Reviewers Recommend Working Girls 3 (Reality Junkies) - review by Captain Jack Director: Mike Quasar Starring: Danny Mountain, Derrick Pierce, Anissa Kate, Codey Steele, Adira Allure, Elizabeth Skylar, Taylor Wild, Jay Romero. Read review
While on a pre-production trip to SF, I shot a film and lighting test with a lesbian couple. I figured it would also be a good chance to explore 16:9 in context of the "gonzo-like" approach we take to shooting sex scenes.
I had the film transfered to Digibeta as anamorphic 16:9 footage. From there the image path through FCP and DVDSP is extremely 16:9 friendly – it's simply a matter of flagging the incoming footage as 16:9 anamorphic and flagging the DVD authoring session as 16:9 anamophic.
Now here's the cool part: Once you have an anamophic 16:9 disc, most DVD player will play it back on a 4:3 TV in both letterboxed and full screen (with sides cropped) format. And if you have a widescreen TV you get full-screen 16:9. All off one disc. Very cool.
Of course the best part was the way the beautiful, real lesbian sex looks on film instead of video. But that aside, the 16:9 aspect ratio is a better ratio to shoot sex in. I don't see us going back, either to video, or 4:3.
Yeah, I suppose it is. It's just that after seeing how easy it is, I can' believe I spent the last few years being intimidated by the word "anamorphic".
The Sony PD series has done native 16:9 going all the way back to the trusty PD100 (introduced around 1998), so there's no reason if you're doing cheap-ass handicam 4:3 porn you can't just as easily do cheap-ass handicam 16:9 porn. These is absolutely no difference in the post production process.
Hey... sometimes technology is intimidating... I know that from my work in IT.
Do you think everyone will make the switch soon due to the spread of wide-screen televisions in the USA? How big of an impact is going wide-screen to the cost of a production?
Back to the topic: I found this list of videos on Adult DVD Empire. They have started up a category (Category > Gonzo > Anamorphic 16:9) just for you driven but it isn't very full yet. It's all digital playground stuff except one Barely 18 is listed.
It appears Private's Cleopatra and The Millionaire are wide-screen as are the new scenes in the Private life.
I was amazed at the video quality of the new scene in The Private life of Laura Angel . Be warned that there is no visible money shot.
There's Standard Defininition 4:3, Standard Definition 16:9, and High Definition (all HD is 16:9.) Using a PD100, or PD170, or Sony700 you can shoot SD4:3 or SD16:9, it's simply a matter of setting the camera to either 4:3, or 16:9. As is to be expected, a $3500 PD170 will not give the same result as a $50,000 Sony700. But neither one of them will shoot HD.
To shoot HD you need to either a) Shoot an HD camera (good) or b) Shoot film and have it telecined at HD resolution (better). Either choice is expensive. A bare bones basic HD video camera package rents for about $1000/day. A bare bones basic Super16 package rents for about $300/day, and transfer to HD costs about $1/second for stock, processing and telecine.
Sony has announced a "prosumer" HD camera; sort of an HD version of the PD170. But the image is shit. You'd be better shooting a professional SD camera in 16:9 mode and uprezzing in post.
There should be a shit load of Blue Ray camcorders in a little over a year (HD-DVD and Blue RAy are scheduled to hit the US the end of '05) with mini Blue Ray discs (dual layer) capable of holding 15 Gb of footage . Using the codecs they've announced that should translate to about 1 hr of HD footage (presumably 1080p) per disc .
The real gravy train is going to be for anyone who has a library of films. All you need to do to release the HD collectors' edition of Gone With the Wind or Alien is transfer the print to HD.
The storage technique used has nothing, zip, zero, nada to do with the quality of aquistion. Quality of aquistion has everything to do with the lens and what the light hits after it passes through the lens.
If you put film behind the quality you get the the sweet look of film. If you put a high-end CCD behind a quality lens you get video that looks like the nightly news. If you put a consumer-grade CCD behind a consumer-grade lens you get video that looks like Uncle Harry's footage of your cousin's wedding (or porn.)
