Some new great porn arrived to me this day - which is fun... but... Squirtwoman 2 is a great movie, I agree, but every scene with the lovely Cytherea is choppy. Grand Theft Anal 7 is another great movie, but the frame-rate completely ruins it for me...
I wish I didn't care about technicalities watching porn. Now I feel forced to stick with those I've (so far) never seen doing this (Brandon Iron, Steve Holmes, Jules Jordan, Joey Silvera, Manuel Ferrara etc) I'd love to see more of Cytherea enjoying her gift... but if this is the way it's put to DVD then fuck it, I'll just be thinking 'it didn't had to be this way' with a depressive frown on my face.
My question to studios/directors/editors/whoever doing this is of course: Why? I have no idea what purpose it serves to make hardcore gonzo/all sex less realistic. I respect artistic freedom but sometimes I just don't understand it.
edit: Cytherea is in every, scene, but with diffirent hair color. It's however very easy to notice the diffirence in frame-rate between the scenes.
Within the realm of what we would call "normal motion" NTSC video, there are four different frame-rate/interlace settings/pulldown cadences; 30i (normal interlaced 30fps), 30p (non-interlaced 30 fps video), 24p 3:2 (film-like), 24p 3:2:2:2 (allows for non-renderd pulldown removal to 24p).
Each of these has a particular look, certain advantages, and certain disadvantages. For example 24p 3:2:2:3 will allow for a video to encoded with lower, more effective compression. It also yeilds a look that, when properely accounted for, can be a pleasing alternative to the 30i video that is most commonly used in all aspects of video production. 30p also has some acquision and compression advantages, and a "motion-signature" that is different from either 30i or either version of 24p.
When any of these rates are employed in an evironment where they run counter to audience expection, accounting for the different 'time-signature' is that much more important. The audience will notice that something is different, but they may not be able to put their finger on what it is. Whether or not they find this difference pleasing depends as much on their taste as the skill of the D.P.
Also, shutter speed can effect the "look and feel" as much or more than frame rate. A fast shutter speed will give a strobey/stutter feel, even to standard 30i video. Again, whether or not this is a pleasing effect is an intersection of the D.P.'s technique and the audience's taste.
I have never ever seen a mainstream movie with this 'choppy' feel to it... never... only those manga flicks where they save on animation by only animating every second frame. Most porn is already compressed way harder than mainstream DVDs, so why cut down on frames?
I still think someone somewhere thinks it gives the video some kind of 'cool effect' and if I ever meet that person I'll punch him/her in the face...
Take a closer look at the battle scene in Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers, both use a smaller shutter angle similar to the Eyemo combat camera from the WWII era. The reason you didn't notice it is because it was the right creative choice.
Of course if what you're seeing is 15fps or less, then take back everthing I said.
Not having seen the vid in question either, but knowing the habits of Valley camera-holders, I'd suspect somebody dialed down the shutter speed to the 15 or seven presets during shooting. Just my wild guess. :)
I guess there are other factors involved too such as quality of dvd media.
My observation is that Platinum X tend to have better picture quality than Red Light, but that this isn't a uniform trend.
Everhard movies are awesome on paper, but lately the reality in Out Numbered 3 and Ass Obsessed 4 seemed to be a compromise in picture quality. The movie felt almost grainy in places - and every movie he puts out is a double disc - so work that one out.
Having said that, Ferrara's movies along with Jake Malone always seem a lot crisper, perhaps less compressed.
It'd be good if someone could shed some light on this.
There are so many way to fuck things up, it's almost impossible to make a diagnosis unless you have knowledge of the entire image chain, from acquisition to encoding.
There really should be a standard. I've stayed away from some producers for that very reason. That, and watermarks tend to turn me off. Like Rocco movies for instance. Is he still filming them with that grainy texture look. I wouldnt know. I've enjoyed his movies in the past. But the grain and choppiness needs to go. Would be ideal if they listed on the back cover exactly how it was filmed w/ frame rates etc...
"Would be ideal if they listed on the back cover exactly how it was filmed w/ frame rates etc..."
Oh God. Shall we have a listing of visible herpes sores, the distance in cm of each gape, etc? Read reviews & inform yourselves on your choices, if you're going to be so damn narrow-minded.
I haven't seen this movie either, but some porn companies are trying to be "hi def" with those shitty HDV Sony cams that have artifacts during movement. They suck ass.
The don't do real 24p either. It's some sort of interpolated 30i, and then that "bastard 24p" has to be re-interpolated back to 30i. What's up with that?
Grand Theft Anal 7 was shot in 24p on a Panasonic DVX100a with a shutter speed of 48. It is indeed difficult to shoot "gonzo" style in 24p because of the pulldown sequence and the fact that the "steady shot" feature is absent. Zooms are smooth and beautiful but some movement, such as the trend of suddenly lurching forward and putting the camera 2 inches from the girls' face can be choppy and it has nothing to do with the shutter speed. Ask many of the current crop of shooters to switch off "Steady Shot" and you'd be amazed at the result. Suddenly half the porn being released looks like it was shot by someone with Parkinsons.
That being said, I feel the look of film is far superior to the look of video and so I choose to shoot this way. That's just my opinion however and not a dig at Gunzo at all. To each his own.
