I'm very curious about it. High refresh rate tvs and monitors are more and more present, but while very useful for gaming or sports, I suspect that even porn being a genre that can often show fast-pacing action (to put it this way) could look much better on high refresh rate displays. I know 60 hz is now quite common, but even higher frequencies could make a lot of difference.
Topic Moved by - Flash on Oct 9 2020
[Link]
System Message
Posted - Oct 9 2020 : 4:39PM
This topic was moved here from the The Porn Pool forum.
He gave himself to the river and it carried him away 213 Posts 8/17
Posted - Nov 26 2020 : 8:41AM
Videos aren't shot in Hz but frames-per-second (FPS). I don't know of much anything (much less porn) shot at 120fps. Such high fps is typically only for gaming, and much higher fps are for brief slow-motion effects. The cost would be huge for videos/movies. There is porn shot at 60fps, and it does (IMO) look much better than the more typical 30fps or 24fps (the latter of which is film standard). One problem is that the file sizes tend to be huge, especially if the video is also in 4k or 5k. A 5k 60fps video at 40Mbps is about 14gb for about an hour.
There is no reason to shoot 120fps porn at this time. Most TVs and monitors can't display it properly or play back a video file through their built-in player software and shooting 4K/120 requires a camera that is niche/very expensive and very bright lighting in the environment, to get the best footage. 60fps at the highest resolution you can use or work with is the way to go. For porn 5K/60 is as good as it gets right now and 4K/60 is the ideal for everyone.
^ No reason? Shooting at 120fps gives you wiggle room for futureproofing your content if 120Hz screens become more commonplace. Futureproofing has often been a motive for people to adopt new, niche or expensive hardware. Why won't it be the case for shooting at 120fps?
The latest generation of games consoles is pushing 4K/120 and more displays are being released with this in mind. Why would this not develop to a point that 4K/120 becomes more affordable and more common?
10-15 years ago, most TVs and monitors couldn't display 4K content well (regardless of frame rate) or even handle a 4K signal, nor did their built-in media players have the capacity or in some cases codecs required. 4K cameras, even shooting at just 24/25/30fps were expensive back then as well. The expense of hardware didn't hinder the progress of 4K/30 or 4K/60, did it? What's the undeniable barrier that would rule out 4K/120 being another step?
He gave himself to the river and it carried him away 213 Posts 8/17
Posted - Nov 30 2020 : 7:26AM
^ Higher FPS are beneficial for gaming because of the interactive nature that often requires quick, smooth reflexes. For regular media higher FPS is only beneficial because it smooths motion, but TVs have been able to simulate this for a while and most people don't like it, referring to it as the "soap opera effect." Peter Jackson even tried shooting The Hobbit at 48fps and that was largely deemed a failure: seems people have just gotten to used to 24fps for film, or maybe there's something about that blur that makes people think "cinematic." Now, maybe you can argue that sports have succeeded at 60fps and maybe porn could too, but I really doubt there's a future where most non-video game media will be shot at 120fps. The cost is too high for not much (if any) tangible benefit. I could see 60fps becoming the norm for a lot of non-film media, and 120 for video games, but that's about it.
^ There was more to the high frame rate than the perception of 24p being suited to cinema that led to the Hobbit being a critical failure. The production values were lacking so flaws in props for example that would be masked in a lower frame rate would become more visible so everything it was easy to tell what was real and fake and that was a huge distraction when I saw the Hobbit in HFR. More convincing props and better rendered CG would have helped.
I'm aware of frame interpolation with TVs so you're wasting time trying to teach me to suck eggs but who are "most people" who don't like it?
Indeed the cost is high now but what's to say the cost of shooting at 120fps won't become more affordable if not on parity with 60fps?
You film for the masses not for the niche unless you know there's profit to be made. That's why movies are still being shot in 24fps and released on DVD instead of 120fps on 8k disc. My old laptop can't handle 60 fps video in any resolution, it can handle 24fps up to 1080p just fine. That means the audience is greater for film makers.
He gave himself to the river and it carried him away 213 Posts 8/17
Posted - Nov 30 2020 : 3:57PM
^^ You can say there was more to it but the fact is that producers aren't going to invest more money into a technology unless people care, want it, and are willing to pay for it, and thus far no film has shown that audiences care about higher frame rates. Porn is the exact same thing. You're talking about an industry where consumers didn't even care about blu-rays over DVDs or compressed downloads. By "most people" I mean "almost everyone you read talk about it online," which may not be a representative sample size, but there you go. Shooting at 120fps will never be cheaper than shooting at 60fps, at least not at the same image quality/compression level. If you sacrificed on the latter it could be done, but it's not a tradeoff I think would be worth it. I think 60fps already looks fine and on a large TV you'd start to notice compression artifacts sooner than 60fps motion blur would be distracting IMO.
^ Who argued that 120fps will be cheaper that shooting at 60fps? I posited a situation where 120fps would be more affordable or even approach cost parity with 60fps. I neither stated nor implied the former would be cheaper than the latter.
He gave himself to the river and it carried him away 213 Posts 8/17
Posted - Dec 1 2020 : 2:55PM
^ Sorry, I mean to say "as cheap". One big factor here is storage space. Now, storage space is certainly getting cheaper as the years go on, but with 120fps and the same quality as 60fps you're doubling the required storage space: quadrupling over 30fps. With the amount of videos most companies shoot, that's a lot of added cost even if they do manage to bring down the cost at other levels. Maybe the companies that shoot relatively less and focus on premium looks--Lansky's sites, 5kPorn/PornFidelity, etc.--might could manage it, though I'd still worry about them doing it too soon before most PCs/TVs have the ability to play them.
