Just wondering how much you feel camera angles contribute to the eroticism of a scene. Myself, It's difficult to watch 90's porn, which was the era of the close-up. They were so close that it didn't look like a sexual act was taking place....just some kind of machinery. I'm glad to see that the new decade has gotten away from the obsession of close-ups and is focusing on the girl more. Here in 2010, there are most likely more active adult performers than at any point in history. And they certainly are more atractive than they've ever been as well. Just amazingly beautiful women. And probably more genres to choose from also. So I really appreciate it when the scene footage focuses on the girl, from head to toe. There are some scenes I watch where the camera is really dodgy, going from head to body to close-up of insertion, back out to body, back in to head. I almost get vertigo. And there are also scenes where a scene consists of just a few extended angles that show off the girl's body in all her glory. Scenes like that are incredible. Your thoughts? I'm not scared of the 10,000 punches you throw one time, I'm scared of the one punch you throw 10,000 times
I watched this new Combat Zone release: Caught my Wife with a Gangster. Pretty bad, I thought. They filmed every scene from very,very far away. Hey I love art cinema as much as anyone here but this wasn't working and you have to have lighting, art directors and editors who know what they are doing. Interestingly, the acting wasn't bad. Wesley Pipes was Wesley as usual but Prince Yashua has acting chops and his scene with Mellanie Monroe works. The other scenes have the camera in another county. White Ghetto's release Monster Cock POV worked quite well, the action was medium warm except for the last scene which worked for me. Up close and personal it was.
Hi jbailes, I think that you made some pretty good observations about the camerawork. personally, I find the camerawork in most porn terrible, especially in the last decade. There is way too much movement,tilting, and shaking....it's almost nonstop. This trend started and everybody jumped on the bandwagon. Some are not too bad, some are REALLY bad. It has ruined alot of porn , for me. Some companies weren't too bad for movement but they went crazy with the overediting. Triangle films and Abby Winters were doing this...but too many people complained and they became reasonable again. The far shots were also popular with some....never understood this. I don't know about most people but I just want a good balance and not too much movement. I want to see the action comfortably....not ride a rollercoaster.
The reason it seemed like they were doing closeups more in the 90s was because (Among other things) a camcorder only has one lens (as opposed to a person having two eyes and thus, a wider field of vision) and that was the normal way things looked when using a camera without a wide angle lens. You had to back up and shoot from a distance to get what would look relatively normal. Some of them did that well but many of them didn't. If you were trying to shoot something in a small space, you were SOL, I guess. IMO, in the 2000s, it went from one extreme to another and they went from occasionally shooting a nice angle to never shooting one because almost everybody in the business started using ultra wide angle at the same time and there are now only a few who don't. So, instead of occasionally seeing shots where it's so close you almost can't even tell what you're looking at, you have shots that show a woman's ass looking profoundly bulbous, distorted and nothing like a woman's ass should look and if you can see her head at all, it appears to be 10 miles away. Yes. Things have changed but not necessarily for the better. Edited by - randomprecision on 2/8/2010 5:49:37 AM
As far as the camera work more recently being dodgy, in other words darting from one angle to another abruptly, Do you consider it to have started with the advent of internet porn? I know this is only one example, but I certainly remember earlier brazzers scenes darting to and fro so bad that it was like being on a rollercoaster.
I've concluded that 16:9 is bad for porn. A square (1:1) aspect ratio would be best for porn, and would lessen the need for the tilted camera and would solve some of the issues of bad framing and chopped body parts.
^The below-the-woman angle can be good for leg/foot/heels fetish stuff, provided they frame it properly, making sure to not cut off the legs/feet/shoes. A lot of the booty-centric and gyno-centric porn will use the below-the-woman angle but zoom to the booty or zoom to the panties or zoom to the genitals. Maybe somebody likes that approach, but I certainly do not.
The girls are more than just a vag, I wanna see all of her body in it's full glory with all of the her involuntary reactions otherwise lost in endless close ups.
I think it's very important to show a close-up of the initial penetration. So that the viewer knows exactly and beyond any doubt whether the stud is banging the lady's pussy or ass. But once the viewer knows exactly how the stud is banging the lady. Then longer shots that show both the fucking stud and most of the lady's body and face are best. Because showing the lady's face and most of her body is what makes her look human and real to the viewer. And showing both the stud and the lady interacting with each other in the same shot makes the guy look real too. Too much close-up on screen makes the sex look artificial rather than human. It's like a robotic dildo banging a doll.
