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
I just finished watching the new release from Digital Sin, Stuffin'Young Muffins #6. As I fired up the first scene I was disappointed to find that this movie was shot in Anamorphic Widescreen. Now let me say that I was viewing this on my 65" Samsung plasma and I also have two other 50" Panasonic plasmas in my house. Widescreen is great, but not Anamorphic, not for porn.
Most of Digital Sins' content is now shot in HD Widescreen, but unfortunately a few are released in Anamorphic. I don't get it. It's porn. The action is right in the middle of the screen. Does the director want to capture the full scope of the the bedroom furniture?
At first I agreed. Now I definitely disagree because there's quite a few directors who are getting used to shooting with it. They're getting better angles that fill the entire screen very nicely. If all you care about is just porn, then look for some of the companies who still release their stuff on VHS. Who cares that it's better audio and video with DVD, and even more so with anamorphic. It's porn.
"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling
HD is widescreen. Everything is switching to HD, including porn. At some point there will be more 16:9 televisions sold than traditional 4:3 sets. Actually that's probably already happened. Would you really rather see black bars at the top and bottom AND grey bars on the sides when you could have your entire screen filled with picture even if some of it is of no importance to the action? Also, as more people get used to shooting in 16:9 they will learn to compose their shots better so that your don't have 10 feet of empty space on either side of the action.
I'm telling ya. You can't win. We released our first few HD titles in non-anamorphic widescreen and people bitched and moaned. Now it's the opposite complaint.
Regardless, more and more people are switching to HD so you will see ever more anamorphic widescreen presentations from porn valey.
Hey Bud, First off I love your work. And second, do you think Zero Tolerance, or any other company will ever do a Porn Movie in 3-D? You know the kind with the funny glasses. It would be cool if you guys made one, and included a pair in the DVD case. Also is the industry going to go with true HD DVD disks? Like the one for my Xbox 360 add on drive? And how about Blu Ray porn? Is that going to happen. I've seen porn on a PSP, so I'm just guessing here. Got any ideas?
One other thing, I was reading the James Cameron interview online, and he says that the new technology he has lined up, is going to blow everybody away. The part that stuck out was the HOLOGRAPHIC projector for movies. He claims he's got big companies interested in this. So will they make HOLOGRAPHIC porn for these machines? Imagine popping in a Zero Tolerance disk into the machine, and the Porn Stars actually get it on, right there in your living room, in true holographic reality. He's gonna use the new tech in the new movies he's making.
P.S. Who does the spanish voice over work on the Zero Tolerance disks? It's pretty funny stuff.
3D kind of went the way of sensurround. It was a hokey gimmick that had it's day. What Cameron is talking about is something completely revolutionary. Now that HD and HD-DVD or Blu Ray are soon to be a reality, there is less and less of a reason to go see a dirty film print blown up on the big screen (by dirty I mean dirt, dust, hair etc. not Double anal). It's not just because most movies suck that box office revenues have been steadliy declining (although that's certainly part of it). It's because as technology evolves, more and more people can get a suitable big screen experience at home without paying $475.00 for licorice. The technology that Cameron is talking about is so far beyond what anyone will be able to see in the comfort of their own home that it will give them a compelling reason to go out to the movies again.... and yes, you can bet that at some point porn will jump on that bandwagon too.
As far as HD-DVD (like X-box 360) or Blu-ray (like PS3), just like Beta vs VHS in the 80's, Blu Ray is the superior format but it's less practical and more expensive and it's anyone's guess if Sony will even license the technology for your average porn flick. I'd put my money on HD-DVD and yes, next year we will begin releasing some titles in that format.
As far as our Spanish language track all I can offer you is my sincere apology. It's done by some nice cuban folks in Florida but it's worse than watching a godzilla movie as far as the dubbing is concerned.
You don't know what you're talking about. Anamorphic has absolutely nothing to do with aspect ratio. An anamorphic DVD can be anything from 1.78:1 up to the widest widescreen possible (anamporphic can also be less than 1.78:1, but it makes no technological sense to do that).
