Comment Replies (5)
|
Replies to the user comment above. |
| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
PinkPanther (0)
|
Well, let's see
On 3/02, they released a Brea BTS vid - don't know if it's a re-release but it's not newly shot
On 2/28/10, they released an Angelica Crow photo set - I believe most of her stuff had been released on ALS Angels - so these were probably unreleased extra pics, though not newly shot material
On 2/26/10, they released a Shelby & Amy Lee vid - again either a re-remaster or not, it's not newly shot
On 2/24/10, they released a vid from their St Johns trip - probably a remaster
On 2/16/10, they released an Angie vid that was probably a remaster
2/12/10, the St Martin vid is probably a remaster
2/08/10 - the Kylie vid is probably a re-master
2/02/10 - the Tori vid is probably a remaster
So that's an idea of the frequency
So from 2/02 to 3/02 there were 8 posts that were re-releases/re-masters or otherwise not newly shot and 28 posts that were newly shot/released material - one of which was a bonus with almost 2 hours of vid.
With ALS Scan, they release material based on popularity as well as the owner's tastes - so they do have some material that I would classify in the new category, such as the 2007 Caribbean trip HD vid because it was a new release - but that's 1 out of 28
|
03-06-10 10:12pm
Reply To Message
|
2
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
It's too bad that they aren't labeling them as "remastered." Otherwise, it's not very transparent at all which ones are "new-new" and which are "renew." Maybe it's a marketing no-no to "confess" to remastering.
Anyway, just for the record I'll say I'm glad they're doing the new-new's. They've been nice about posting remastered stuff I've requested, though it understandably takes some time.
|
03-07-10 01:42am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
PinkPanther (0)
|
REPLY TO #2 - Drooler :
Sites seem to vary about the labeling of re-mastered material. ALS Scan has heavily promoted some re-mastered releases - put them out as bonuses. I thought they looked like crap, personally. Perhaps enough people did that they decided to just remaster some stuff that wouldn't look like crap - the stuff I mentioned above looks good - and don't make a big deal about it.
FTV Girls has promoted some re-releases, I've noticed.
1-by-Day used to do clear labelling, then they stopped - probably for the marketing reason.
I suspect that for the majority of the porn-loving public, new is considered better than "back in the day" or other re-packaging of older material.
|
03-07-10 08:23am
Reply To Message
|
4
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
REPLY TO #3 - PinkPanther :
Yes, some of the really early stuff of ALS didn't look so hot remastered, including the stuff in the Zoe bonus, which was too bad but what could they do? And some looked even worse.
|
03-07-10 01:08pm
Reply To Message
|
5
|
turboshaft (0)
|
REPLY TO #2 - Drooler :
I just joined a few days ago and they do have quite a bit of old-but-new-to-you releases (previously unreleased) as well as some so-so remasters. I like the video remasters because it seems in the past ('90s through early 2000s) they weren't as concerned about video releases as they are now and a lot of this stuff just didn't make it to the site or wasn't archived for long periods like they do now (which go back to April 2007).
The photo remasters are really nothing special in my book; much bigger sizes but a lot of them are from when ALS was shooting on film and they just don't digitize as well as pictures originally shot digitally (sounds obvious, but some film can look great even when it's been scanned). I assume these are from negatives or slides or something similar but the colors look too dark and deep and the film grain is obvious in the higher resolution photos. I don't think they are really worth all the trouble unless you have a real boner for a model from years ago.
Also, a note about their video download options, much like a recent thread, there doesn't seem to be any noticeable difference between quality in older ones. For example a recent Brea release shot in the mid-2000s; it was shot in SD and the download options are either a 640x480 DivX or a 720x540 WMV. It's a short four minute video of her, well, let's say making a very good excuse to clean the bathroom floor. ; ) Anyway the WMV is slightly bigger in resolution but the file size is 16MB smaller and I can't see any difference in quality.
Their HD releases however are offered in three options of two sizes; 1280x720 in MP4 and DivX plus massive 1920x1080 WMVs that are around twice the file size of the DivXs and MP4s, and the qualitative difference is noticeable here (as are the gargantuan space requirements).
They are shooting some super hot new models, but it's still fun to look at previous models without having to take up vast swaths of hard drive space with half hour bonus videos.
|
03-09-10 01:35pm
Reply To Message
|
| *Message rows highlighted in light orange are replies to replies. |
|