[Link]
Fernandez Deactivated User
781 Posts 12/08
Posted - Feb 9 2010 : 8:06AM
Jaysin is obsessed with the tilted camera, very annoying.
Producer could take a cue from sports camera work. In sports the movement of one player causes reaction in other players. Each player react differently to similar situations. The sports camera seeks to capture the movement and dynamic tension of bodies in motion. Sex like sports is a dynamic physical activity. In porn participants are in motion by turn. The guy fucks while the girl in still, switch to the girl's in motion while the guy holds still. Cumshot time the guy jerks off, the only movement allowed is his moving hand. who has ever been jerked off and didn't thrust and buck his hips. I want the camera to step back at some time during shooting and capture the tension filled bodies engaged in intercourse. Give us some authenticity.
As a guy, I generally just want to see most of the woman's body. To me the most perfect camera show is any view that shows penetration and the woman's face. I hate close ups, I don't need to see a pair of droopy balls slapping an ass. I will admit, a roving camera shot, moving slowly across the performers is fine too, and I understand the desire to focus in on the initial penetration, but after that show me something else. If you want to see porn shot properly, with the right camera angles, all you have to do it pop in a Quasarman disc.
I'll mostly agree on showing most of the female body and her face. I think filmmakers underestimate the true power and eroticism of the female frame visually to some men. To me, it's a turn-on all it's itself. I will say that I do think some woman, maybe by way of being athletic or aggresive, tend to get shot better than others. That being said, I do believe good shots are almost always there. Just gotta go with what's there. And I'll forever applaud the camerawork of Quaze. Dude just seems to get it.
Producer, Director, HBO/Cinemax, International Award Winner. 75 Posts 2/10
Posted - Feb 10 2010 : 10:21PM
This is a really good post by jbailes. I've had this discussion countless times with camera operators I've brought up. The eroticism of a scene can absolutely be dictated by the angle among other things. Dwelling too much on an Extreme Close Up creates a kind of disconnect with the eroticism. Much of what makes a scene erotic is a good mix which hails back to basic filmmaking 101 and this is why we see so much bad porn. Just because some guy has performed in a 200 hundred movies does NOT make him a Director! It's much easier to grab a camera and go hand held if you're really in a rush and with the pressure of most studios demanding harder and harder core the operator ends up spending a lot of time buried between the legs with a C light which really destroys any hope of an erotic image. It takes time to set each shot up on a good set of sticks and alter the lighting to fit the angle correctly and shoot, especially when you're really worried about the guy's 'wood'. Fuller shots combined with good editing including Full Shots, MCUs and CUs are ideal but this makes for a longer day and ultimately more money spent. If more true videographers and cinematographers were shooting porn you'd see more stimulating erotica because you'd really feel the full scene. When it's shot hand held, tucked somewhere back in the mind we know someone is operating that camera and unless it's a POV title it can be disconcerting. Not always, but usually. Final note because I could write on this for days. Wide Angle lenses jammed into those legs DISTORT the geography so-to-speak. Usually NOT flattering. But it's easier for the operator because you get the whole picture right there. Not usually what I like, but to each his own. Ultimately I think an all-hand held scene means a lazy cameraman. Good Thoughts, Gary O
^But see, I don't really have a problem watching porn shot with a hand held camera. To be honest, the best ones make hand held shooting almost look easy. I know it's not easy, but just saying the good ones get it done. To me, hand helds appear to follow the action better, especially if people are moving around or going from room to room. And why are studios forcing you guys to shoot so much needless and mindnumbing close-up hardcore action that we can't see? I rarely run across viewers who overwhelmingly admit to liking it. I don't get it, sorry. [mod edit: quote removed] Edited by - savoy on 2/10/2010 11:19:58 PM
Producer, Director, HBO/Cinemax, International Award Winner. 75 Posts 2/10
Posted - Feb 10 2010 : 11:53PM
I guess for me too much hand held feels cheap. I've shot so many scenes (literally thousands) that once you've seen every imaginable shape, color, size of 'the goods' the ECUs just don't have any meaning. Especially in hand held. When I see the hand held movement I know all too well what's really going on. Guess I can't shake the reality away. For me the full image is better. The woman's eyes, how she's really reacting AND enough of the hardcore so that I know it's not a fake-sex Cinemax show. For me too much hand held and especially way up close steals the voyeuristic fantasy away. Again, for me it feels cheap. Not to say I don't do it... but moderately. That's just me though. And I have to say thank God for a broad diverse pool of likes and dislikes. If there was just one right and proper away the whole idea of being a cinematographer would completely suck... may as well live in a cubicle! G
It can be hot when done well and in moderation. Unfortunately, a lot of modern porn just does this to the exclusion of all else. What's worse, a lot of them don't even know why they're doing it. Many of them obviously don't understand what a butt lover really likes about butts and so they just flail around and ruin any appeal it might have had for someone if they actually had a coherent style. So, it's often done to excess and done poorly to boot. It's no wonder people are tired of it.