Anamorphic just refers to how the data is stored on the disc. An anamorphic DVD essentially has a 16:9 image burned onto it but it is squeezed horizontally so that it fits into a 4:3 frame (unlike HD, DVD is a 4:3 medium). When played back, the image only needs to be stretched from side to side on a Widescreen TV.
Non-anamorphic widescreen actually has the upper & lower black bars burned onto the disc. In order to play a non-anamorphic DVD on a widescreen TV, not only does the picture need to be stretched horizontally, it also needs to be stretched vertically which reduces resolution.
The only difference between an anamorphic widescreen DVD and a non-anamorphic widescreen DVD is that there will be lower resolution on a widescreen TV when watching the non-anamorphic DVD."
I disagree with the initial complaint. I saw Jenna Haze Darkside, which is anamorphic and it looked great.
I can only imagine watching non-anamorphic DVDs on a much bigger screen. It's bad enough on a my 37 inch LCD.
By the way Bill, I hope you can clear something up for me. I have several DVDs that say they are anamorphic (or say that they are adapted especially for widescreen TVs), but they do not fill up the whole screen. No matter which setting (Stretch, Dot to Dot, S. Stretch), there are still black bars on the top and bottom. Others do fill up the screen, so I am confused. Thanks.
It's because the film is in a ratio greater than 16:9 so in order to keep from losing the sides it needs to display bars at the top and bottom. Most cinematic releases use a 1.85:1 or 2.39:1 ratio so a lot of DVD's still have the bars at the top and bottom (Bigger bars for 2.39:1 than 1.85:1). Sometimes films are cropped so that you get a full 16:9 ratio that fills the screen exactly, but it is unlikely to have been the original ratio.
Edited by - cech on 11/23/2006 12:11:27 PM
[Link]
pinc_noiz Deactivated User
758 Posts 6/05
Posted - Nov 23 2006 : 12:21PM
Your screen has a range of input formats that it's input electronics will accept. Sometimes the input has to be down-scaled to match the screen (eg. accepting a 192 hex 1080 input on a 128 hex 720-native screen), often using a little overscanning of the input signal (so making the screen actually somewhat to small). HDTV's standard res is 128 hex 720, but not all HD-named screens are build like that (inherently needing some re-shaping of the input signal to fit the screen), as do not all HD-named screens meet this minimum resolution (making smaller pix is difficult and expensive, so especially smaller (<50") / older screens have often less than 1280 horizontal resolution). When taking conversions like 3:2-pulldown or (non-)anamorphic into consideration too, who knows what over-all picture-quality you see due to all this re-shaping/re-rendering of the signal?
Besides, a lot of HD-DVD players scale down before scaling up (converting 1080p/24 native to 1080i/60, converting that to 480p, then converting up again IIRC). But then: a player has not to be set up suiting your screen: it's always best to try and run your screen at its native resolution (when it has progressive scanning, take care its processing probably can't recognize 3:2-pulldown in a progressive source, so switch of prog-scan on your player). A screen running at it's native resolution will provide the best video and GUI quality. It's to be recommended to set player's output to the native rate on the disc, meaning 1080p (or 'i', when 'p' not available) for 1080p discs, and 720p for any 720p discs (90% HD-movies are 1080p discs).
Using Pioneer 50" plasma and SIM2 55" DLP-based screens and a plethora of players myself, it took me considerable time to get the best picture possible. But it's worth trying IMHO.
That's because those movies were originally filmed in a 2.35:1 aspect ratio. The two primary aspect ratios currently used in mainstream films are 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. Since 1.85:1 is so close to 16x9 (1.78:1) you don't see any black bars. However, since 2.35:1 is so much wider than a 16x9 TV, some black bars are actually recorded onto the disc in order to maintain the original aspect ratio of the film when shown on TV.
