the way liner notes, tune by tune.
|
03-08-08 04:35am
Reply To Message
|
11
|
Davit (0)
|
REPLY TO #10 - Drooler :
Very good point Drooler. The notes are very comprehensive. One thing that does get my goat though, is the number of times you see words to the effect 'this is probably one of the best anal scenes we've ever filmed' (for example). I must have seen that line a dozen times!
It also annoys me to read 'We must warn you that the lighting isn't very good/the orgasm looks fake/the girl has no passion' or whatever.
If it's that bad (and generally when the movie has a warning like this it *is* bad) then why bother putting the movie up there? Happily, these are still in a very small minority.
I also mentioned to the webmaster about the repetitive photos in the galleries. He responded by saying he takes lots of basically the same shot to make sure he has everything right about the shot when it comes to assessing quality, but then he can't bring himself to discard them so posts them all. I asked if maybe he could post both 'full sets' and 'condensed sets' but he said I'm the only one who ever complained about this and he wouldn't be doing that - which is fair enough I suppose. I'll just continue to 'prune' my own sets once downloaded.
|
03-08-08 08:09am
Reply To Message
|
12
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #11 - Davit :
Yes, I agree that the repeated lines, whether they're hyperbole or hypoperbole (?), can get a bit tiresome. Guess I'm so jaded that I just gloss over them.
And I also prune down the sets when things get to being too much the same, or too pre-med, or of course when the girl has a weird or pissy look on her face. That last one doesn't happen often at The Crack, fortunately. (Twistys is another site that suffers from excessive similitude in photosets.)
Well, there's hardly ever a set that I don't toss pics from, wherever it comes from. Blurriness, what-were-they-thinking croppings, big-ass babe covered by bigger-ass watermark, etc. Those are directed to the bin.
|
03-08-08 11:14am
Reply To Message
|
13
|
messmer (Disabled)
|
Good review, Davit. I agree with most of what you wrote. The only thing I don't understand is that not only you but other reviewers as well refer to this site as an "ass site." I've downloaded tons of video segments since subscribing and very few contain pure "ass" material.
Could it be it's because I might be using the "search" button more frequently than others? It gives you clear choices there. I steer clear of "ass" because it's not my thing and still have loads of videos to pick from. I'm starting to develop a panty stuffing fetish! :-) One other point, when it comes to some of the models being too detached, there's plenty of evidence in the close-up pussy shots that not all are left indifferent!
|
09-11-08 08:02am
Reply To Message
|
14
|
messmer (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #11 - Davit :
Davit wrote:
"It also annoys me to read 'We must warn you that the lighting isn't very good/the orgasm looks fake/the girl has no passion' or whatever. If it's that bad (and generally when the movie has a warning like this it *is* bad) then why bother putting the movie up there? Happily, these are still in a very small minority."
There are negative comments like that about the latest model (#187 in their catalog): that her skin isn't as smooth as that of others and that she's not as passionate about the shoot as she could be. Not one of the best videos, etc. etc. To me, that's a slap in the face of the model and makes me wonder what she did to cheese off the videographer / webmaster! Why not let us make up our minds on what's attractive and what isn't. I hate to see models insulted like that and won't resubscribe despite the high praise I gave the site in my remarks.
|
09-13-08 01:32pm
Reply To Message
|
15
|
Davit (0)
|
REPLY TO #13 - messmer :
Actually, good point Messmer. We have referred to it as an ass site because that is how it is promoted (i.e. the 'crack' refers to the ass crack, not the pussy).
But you're right - a great many videos and photo sets aren't centred around the ass at all. For people (like me) who really appreciate proper girly back door action, and with no men featured, I recommend Lez Cuties a lot higher than this site. :)
|
09-14-08 09:13am
Reply To Message
|
16
|
messmer (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #15 - Davit :
And so do you and others have a good point. If the site itself promotes the "crack" in its name then, that's what it has to be, an ass site. I went by the material I downloaded and by the assumption that a pussy can be a crack too. :-)
|
09-14-08 09:27am
Reply To Message
|