Believe me, I know time is money in the film industry and that it takes time to switch from one angle to another with lighting and so forth, as well as pressure to meet deadlines, but I honestly believe that extra effort to put out an erotic, quality product would pay dividends in terms of sales, awards, accolades, etc. I remember Larry Flynt at the AVN awards addressing this very same thing. There are far too many gorgeous women with incredible bodies in the industry now to just mass produce low quality product. It would be a refreshing and long overdue change to see these beautiful women served up on a silver platter with flattering and perhaps even extended angles. But at this point, it seems that alot of what is out there is filmed by Joe Layman who just picked up his first vidcam at Best Buy. I'm not insinuating that all porn is crap. There are some filmakers who "get it", and view film from a fan's perspective. But every time I see one of those ridiculous close-ups, I sarcastically say, "Please...closer...I can't see her ovaries yet!" I'm not scared of the 10,000 punches you throw one time, I'm scared of the one punch you throw 10,000 times
[Link]
Ida Lupino Deactivated User
429 Posts 11/08
Posted - Mar 11 2010 : 5:55PM
Just clear pics please. Be artsy on your own time.
Really into the voyeur camera angle at the mo.,seems to compliment the other angles quite well.
[Link]
AsianAnalPantyhoserGuy Deactivated User
Ass fucking/ foot fetish/ pantyhose= insanity! 465 Posts 3/10
Posted - Mar 13 2010 : 7:20PM
This is a great post. I am so glad to hear that I am not the only one who is noticing these various techniques being utilized by the porn industry. Tilted camera angles and closeups that continuously remove the woman's feet from the equation and scenes shot from too far or too low. It is my belief that the porn industry utilizes these various techniques because it is militantly dedicated to the separation of quality sheer hosiery/foot fetish from quality anal scenes. Take this small example for instance. In the thousands upon thousands of videos I've seen, I have yet to see a woman in pantyhose perform a reverse cowgirl anal scene with a competently penetrating performer as her feet are shown on his legs. Sure, I've seen this type of scene done, but you can always detect the obsessive desire for the cameraman to tilt his camera, drop to the floor, or close in on the penetration in an effort to eliminate her feet from the equation. Because of this, I have found it absolutely necessary to film my own material.
How did I miss this topic? Anyhow, thanks for the props. To be fair, I did learn the value of the full body shot when I used to shoot for John T Bone many years ago, The guy was a scumbag but he always made sure that I kept the girls face in the shot as well as the action. His opinion of the extreme close up shot was that it could be anybody in the scene and he was right about that. I've seen movies where the camera is on a close-up for so long that I forget who the girl is in the scene.
Well said my friend. I am so sick of stupid-ass-directors ruining a scene by shooting everything from the perspective of the penetration. Cowgirl, DP's, doggie... All ruined when directors spend 80+% of the time focused in making sure the full penetration is in frame... Ignoring the beauty of the woman's body. Do they not understand that constantly looking from that perspective does not truly show the complete femininity of the woman? Even in breast genre movies... the percentage of horrible shots with respect to the female body is reduced, but still probably around 50% of the shots are dedicated to the penetration. It's lunacy.
