Poll Replies (36)
|
Replies to the user poll above. |
| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
Ideally, you should be able to choose more than a single selection as an answer. Also, it would be nice to have a "write-in" selection option as well.
But I think that good, basic improvement for many sites would be better/easier navigation along with better updates. Better updates would also include greater innovation of the material.
I think, in general, the major sites have good/acceptable photo and video resolution.
As far as videos, most videos could be improved by better editing, better soundtrack, more realistic dialog, less fake moans, groans, less intrusive comments from the camera-man/director, better plot/storyline, etc. etc. etc.
Also, my personal taste, use gorgeous female models, have decent-looking male models, get rid of all the tattoos and piercings.
|
05-28-09 12:50am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
Though exclusivity came close to #1 for me, I went with my gut and picked photo resolution and quality. Yes, it certainly has improved, but there's room for more.
Take PixAndVideo for example, and ClubSandy along with that. I've stayed away (for 1.5 years from ClubSandy) simply because I want photos larger than 1280 pixels. 2000 pixels at least!
And the same goes for other sites that I've pretty much given up on: Little Mutt, Earl Miller, Suze.net, etc.
Then there are the ones I've never joined, for the same reason: Nena Blue, Flashy Babes, and even more, of course.
About photo quality, we've had very detailed discussions here in the polls and the forum on that. Problems of blurriness, ill-advised cropping, Brontosaurus watermarks, etc. persist. Right now, more substandard material is probably being loaded on a server somewhere, ready to disappoint ...
|
05-28-09 03:03am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
uscue (0)
|
Innovativeness of the material: I want to find a site that is able to have exclusive, high res quality videos yet compress them in a way that the file sizes still stay in the 200mb range
|
05-28-09 07:17am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Cybertoad (Disabled)
|
I have and HD , harddrive camcorder and it blows away allot of the stuff I see on websites.
I think they are doing good, but thsy are not good enough. Sad thing is they are making the files huge now but really the quality is only slightly better.
I have 22 wide screen hd on my pc and the resolution is not good enough to view on this screen with a 500mb video card. and have it look crisp.
|
05-28-09 07:23am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
GCode (0)
|
REPLY TO #1 - lk2fireone :
When creating these polls, you only get 6 slots for answers to your poll. So, when making polls, you are sometimes limited to which answers you can put in. Usually when I make these, I want to put an 'other' option in or even more responses. However, for this particular poll, I also wanted to address these other options as well, so I did not want to leave any of these responses out :(
|
05-28-09 09:30am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
GCode (0)
|
I put video res and quality. I have just noticed that most sites still see that 640 and 720 res are 'high' quality these days and bitrates under 2000 kbps. Honestly, I'll sacrifice some HD space to have an extra 200-300 mbs a file to get better videos. Honestly, even if a site wants to keep their files at 640 or 720 res, the videos should at least be in the 4000 kbps range if not higher. Plus, I have found way too many sites lately that are still even lower than 640 or 720 and stay in the lower 1000's in kbps and honestly, they are borderline unwatchable. I love both videos and photos equally, but I find myself living with photos in the upper 800's and lower 1000's in res rather than these low res and quality videos a lot of sites are still updating with.
|
05-28-09 09:36am
Reply To Message
|
7
|
lk2fireone (0)
|
GCode, I hope and believe you know I did not mean any personal criticism when I said it would be nice for the poll to be more open-ended as far as responses. It's not just your poll, but the poll structure at PU. However, I also realize that there's a reason PU puts the simple structure in place, to make the responses easier to read and more meaningful in a brief space. A trade-off. I just like to ramble, and some of my replies, to polls, instead of a single brief line, would take up lots of paragraphs. LOL.
I am really surprised at the even spread of the responses. You seem to have intuited the feelings of the PU members in your choices.
My main hard drive is only 149 GB. A few years ago that was a huge amount of storage. I recently joined Femjoy, and am downloading the photo shoots and videos of a few selected models. Maybe I should download the lower resolution files, but I am downloading the high resolution files. And just downloading a few of the more attractive models, and my main hard drive is filling up fast.
I have another external, 500 GB hard drive. But how many hard drives do I want to play with? Most people want the best quality (photos, videos) they can get, but the amount of storage it requires keeps growing and growing and growing.
I'm trying to be selective about the files I download, but I'm afraid of waking up from a nightmare where I will have to check my hard drives to see if I have any free space left.
|
05-28-09 10:25am
Reply To Message
|
8
|
Wittyguy (0)
|
This is one of those polls that is "loaded" in that it appeals to what you really want the most: pics, vids, or new content. I'll jump on the Drooler wagon and bitch about pics because I like them the most and they're probably the easiest for sites to fix.
