Lately, I've been getting really pissed at directors who seem to love pulling the camera waaaaaaaaay back, so that you're basically watching from across the room, and the heads of the girls on the tv screen are about the size of a golf ball. And it's not just a momentary thing either - he'll camp out back there, goddammit, while these gorgeous hotties give a dude a glorious bj sandwich or something, giggling and kissing in between cock-licks... and I'm sitting here SQUINTING TO SEE IT.
Or the putz will zoom in on stuff that doesn't matter. Endless footage of the back of one of the girls' heads, which is blocking both the other girl's face and the action itself... and then when the blocked girl's face does manage to peer out to the point where you can finally see her licking dick, the editor cuts it after half a second!!!! (that's what happened in a scene with knockout Nassy in Devilsfilms' "Reverse Gangbang 2" recently.)
So, does anyone know of some filmmakers who really know where the "heat" is, and who actually zoom in and linger there accordingly? I think Michael Ninn is one, just off the top of my head.
Conversely, are there some filmmakers whom you find are pretty consistently terrible at it? Ones to avoid? (Ones who seem to enjoy watching the bedroom from, say, the KITCHEN??) (...or who cut away from a shot precisely when the action is hottest?)
You just hit one of my pet peeves right on the head.
I think some of these people forget that not everyone has (or can afford) a HUGE screen. I watch most of my porn on my computer with a 19" monitor. Even my TV is only a 27".
With that in mind, video is pretty much a close up format. I really wish there were more close up BJs in porn. A lot of them seem to be filmed from a distance that, while it does a good job of showing most of the girl's body, doesn't capture much detail. Close ups are almost always very short (too short when it really counts).
I DO like to see the girl's whole body but I think they film way too much wide angle stuff. In RL, if you're fucking a girl, you're not seeing her from halfway across the room. It should be just the opposite. Wide angle shots should be short and sweet with mostly close ups (and not just close ups of flopping nut sacks) It's nice to see the girl's face up nice and close. Particularly her eyes.
Dong has pretty much nailed one of my pet peeves as well - the lack of dynamics in most scenes. Zoom in - way in - when there's something particularly exciting to see, and pull back occasionally so I can see the girl's cute little feet (shoes on or off - I don't usually give a shit - just let me see the girl's legs AND feet some of the time, goddamit!) waving around as she's getting the shit fucked out of her.
Bottom line is - please REACT to what's happening instead of pretending to be a "voyeur" and merely a spectator.
The lack of close-ups and lack of eye-contact with camera are two of my biggest peeves in porn.
And loraine has mentioned one obvious improvement - two cams combined with good editing - or even (OMG!) dual angles available during the entire scene, with one angle being mostly close-ups and the other angle being more panoramic views and letting the viewer flip back and forth. Now there's a concept who's time has come!
if one close up and the other is back wont you see the close up guy guess it depends on the lens but i think most people have .55 and older folks .7 you gotta get up in that shit
How about four/five cameras that provide one of those "choose your own adventure" style texts allowing the viewer complete "authorship" in its entirety?
Has a multiple (more than two) angle feature/gonzo ever been shot? I believe its been done for the My Plaything stuff, but what about gonzo/features? Screw these directors and their crypto-fascism (you must look here, because my camera tells you so). Fuuucccckkkk you!
It's all about the viewer, give he/she what they want.
Kierkegaard.
P.S. What about an option to have the director/crypto-fascist version vis-a-vis a viewer "authorship" on the DVD? We can, therefore, get rid of the "ball cam (doggie under guy's ass)" and reverse pile driver (seriously, who gets off on this????) position. A remove Brian Pummper from scene would also be a nice touch.
Think porn spends FAR TOO MUCH time in closeup, and not enough in full body view. Especially in blowjobs. And of course in the endless, six inches away penetration shots.
I watch porn for specific female body types and want to see the whole body more of the time, and individual parts less of the time.
The camera doesn't have to be at the centerfield fence if the action is at home plate, but full view of the performers in all aspects and elevations, is what I enjoy most.
I agree that the under-the-balls shot needs to be outlawed, whether it's during doggy or a blowjob. Nothing kills a hot blow job like cutting to a close up of some guy's taint, and it's not really flattering for the girl, either.
I just bought Head Case from Third Degree and it might be the best camera work I've ever seen in an oral movie. It's all POV, but not just one stationary view -- the camera will move up to look into the girl's eyes when she sits up, pull out to let you see her whole body when she's grinding the guy, or pull in for a couple extreme close-ups in each scene. It felt like the camera went where my eyes would go if I had the pleasure of getting head from one of these girls. Of course it doesn't hurt that all the girls are sexy, talented and make tons of eye contact, but the camera work makes you appreciate it even more.
Diagonally parked in a parallel universe 576 Posts 5/03
Posted - Oct 28 2006 : 1:43PM
+1
Not sure mine is a positive contribution to this thread but, as I view classic porn, too, it occurs to me that this has always been a major problem with porn.
As the camera jitters, tracks body parts, lingers on the guy's face, quick-cuts, etc., my eyes spend more time rolling toward the ceiling than on the screen.
Maybe I'm just getting jaded in my old age, but I'm lucky to find 5% of porn footage strokeable -- old or new.
I find that , often , it's not a problem of knowing when and where to zoom. Much of the problem is the duration. Many of today's camera operators move in and back too quickly and frequently , i find. The camerawork for alot of the videos is non stop movement or alot of movement.