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe 576 Posts 5/03
Posted - Mar 14 2010 : 2:08PM
As to closeups, all we (or porn shooters) have to ask ourselves is: Do we want to see 1) People fucking 2) Body parts fucking From 95+% of the porn I've seen, from all eras & genres, the answer apparently is #2. As to low or skewed angles and out-of-level camera orientation, I'll drag out again my old saw about when someone hands you a picture of a beautiful woman, to see it best do you 1) Hold it square and level at a distance which allows you to fully take it in 2) Rotate it from 15 to 180 degrees out of level, and tilt it back for an elongated, extreme angle Again, judging from porn, guess which is the apparent answer. In differing degrees, porn's always been this way. I'll always be mystified by it.
I'm resisting the urge to comment how I truly feel about directors that waste inordinate amounts of money and time - both mine and theirs... By totally fucking up a scene with a unbelievably beautiful woman. Thanks for mentioning the tilt... That annoys the shit out of me too. It seems to be (somewhat) less of a problem than the directors who seem to be obsessed with anonymous penis going into an anonymous vagina or ass. I just really don't get it. I do understand that some customers DO want it like they shoot it but from what I read here, and just BASIC COMMON SENSE, one would expect those people to be the minority.
[Link]
Karloff Deactivated User
319 Posts 7/10
Posted - Feb 17 2011 : 7:16AM
Just capture the scene clearly. I don't want to bend my neck to the tilted camera.
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe 576 Posts 5/03
Posted - Feb 18 2011 : 1:56PM
Aw, Karloff, why did you have to bump this thread? Now you've gone and set me off again. Because I need to see her face and the "action" in the same shot to get anything out of porn, I've had to settle mostly for POV BJ flicks. With the possible exception of Mike Quasar (who doesn't shoot enough straight-ahead, one-on-one, B/G fucking to suit me), regular-sex scenes -- even in POV titles -- are at least 90% partial-body close ups and pans, or shot with the skewed or weird angles cited above. If there are titles featuring mostly squared-up (upright), full-body shot angles out there, I can't find them.
we the people in order to form a more perfect union... 518 Posts 12/03
Posted - Feb 21 2011 : 1:23AM
i agree with those in here about the directors/camerapersons who don't get it. the up the skirt style shooting and the tilted camera angles are done way too much in excess. makes much of porn unwatchable for me these days. no cover charge, come as you are, hmm hmm hmm i love this bar
pornography wasn't sex but fantasies of an impossibly hospitable world 12377 Posts 9/07
Posted - Feb 21 2011 : 5:51AM
Two shots I really hate: 1. Between and under the dude's legs shot of BJs, so we're looking at the woman's chin. I believer Max Hardcore claimed to have invented this shot, which I can believe because it is easily the worst way imaginable to shoot a BJ. 2. Butthole/Penis/Junk/Vagina/Butthole shot. Most of the really terrible close-up shots have been reduced over the years but you still see this shot that is hard to describe and I can't post a screen pic of but I'll try: all you can see is the woman's vagina and butthole with the guy's junk and butthole above her, often her legs are pulled back so all you see on screen is the gentalia. I think this is often used because it gives the impression of the woman 'being banged hard' but it is really boring and just kind of ugly. I liked Mark Ashley as a performer but this shot often seemed to pop up in his scenes unfortunately.
Does Gary Orona shoot porn? If so, I'd like to watch his stuff. I hate the low-angle between-the-dude's-legs stuff that proliferates these days. The camera's lens is my eye, and I hate feeling like I'm sitting submissively on the floor with my face between another man's spread legs, looking lovingly up at his flopping balls. Also, I don't like it when the woman's ass is so distorted I can't tell if I'm looking at a petite spinner or a BBW. Handheld also really does ruin the voyeuristic fantasy for me. When I see the image jittering and the angle constantly readjusting, it serves as a constant reminder that there's a cameraman there, and that I'm not in control of my own vision. Plus it creates this uncomfortable sense of tension--even when I like a particular angle, it always feels like it's about to change.
Gary has shot almost all of our high-profile movies as of late - Sanitorium, Friday the 13th Parody, Psycho parody and the just Released Silence of the Lambs parody. The guy is a real filmmaker and we are lucky to have him.
[Link]
Rosco Fuji Deactivated User
On the licking stick, Mr. Magic Dick! 3309 Posts 2/09
Posted - Feb 22 2011 : 9:55AM
Oh yeah, I just love looking at some hot chick's chin and some guy's scrote as she's giving head.