Thanks to Cech and Bill for clearing this up for me. The link was helpful. I have been trying to research this and figure it out, but the mumbo jumbo always confused me. It finally makes sense now.
What about 5:3 (1.66)? Leaving aside issues of implementation and resizing and only considering pixels used and pixels wasted we have
for material at most 1.333 nonanamorphic the clear choice
1.333 and 1.777 tvs have full verticle pixel usage
for material at least 1.777 anamorphic the clear choice
1.333 and 1.777 tvs have full horizontal pixel usage
material between 1.333 and 1.777 is problematic each choice is optimal for one type of tv at the cost of the other
taking 1.666 as an example non anamorphic 1.333 tv 100% horizontaal 80% vertical 80% total usage 1.777 tv 75% horizonatal 80% vertical 60% total usage anamorphic 1.333 tv 94% horizontaal 75% vertical 70% total usage 1.777 tv 94% horizonatal 100% vertical 94% total usage
to which a debate might break out 1.777 tv owner:My tv cost more thus I am more valuble as a person thus my viewing preferance should be catered to. 1.333 tv owner: your view point is the minority 1.777:not for long our numbers are growing we will soon be the majority 1.333: I have to see a lot of black bars eat this one 1.777: 70-94 is more fair than 80-60 it is no like you break 90 with either option 1.333:1.666 is closer to 1.333 than 1.777 is 1.777: is not 1.333:well maybe not in number, but in spirit 1.777:60% is cruel and unusual 1.333:I only get 56% on some things 1.777:that is not due to anamorphics and besides you deserve suffering because your tv is the wrong shape 1.333:Casablanca is 1.333 so there
I think 1.777 won that one
so material 1.333 or less should be presented nonanamorphic material 1.777 or more should be presented anamorphic material between 1.333 and 1.777 should probably be anamorphic
the anamorphic-nonanamorphic choice is not directly related to the chosen display ratio
A person oppossed to anamorphic dvd is likely describes by one of these -does not know what anamorphic means -confused anamorphic with the ratio 2.35 as in anamorphic lenses -is concerned with implementation issues surrounding how the scaling is done -feels only 1.333 display is important -does not know how to adjust her tv/dvd player and wonders why things look streched
As someone who owns two widescreen TV's, I would still argue that DVD is still a 4:3 medium. The beauty of the anamorphic technology in DVD players is that it improves the picture quality for people with widescreen TV's without sacrificing any quality for people with 4:3 TV's (you might be able to argue that, with early DVD players, anamorphic widescreen DVD's didn't look as good on a 4:3 TV as a non-anamorphic one, but I think that's an argument that would be lost using current DVD players as an example).
Making a anamorphic DVD of a movie with a 1.66:1 aspect ratio would cause people watching it on a 4:3 TV to, not only have letterbox bars on top & bottom, but windowbox bars on the right & left. That goes completely against the "rule" of not screwing up the 4:3 image in order to improve the 16:9 image.
A 1.66:1 movie is probably the perfect reason for having two different versions of a movie on the same disc. Not widescreen vs pan & scan (or unmatted), but anamorphic vs non-anamorphic.
Oops-forgot to mention that I love widescreen and its nice to see producers recognising the future. I have 3 widescreen tv's I hate full screen programming. Now all we need is the dvd's to start coming on the hd dvd format.
[Link]
Darth-Morpheous Deactivated User
1701 Posts 3/02
Posted - Nov 25 2006 : 2:08AM
Quaserman, I couldn't agree more. I have a front projection system and when I watch a 4:3 image, it's plenty big, but it's much better when the screen is completely full even if the sides are insignifigant. It is just better to see a larger image. Most people who have widescreen T.V.s probably use the stretch feature which greatly distortes the picture. If it's shot in widescreen it's signifigantly better quality than to stretch. I congratulate you on going widescreen. I just wish you shot more A2Ms.
