seriously

I think Vivid might get less crap if they started doing that.

[Link]

Cal444
Somewhere thinkin

Edited by - cal444 on 7/2/2006 2:12:34 AM

[Link]

With regards to multi-angle features and menu buttons, I wish that there was a way to turn them off. I hate excess features that cover the picture like a watermark. I discuss this here. Unfortunately, I haven't found a way to turn them off.

Edited by - Walter on 7/2/2006 10:58:15 PM

Edited by - Walter on 7/2/2006 10:59:00 PM

Edited by - Walter on 7/2/2006 10:59:27 PM

[Link]

There'd have to be at least 3 cameras shooting simultaneously, but preferably more, like 10, both handheld moving cameras and mounted cameras. For the moving shots we can use 2 cameras, one with a wider 25mm lens and another with a normal 50mm lens, both mounted on steadicams. For stationary cameras: 2 to 3 cameras exclusively recording the face, some cameras shooting medium-shots, some doing closeups, at various angles.

Another way to think of it: each camera is dedicated to a particular erogenous zone: face (2 cameras - front POV and profile), breasts, ass, crotch, feet, hands, shoulder, armpit, navel, nape of the neck, under the fingernails, etc.

Of course we'd also have medium-shot cameras that would cover whole body shots as well, where we see multiple erogenous zones together (face/tits/crotch for example) rather than seeing them singly.

And the tricky part is how to develop an user-interface that would allow the viewer to quickly weave in and out of angles and to weave together multiple angles for on-the-fly editing. The current navigation model of nested menus is definitely not suitable for this.

[Link]

Not a bad idea, just a difficult and unlikely one to ever see the light of day.

[Link]

edit: just noticed you were replying to the other idea above Scipio, so disregard the above paragraph.

Due to my emergent Ginger Lea (Laura Logan) obsession I actually purchased a couple of her am vids last week. The workout vid has much better image quality, btw, stay away from the other one. On the low-quality vid there's a loooong stationary profile shot of Ginger giving head. It's wonderful! Even though it's crappy video and the sound sucks, I really enjoyed it because I got to watch this beautiful woman give head for several minutes without her stopping to yak, without a cut so the director/editor can feel like they're artists, etc. Gives a man time to spank.

That's what porn producers just don't seem to understand - THIS AIN'T HOLLYWOOD. We want to see a good angle, good lighting, good talent, good action, and then we want to watch it for a while. Now, personally I don't care for penetration close-ups, but I bet the people who do would like to watch that for a while too.

Relax! Settle in on a shot and stay there for a while. A good rule of thumb, according to my tastes anyways, is that any given shot should be held for long enough that an average viewer can go from limp to orgasm before it's over. Sure, there can be exceptions, but they should be exceptions.

This ain't Hollywood, it's porn.

Walter, yes, those watermarks SUCK ASS (in a bad way). For God's sake, if you have to do something like that, just make it a SMALL, high-contrast colored dot somewhere in a far upper corner.

Edited by - Joe_Kurtz on 7/8/2006 6:21:25 PM

[Link]