Everyone shoots digitally today and no one uses cell phones to do professional shoots so were talking about pic sizes that well above 4 megapixels in size. But what do sites do? They think the pics are too big (apparently we can't handle the truth) so they shrink them down to 900x600 and call it good. NOT! A 2000 pixel image isn't going to take more than a second or two longer to download than a smaller one. The file size is virtually nothing compared to video sizes. This is an easy way to draw more customers (albeit a minority as most people dig vids more) with virtually no expense and effort other than changing the pixel sizes. Instead they're either just living in the past and think a 13" monitor is all anyone has or they're just lazy.
|
05-28-09 12:25pm
Reply To Message
|
9
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #8 - Wittyguy :
Here, here! Well said! Bigger pics are probably the EASIEST thing a site could do.
But noooooooooo! And you get this, "Why would anyone want pictures that are bigger than the screen?" (Answer: Details, for one thing.)
Reminds me of Bill Gates being quoted as saying that 640K is more memory than anyone would ever need.
|
05-28-09 12:41pm
Reply To Message
|
10
|
badandy400 (0)
|
I am going to say video quality. Much of the videos seen on sites that have been around a while is sub par even for a few years ago. There really is no reason these sites can not output greater looking stuff, yes that is you Brazzers and the many other Network sites.
But you guys know me, a few extra hard drives to support great looking videos really is no issue for me. I would honestly rather have less hours of video and high quality than more hours of lower quality stuff. When I watch a video I should say "damn that looks good, I can see the little bumps on her skin!" Where a lot of videos out there make it hard to tell if it is a nipple or a zit.
Lets pick on Brazzers again. Great content, my opinion, but the quality is not good enough. They are constantly knocking their prices down which is great, but I would be willing to pay more than $10 per month to have better looking videos. And lets not even talk about the pictures on the network sites! :(
So it would seem that if you want quality media you need to be looking at standard one-up sites or sites with sister sites, not networks. PrimeCups (although not updating), ALS, Sapphic Erotica and the like.
|
05-28-09 12:42pm
Reply To Message
|
11
|
badandy400 (0)
|
REPLY TO #3 - uscue :
Check out Femanic. As long as you are into that content style. Their videos are fairly small. They have a divx encoding that puts them at 1500 KBit/s but look great. If I remember correctly they come in 5 minute chucks that are about 50 MB each. So you can get about 20 minutes of video for 200 MB, if my memory serves me correctly.
|
05-28-09 12:51pm
Reply To Message
|
12
|
Jeffrey99 (0)
|
It was a tough one between video and picture quality but in the end I went with Picture quality. It seems if sites have great HD qualty vieos, the photos suffer and if they have great qualty photos then the videos suffer. Seems to be hard to find one that has both.
|
05-28-09 02:10pm
Reply To Message
|
13
|
pat362 (0)
|
I wish I could have chosen all of the above. Most if not all of the sites I have visited or joined suffer from one of more of these. The reason I picked lack of good updates is that although the other are important I find that only every few update appeals to me.
|
05-28-09 06:28pm
Reply To Message
|
14
|
PinkPanther (0)
|
I put innovativeness of material - If you're going to have a site, aim to thrill. It's why I'm so down on Bang Bros. It's like the entire site is an ode to mediocrity. There are very few updates that look exciting and when you find ones that do, some of them don't download or you think they're downloading and then you watch what downloaded and it's an entirely different vid of some really mediocre-looking woman having mediocre sex with mediocre looking guys in a mediocre looking setting - blaaahh!!
I can put up with some glitchiness in sites that have a lot of exciting material - like the Evil Angel network of sites or the 21st Sextury network of sites. Because if I'm having problems downloading one piece of material, I see 10 other pieces of material that I'm also interested in and they respond to e-mails about the glitches I found - whether they fix them instantaneously or not, they at least show that they give a damn - and the fact that they're putting up a lot of exciting stuff shows that they give a damn about producing great porn. Yeah, pic size is something I care about and I like high res pics and vids, but the starting place has got to be the material - thrill me and then work on upping the res of the material.
|
05-28-09 06:36pm
Reply To Message
|
15
|
turboshaft (0)
|
REPLY TO #9 - Drooler :
I wish webmasters would understand that many of their members download photos to keep. I remember back in the '90s when 800 x 600 was a big photo and it took up the entire screen, or most of it. Of course, with higher res monitors being offered with better quality at lower prices, this "Why would anyone want pictures that are bigger than the screen?" argument goes out the window (or out with the smaller monitor).