[Link]
Darth-Morpheous Deactivated User
1701 Posts 3/02
Posted - Nov 25 2006 : 2:12AM
Woooo Hoooooo. Great news Quaz!!! I love my HD-DVD and if you read into it like I did, even though Blu-ray has better specs on paper, so far HD-DVD has been much better as far as picture quality. That on top of the fact that it was half the price and there were more titles available made me go with HD-DVD. If the porn industry goes with HD-DVD, that would be a huge boost to that format. I hope more follow suit and now that you have said that you are going to be releasing on HD-DVD, I will make an effort to support your products by buying more of your DVDs.
Very educational. I think I'm starting to get it. ( But I still think that Sony Hi-Def camera sucks ergonomically!)
I just got my first Hi-Def T.V., a Samsung 46" LCD. But it's not 1080, it's 720. Is this a mistake? And should I take it back and get 1080?
And the salesman tried to sell me a DVD player called, I think," up-convert", that he says will improve the playback quality of my dvd collection of classic movies, that were obviously not shot or stamped to dvd in the hi-def format. Is this bullshit?
No. Upconversion does help (some). Just make sure if you're gonna buy a player with upconversion capability, don't buy a Samsung player! I bought one of those and the fuckin' audio doesn't even work right half the time! Avoid Samsung DVD players!
I can't say about the TV but I think 1080 SHOULD be better than 720 (bigger is better, right?)
I got a Pioneer Elite upconversion DVD player, and I am very pleased with it. It was a little more expensive than some of the ones that people usually cite, but it has some nice features. If you are going to use an upconversion DVD player, make sure to use an HDMI cable for maximum benefit. Otherwise, I can't see it making much of a difference.
I wouldn't. At least not yet. The vast majority of TV's that are currently being advertised as 1080p, really can't accept a 1080p signal (which is what HD DVD players are capable of sending). All they can do is line double a 1080i signal. IMO, that's not worth the extra money being charged for it. The TV's that can actually accept a 1080p signal are still close to $1,000 more expensive than their 720p counterpart.
For watching TV, you're fine with the 720p set that you have. TV networks currently broadcast in either 720p (Fox, ABC & ESPN) or 1080i (pretty much everyone else). Without getting too technical, with 720p, the TV will display 720 lines every 30th of a second, refreshing from top to bottom (I think, only on the top to bottom part). A 1080i TV will display 540 lines every 60th of a second. It will display the odd lines 1 - 1079 the first 60th and the even number lines 2 - 1080 the second 60th of a second.
Techies still argue which is a better format. For the most part, the conclusion is that for fast moving shows, like sports, 720p is a better format and for regular TV's shows 1080i is the better format.
All HDTV's tuners will convert the signal into whichever format you TV is capable of displaying.
The upconverting DVD players work pretty well. I have the Panasonic S97 in my den and the Sony upconverting mega-changer in my bedroom. If you're in the market for a new DVD player right now, getting an upconverting DVD player is not a bad idea. If you don't need a DVD player, wait a while and see what happens in the battle between HD DVD and BluRay. Then you can upgrade to "real" HD instead of upconverted HD.
Thanks guys. Bill, I was thinking of getting the "up-convert" player because the salesman said it would improve the look of non hi-def dvd's. Will a Hi-Def player, either blu-ray or hd-dvd, have any effect on non hi-def dvd's? Or will it even play them? I am such a tech-tard!
Currently, only the HD DVD players are backward compatible with standard DVD's. The HD DVD players manufactured by Toshiba will upconvert standard DVD's to either 720p or 1080i, depending on which the TV that it's connected to can handle. With the HDMI connection that would be used to connect the DVD player to the TV, the TV & DVD player can "talk" to each other. So the DVD player automatically knows the capabilities of the TV.
I'm guessing that, by the time that the HD DVD / Blu-Ray "war" is over, Blu-Ray players will also play standard DVD's, or it will have lost the war.