While file sizes are invariably larger when you're using the same codec, I like to think you and I both know full well that you are grossly oversimplifying the file size difference. The file size doesn't increase in such a linear fashion with the number of frames because of the compression used in the video the customer downloads/views from the site. Depending on the capture device, even then the file size won't increase in a linear manner relative to the frame rate given that some cameras still use compression in their "raw" footage used in post production.
He gave himself to the river and it carried him away 213 Posts 8/17
Posted - Dec 2 2020 : 6:58AM
The file size should increase linearly to the framerate if the same level of compression is used at 120fps as at 60fps. I mentioned earlier that if you increased compression this wouldn't be the case, but then the question becomes whether you think the tradeoff is worth it.
That's now how it works in the real world. With compression, elements in frames are removed relative to neighbouring frames so where you have very similar colours and tones between frames, those elements in between are removed. As a result, the file size is decreased and because neighbouring frames at one time index may differ from those at another time index, different numbers of elements will be removed across the video. Since there is a variance of across the video, there won't be a linear increase in file size - it will be somewhat less than twice the file size increasing from 60fps to 120fps.
He gave himself to the river and it carried him away 213 Posts 8/17
Posted - Dec 2 2020 : 12:43PM
^ In practice I agree, but in theory if the level of compression was identical filesize should increase linearly. Even in practice it's going to be pretty close to twice as large. I'd guess at least 80-90%.
EDIT: Perhaps a more technical way to put this is that doubling the fps should double the bitrate if the same level of compression is used. Bitrate defines filesize, so if 120fps video doubled the bitrate of a 60fps video, it would be twice as large. If it didn't double the bitrate, then obviously different levels of compression happened at some stage.
^ doubling the bitrate for double the frame rate would give you more wiggle room for compression, as similar elements from adjacent frames are likely to be compressed better, so a doubled frame rate would not necessarily mean double bit rate for the same image quality (however this is measured).
on another note: why futureproofing? I think we all learnt that back catalog in porn simply isn't regarded as something worth investing. Sure, the newest scenes are put out in the current highest standard, but I highly doubt more subscriptions are sold because the back catalog scenes are now also available in 4K ultra-HDR whatever. Or do you see some ads for sites where they claim they have 10 year old scenes in superior quality? If Brazzers removes years worth of content, (almost) nobody cares. Jules Jordan doesn't deem it necessary adding photosets for older scenes, because it isn't work the effort going through the old material.
there's probably no other industry where such a "always-the-newest-and-only-the-newst" attitude is so dominant. Much less so in movies and music. Sure, you get the newest recordings and movies in highest quality, but there are enough consumers/collectors with deep pockets who can justify going the extra effort in the back catalog. But I don't see these in porn. Sure, there are porn consumers with deep pockets, but these seldom want a high-quality re-issue of a scene shot 10 years ago
He gave himself to the river and it carried him away 213 Posts 8/17
Posted - Dec 3 2020 : 1:10PM
^ Right, and if doubling the framerate doesn't double the bitrate then the compression isn't equivalent; that's all I've been saying.
Interesting you bring up consumers for a back catalog of porn. I'm one of those consumers, and one reason I plan on keeping my Bang.com subscription for a good long time is their impressive back catalog. It certainly sucks that older scenes are in worse quality, but sometimes you run into performers that were most active more than a decade ago and there's only a handful of sites that will have that stuff. Porn has always been disposable entertainment to the vast majority of viewers and even the people that make it, probably because the supply far outstrips the already-high demand and it's an industry where (comparatively) low-effort/low-talent productions can still yield lots of profit, so there's less incentive to care about quality. What you say about consumers only caring about the newest scenes is one reason why companies aren't going to put any effort into future proofing, because in the future nobody will care about scenes shot today.
higher fps are beneficial for stuff with a lot of fast motion, no matter what you're watching. True, a lot of people dislike soap opera effect in movies, but even there it has its advantages: for instance, with low frame rates a camera can't move too fast because the result would be choppy and instead of seeing a fluid movement you would see just a sequence of seemingly unrelated picturess. Same with objects (or bodies, if we consider porn) moving too fast on screen. And in porn nobody would care if there's a soap opera effect.
they may know better than me how the market works, but personally (and I know a lot of people, like Hubardo too above) think that a back catalogue is great. I don't care if a scene is old or new, I care if the scene is good. The only bad thing about old scenes is the often abysmal quality of the video, but I guess it's possible to make also remasters of old scenes (Naughty America has done something like that in the last year). I think it could even be possible to improve the frame rate using AI now (I've seen that Nvidia has made it possible two years ago) making scenes more fluid basically creating frames between frames. And it's not anymore a matter of future: there are already some quite affordable tv able to do 4k at 120 fps and in this year a lot of other models will go in the same direction. I know that now companies are pushing for higher resolutions, I fear that we will see before 8k porn than high refresh rate porn.
for those interested, I recently opened a thread for porn at 120 fps, that unlike this one was moved to the tech talk section where nobody looks. Unfortunately nobody was able to mention any site, but it's interesting to see the same kind of arguments that in 2013 were used for 60fps porn, that now is considered normal.
Disregard that, with knowledge I have changed my stance. The goal now is for porn to go 8K 120fps HDR video with 5.1 audio. No interpolation, must be native. Down convert for lower res users via adaptive bitrate streaming. This is the goal, forget about DVD/BD, it's obsolete, it's all about streaming now. Currently, HEVC is the favored encoder but VCC, EVC and AV1/2 are good alternatives.
Lesbian Superstars 5 - review by Captain Jack
Posted - Oct 9 2020 : 12:02PM