I love it when material is higher quality, not simply because of better details and it shows people care about what they create, but the material can have a much longer life, even with the inevitable introduction of newer equipment. I think the "Why would anyone want more?" question is always regretted given enough time, especially with technology.
Though I do wish quite a few sites would improve photos, as well as videos (and I am not talking purely about technical aspects or either category), I would like to see some more innovation. This partially crosses over with the exclusivity choice, but I am so tired of seeing the same models on multiple sites doing pretty much the same thing, in the same settings, and often captured with the same equipment. For me this leaves the first four choices properly satisfied to the point where I hope for some creativity and unique content on the part of the webmasters and producers -- and they don't even have to risk breaking the laws or hurting some poor model's feelings to do it.
|
05-28-09 09:36pm
Reply To Message
|
16
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #6 - GCode :
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 To Message
|
17
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #15 - turboshaft :
> "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 To Message
|
18
|
asmith12 (0)
|
"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 To Message
|
19
|
james4096 (Suspended)
|
REPLY TO #8 - Wittyguy :
yes. It's so simple to do. It's 2009 and everybody has broadband. Give us hi res photos.
|
05-29-09 12:55am
Reply To Message
|
20
|
asmith12 (0)
|
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 To Message
|
21
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
Well, at this point "innovativeness" scores highest with 45%
Careful what you wish for. Personally, when I've seen sites try to branch out of their standard modes, they do things that I don't think are that innovative, just different, and less appealing. HegreArt went through a food-smearing phase that I simply detested. Nubiles went the way of the standard toy-obsessed OnlyCuties. Big change, big "so what?"
Innovation doesn't sprout from the earth like summer weeds. It is highly valued because of its scarcity. Most of the time, you have one innovator, then a whole slew of copycats.
So I wouldn't get too hot 'n bothered about innovation.
|
05-29-09 11:48am
Reply To Message
|
22
|
Wittyguy (0)
|
REPLY TO #17 - asmith12 :
I agree that 4000 pixel images are a bit over the top today but generally the stuff we collect we intend to keep for a long time so you have to look beyond today. It's already possible to hook up monitor feeds to tvs and as technology moves along our tv will also become a major feed for porn. Who the heck would want a 900x600 image on a 48" HD tv screen? So, while huge pics maybe overboard today, you may thank yourself for having big ass pics (or movies) in the future.
|
05-29-09 11:59am
Reply To Message
|
23
|
GCode (0)
|
REPLY TO #16 - asmith12 :
You could be right but I have recently joined about 5-6 sites whose videos were at 640 or 720 and at ~1000 kbps. What can I say for these videos? They were unbearable to watch and borderline disgusting that I even paid my hard earned money to look at. Honestly, the best endcoding I've seen on sites is at 1280 res and 4002 kbps. These are all crystal clear, not extremely huge, and I feel like I'm getting what I paid for. I have come across some sites that encode at about what you said and been average, but to be honest, they are far in between most sites. 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.
|
05-29-09 12:36pm
Reply To Message
|
24
|
turboshaft (0)
|
REPLY TO #17 - asmith12 :
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!
As I said in my original reply, I remember a time when 800 x 600 was big, screen-filling beauty, but now it simply is not. I still have the majority of my '90s photos, they just have not withstood the test of time in terms of size as much as I would like them have to.
I sometimes get greedy about photo and monitor sizes -- especially when someone uses the term beast to describe either one -- so I can't wait for the day that a standard display will practically support 4000 px photos, I just may have to put some of my oldest photos out to pasture.
|
05-29-09 02:25pm
Reply To Message
|
25
|
PinkPanther (0)
|
For me, innovativeness can be practiced by sites as much by putting a higher degree of energy into their chosen niche as it can by busting out of their niche completely - Nubiles got a lot better, in my opinion, by paying attention to how engaged the models were in the shoots and not just accepting every piece of material that the people that were producing for them turned in - they weeded out the people that were producing mediocre material for them and wound up with a better site because of it.
|
05-29-09 07:39pm
Reply To Message
|
26
|
Monahan (0)
|
Navigation and Searching. Considering that each of us has favorite babes, studios and genres, and that search technology is highly sophisticated, it pisses me off royally when I know a model is on a site but is virtually impossible to locate.