[Link]
pinc_noiz Deactivated User
758 Posts 6/05
Posted - Nov 26 2006 : 5:09PM
My Pioneer BDP-HD1 does multi-format playback for BD-ROM, BD-R, BD-RE, CD, CD-R, CD-RW, DVD-Video, DVD-R, DVD-RW, DVD+R and DVD+RW media. Of the consumer models available, I've worked with Toshiba's HD-XA2 and HD-XA1 HD-DVD and Panasonic DMP-BD10 and Samsung BD-P1000 Blu-ray players. They all are downwards compatible. Some first generation players did not play back Red-Book CD, or had problems playing full bitrate DTS-HD High Resolution or DTS-HD Master Audio IIRC. I've never had problems like this myself. Am I becoming to old to remember properly?
Yeah, and supposedly Einstein couldn't tell you his home phone number. There's also plenty of darn talented artists and musicians who can't even figure out how their shower works, which appears to put Jake way ahead of them. As long as Jake keeps making porn as hot as he has been, I don't care if he's a tech geek or not.
"Vegetarianism for me is about saying ‘yes’ to things - even meat." - Coupling
Wicked Pictures,Vouyer Media, Axel Braun Productions, Marc Dorcel, JoyBear Pictures, abbywinters.com 1390 Posts 7/05
Posted - Nov 27 2006 : 5:59PM
John Ford joked that he was so illiterate when it came to movie making technology that if someone had "shown me a plate of spaghetti and told me it was a lens, I'd have believed the bastard," but he seemed to do okay.
Now before the rush to judgment begins, allow me to clarify that I'm not putting any of today's adult filmmakers in the same class as John Ford.
That would be as off base as putting any of today's mainstream filmmakers in the same class as John Ford.
"I wouldn't. At least not yet. The vast majority of TV's that are currently being advertised as 1080p, really can't accept a 1080p signal (which is what HD DVD players are capable of sending). All they can do is line double a 1080i signal. IMO, that's not worth the extra money being charged for it. The TV's that can actually accept a 1080p signal are still close to $1,000 more expensive than their 720p counterpart." I hope you know that any decent 1080 native resolution TV will take the 1080i/60 signal from the player and reconstruct the 1080p 24FPS film content for output to the (progressive) display and that you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between the i/p player output.
"Techies still argue which is a better format. For the most part, the conclusion is that for fast moving shows, like sports, 720p is a better format and for regular TV's shows 1080i is the better format." I disagree, the conclusion in general is that 1080 is better, especially for film based content. Regardless, it is hard to beat the resolution: 192 hex 1080 versus 128 hex 720 pixels. Give me the extra pixels any day.
Lets move away from dvd resolution quickly and move up to 192 hex 1080 HD-DVD's quickly.
[Link]
MikeSouth Deactivated User
511 Posts 11/02
Posted - Nov 28 2006 : 2:42AM
ok first consider that almost NO HDTV are capable of displaying 192 hex 1080 i or p
then consider it in terms of bandwidth and you can see where the arg that 720p is better comes from.
I have a 52 inch HDTV and have found that comcast and most DVDs look better at 720p as oppossed to 1080i or p. Its rather subjective and rather moot....do what looks best for you because eeryones set up is different....digital cable, DVD Player tuners in all 3 devices are different from product to productIn my case my cable box does a better job upconverting the signal than the TV does.
Until you realize that most broadcast HD OTA/non-OTA (except the bastardized satellite channels which butcher the resolution)as well as both next generation DVD formats are 192 hex 1080 resolution.
Yes, and my TV (Sharp 37D90U) does display 192 hex 1080i and can also accept and display 1080p, but I don't have an HD DVD player yet, and the screen isn't large enough to really get the benefit of 1080p so I am told.
Of the 4 major networks, two (CBS & NBC) broadcast in 1080i and two (ABC & Fox) broadcast in 720p. Those 4 channels still make up the majority of TV viewing in the US.
Working Girls 3 (Reality Junkies) - review by Captain Jack
Posted - Nov 22 2006 : 10:40PM