Perfect for a lot of porn I've seen this year... why waste the money on anything better if only five minutes of thought goes into the video... primarily to come up with the title.... but I digress.
This seemingly never ending shift from medium to medium is going to really annoy consumers. I'm getting tired of commercialism.
If you want proof, try this. Take the imaging block out of a PD150 and run it straight into an uncompressed recording source. This will eliminate the effect of the DV compression, but will do nothing to improve the inherent shittiness of the cheap lens or cheap CCD.
For comparison's sake, shoot Digibeta and dub that down to DV. It will still look way, way better than the PD150 footage.
That's true but the ability to actually store the footage you take should be a bit of a benefit , wouldn't you say . As to the lens issue , I've no doubt you're right , for now . On the other hand this is a far cheaper product . Saying it doesn't match up to the proffessional equipment is a pointess arguement . An uprezed image will not be comparable to a true HD image unless they contine to use exactly the same lenses that they have now - very unlikely .
Incidentally , there is more to creating a HD transfer than to just transfer it . Many films apparently don't hold up too well to the greater scrutiny that the increased resolution brings . Aliens is a case in point . Remastering is also not always enough , and restoration can be both expensive and time consuming . It'll be interesting to watch what happens that's for sure .
I have zero experience with shooting digital video Tony... (you haven't seen my Gonzo line yet have you? "Oatmeal Bitches" was filmed at better service centers and bus stations.)
What I was commenting on was -the amount of compression -is the level of compression variable in the new codec -when it is applied in the process (during recording, post-production, etc)
For the purpose of this discussion (and comparisons) I'm assuming the optics and storage medium between cameras are the same. I'm only talking codec.
After a certain point to achieve a higher rate of compression there has to be some noticeable loss involved.
Moore's Law has no effect on lenses. Whatever advances are made with electronics, "prosumer" cameras will continue to have low-grade lenses. Right now, uprezzed SD16:9 shot on professional gear looks far, far better than any consumer HD gearThis is bullshit put out by the electronics giants in the hope of convincing people that HD is superior to film. ("Ooo look! HD reveals the "flaws" of film!") Trust me, if you like the SD transfer of The Wizard of Oz , (or Alien you're going to love it on HD.
i just shot a new gonzo series i am doing for HUSTLER called ASS APPEAL which will be out in feb. ....... i shot it in hd with the new sony hdr-fx1.......it will be down converted in post for dvds of course and anamorphic. and for anyone who watches cable....there will be an hd version of this movie on hustlers cable channel.
Actually it's not . The prints of many films are in pretty shoddy shape , and throw in the shaky special effects used for many TV shows (often shot on film and the FX added in NTSC resolution) and you have a bag of worms just waiting to be opened . It's not a flaw in the film that's being exposed it's a flaw in what the film has become . Alien is looking good but even the DVD transfer of Aliens was a little below par .
Yes, you can always make something look worse by increasing the amount of compression. You could, in theory, apply enough compression to imagery aquired with a professional camera to make it look worse than a prosumer camera.
But the more important point is that the imaging shortcomings of prosumer equipment are not compression related in any way. Low-grade glass and low grade sensors lead to low grade imagery. Uncompressed footage from a handicam imaging block will never as good like the compressed footage that comes out of a Digibetacam, Varicam, etc; all of which use compression. Putting a blue laser DVD-R behind a PD150 block won't change this either.
I jump back and forth depending on what kind of feel I'm going for -- DIARY OF A MAD PORNO DIRECTOR from Madness is 16X9, as is the entire ASIA NOIR series (Video Team). Just did a NO MAN'S LAND ASIAN EDITION 5 for Video Team, also letterboxed. Although you can do dramatic compositions in either format, I like how close-ups have more drama in 16X9 ...
Working Girls 3 (Reality Junkies) - review by Captain Jack
Posted - Dec 21 2004 : 11:29PM