A similar beef is inaccuracy. On a great site like Video Box the one serious flaw is the inability of the webmaster to be consistent in spelling a model's name. That makes it so damned difficult to find all the content they have. Jenna Doll, for example, shows up as Jena Doll, Jena, Jenna Dall, and probably others. And it isn't the studio's fault. The cover usually has the correct spelling. It's just sloppiness.
|
05-29-09 11:04pm
Reply To Message
|
27
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #24 - 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 :-( ).
|
05-29-09 11:49pm
Reply To Message
|
28
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #22 - Wittyguy :
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 To Message
|
29
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #23 - GCode :
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 To Message
|
30
|
GCode (0)
|
REPLY TO #29 - asmith12 :
Yep, I am a current/previous member at shemale.asia, infocus girls, only cuties, ladyboy player, long mint, areeyas world, only tgirls, shemale club, and I can name abut 5-6 more of my favorites that use that format and they are the best I've ever seen. So yes, I have seen plenty that use that and are crystal clear.
|
05-30-09 09:46am
Reply To Message
|
31
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #30 - GCode :
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 To Message
|
32
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #30 - GCode :
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 To Message
|
33
|
GCode (0)
|
REPLY TO #32 - asmith12 :
I have almost every video from InFocusGirls and I watch them on a 42 inch LCD TV. I can account for them being just as good or even better than the hundreds of DVD's I've rented. That's strange that you find the lighting for that site to be bad because I've found the locations to be extremely well lit and the outside scenes are always on a sunny day. In fact, I'd go out on a limb and say these videos are some of the most professional scenes I've seen on a site so far. In these videos, I've even seen the little light blonde hairs that women can get which I've only seen in well lit areas and real life. While I'll agree the earlier videos are not as good but I'd say less than 1/4 are from the site's beginning and used those formats. While this is my opinion, I don't know what else to say besides the fact that if you found videos better than this, I'd like to know which sites so I can check them out.
|
05-31-09 12:44pm
Reply To Message
|
34
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #33 - GCode :
> 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.
|
05-31-09 11:44pm
Reply To Message
|
35
|
GCode (0)
|
REPLY TO #34 - asmith12 :
Well I was using that site and the others as an example of some of the better looking and more professionally looking videos I've seen on a site in my recent stays. However, I think that the demo might have been the wrong choice for which video to promote for their site. Besides, the whole preview page for that site is actually horrendous. However, I did not join this site on a whim and it was several other of the more upstanding PU'ers that guided me towards this site and they were the ones who told me about how well these videos were produced. Plus, I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree about the site and it's videos, they blew me away after watching more than 75% of the content on a large screen LCD TV 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. It was just one site as an example, I'm not saying they have the best videos I've ever seen, it was just a site I remembered off hand and had access to recently using a higher format than what was discussed and had way better looking videos than the majority of the sites I've been to that used lower resolutions and bitrates.
As for the argument of comparing any site's video quality when talking about 'HD' to a blu-ray, I find that a bit overwhelming to even think that these can be compared. A standard blu-ray disc is 25 GB's and a movie is 1 hour and 30 mins to 2 hours long. Let's say there are 30 mins of special features. A site's videos range from 15 to 30 mins. So, lets say an average blu-ray is 1 hour and 45 mins with 30 mins of special features. This uses up a standard blu ray at 25 GB and if you average in a site's average scene which is 20 mins, that's about 8.75 scenes for one blu-ray. However, that means that each scene would roughly be at 2.7 to 3.0 GB's if it was in true blu ray quality. Therefore, these scenes from sites are obviously not that high and therefore could never be the same quality or even in the same class as a true blu ray scene because a 20 min scene at the usual 1280 X 720 format is only 300-800 MB. Yes, a standard blu ray is at 1920 X 1080 and if these videos used that res, they would probably jump up in size but no where near 2.7 to 3.0 GB's. So, what I'm trying to say, is that at the encoding that most sites do at 1280 X 720 and 4002 kbps with the quality I've seen, they are extremely nice and the comparison to blu ray just seems outrageous.
Maybe I'm just crazy and my standards are a bit lower or something, I just think that at that format (1280 X 720, 4002 kbps) and with certain sites, they are remarkable for the size I'm downloading at.
Hope this all makes sense and I'm not trying to be a smartass or anything, hope we can talk about some other things soon!
|
06-01-09 11:58am
Reply To Message
|
36
|
asmith12 (0)
|
REPLY TO #35 - GCode :
> 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.
|
06-01-09 11:06pm
Reply To Message
|
| *Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies. |
|