Well, I can sort of understand that. I'm sure it's difficult for them to know what's going to be well received and what isn't.
Example: If the camera spends a lot of time up close, some people will be thrilled while others will be extremely upset. Lots of time spent on wide angle? Same story.
I DO get irritated with a lot of camera movement when (for example) I'm watching a movie that *almost* has ideal camera work (for me, that is). I'll be watching and be perfectly happy with the angle that I'm seeing and suddenly there's an abrupt cut to a view shot from 30 feet away and it remains there so long I lose my wood. Then, back to the angle I like for 20 seconds or so and cut to another angle that does nothing for me. And so on and so forth. I end up spending more time cursing at the TV ("Go back to the good angle, for fuck sake!") than I do simply enjoying the scene.
But naturally, there's somebody else out there (somewhere) who's just waiting for the angles I can't stand. They can't stand the angles I love.
This is my theory on why porn is such a hit or miss thing. You find someone whose work you like and stick with them. If you want to risk wasting your time and money with stuff made by people you're not familiar with, you may be disappointed or you may find something you like even better.
But I've found that sometimes, even the people who usually do what I define as good work will make a dud...or even two (or three or four, or a whole series). And I'll be sitting there thinking "What the FUCK happened here? The last one was fantastic.".
The cameraman is SUPPOSE to help tell the story, but besides his experience and ability there are sometimes other obstacles to getting the right balance of tights and wides....
Obviously we (I'm one that shoots and edits for a meager living) should be instinctive and on the ball...moving in to capture the lips of the girl quivering...and be back wide when the guy is hidden from frame (by the girl in spoon position)...while not making the viewer feel like they're spanking from a rocking chair. But being tuned into the performers is only one factor. Getting the right lighting for the right location is part of it also. And then, after all is ready, is there wood and are you asking a prima donna to stay on her knees longer than 40 seconds? I even had a still photographer (prima donna's come in all departments) bitch and moan to me that I was always too close to the talent since he couldn't get any stills during my video shooting time...!?!?
My biggest problem as a shooter is that I am always trying to get a nicely composed shot. But I have to keep reminding myself that porn doesn't need nice architecture...more important, as Dong aptly stated, is to find where the "heat is."
I've found that most of the directors at Evil Angel are there because they in fact have that innate ability to capture the heat. The owner of that company has a reputation of not taking anyone on as a director unless they managed to get him to work his kerkin while watching their stuff. Overly stylish or generic same-same work is not going to cut it there. I suggest picking up any of EA's titles. Before I started to shoot and edit more and wank less, I was only renting/buying from them.
Agree with a lot of what Rich said. I'm not involved in the industry but have spent some time with a video camera in my hands (just general home movies).
While we're on the subject, I figure I might as well mention something else that bugs me about camera people in the industry.
Some cameras (for whatever reason) just can't seem to get flesh tones right. Even if the camera person spends the extra time manually white balancing the camera, it still looks wrong (on most consumer monitors, anyway). I've noticed a strong tendency towards yellow (particularly on overexposed highlights or people with really pale or tanned skin). It's endlessly distracting trying to beat off to a video of a girl with yellow skin or extremely burned out highlights. I've seen some videos shot with some of the (supposedly) best prosumer cameras of the time that just look terrible.
Now I have no idea if any of this is the fault of the camera guy or not. I would guess not since I had a couple of consumer level camcorders that couldn't do natural looking flesh tones no matter what I tried (and one of them loved to burn out the highlights as well....even when the exposure was adjusted manually. It was either way too bright or too dark).
But still, couldn't they buy a better camera or something? Surely they can see the flaws in the video as well as I can.
I agree with BSD. I'd like more wide shots. But when there are close-ups, I'd like some variety apart from faces and genitals. Often "heat" is demonstrated through the hands. If a camera operator stays conscious of this, keeps an eye out for a girl gripping the sheets or her partner's hair, watches for male hands wandering up and down a feminine back, some choice moments might be captured.
Lighting and color - pretty fundamental elements in good production - and something like 70% of porn can't get them right. You're preaching to the choir here, man. I've had to stop watching many a movie because the lighting was either too dark or washed out, or because I don't enjoy watching jaundiced performers having sex. And then there's the occasional director who thinks he's an artist and decides to produce entire scenes in sepia tones or something like that. Now, I enjoy Darkko's movies for the most part, but "Slut Collectors" is a disaster in my humble opinion. Every scene is filmed in a loft, and it's TOO DARK (dark, Darkko, HELLOOOOOOOOOOOOOO??!!!). And to top it off, he's using come kind of color effect, like sepia, and it ruins every scene.
Contrast this with a recent release from Combat Zone, "Naughty Amateurs", which is almost letter perfect on the production values front. It is a true pleasure to watch because all the color and lighting is just about perfect. It's actually quite stunning to watch because it's such a rarity in porn.
I won't list all the directors that regularly get the color wrong, but unfortunately it includes some of my favorites. I usually have to just grin and bear it because the content is so good. But a little white balancing would make some of these directors even better.
I think mix of close and wide shots are best (with a good amount of duration on each). But that can and should vary depending on the type of scene. For example, for the cumshot and blowjobs, I like to see close action but for other things like airtight DP scenes I hate it when directors just close in on the girls head during a blow job and the quickly close in on genital shots without giving a good duration full body shot.
