I've watched most of Jules Jordan videos over the years and they are top notch. The camera he uses is a super-sharp, shot-on-video look. Take "Flesh Hunter" series or "Glory Hole" for example - excellent video and lighting. Yesterday, I watched Lex The Impaler 3 and WHAT THE HECK HAPPENED? Jules switched cameras to some "cinematic" look, which seemed to be a blend of shot-on-video and shot-on-film. This is an increasingly annoying trend that I have seen other directors start using like all the 3rd Degree Films of recent releases. It can't be because it's considered "HD", since Erik Everhard's videos for JJ are also in HD and they have excellent shot-on-video quality to them. So Jules, is the use of this new cinematic look in your videos here to stay??? The colors look washed out and most IMPORTANTLY, the HEAT factor in ever scene diminishes when I watch gonzo with a "shot on film" kind of look. Johnni Darkko, when he first signed up with Evil Angel used the same shot-on-film look, but thankfully in the last year or so, he has switched back to the sharp shot-on-video look. I also noticed Chris Streams used the shot-on-film look for "Dirty Rotten Motherfuckers", but then thankfully switched back to the shot-on-video look for "Squirt Machines". Jules, I hope you do the same and switch back to the shot-on-video look because it shows a lot more detail (ingrown hairs and all), better lighting, and gives it more realism in every scene which I love in your previous work.
+1, I've felt like this for years regarding porn, any directors/series that look like they were shot on film and have a "dark feel" I avoid, It's a must have for me too, the well lite video look, strange how something like this can kill porn, I always thought it was just me who felt like this!
In Lex the Impaler 3 I think the lighting issues were due to Jules shooting with a new HD camera. He probably should have spent some more time playing around and learning his new camera before committing to laying down footage due for sale. Maybe some masturbation scenes of his beautiful girl Jenna in different areas of his house at different times of the day so that he could mess around with the settings. Too bad Impaler 3, which was so eagerly anticipated, had to suffer. I was also disappointed with the Mya Luanna scene from the newly released Invasian 3. It was put on disc 2 of the set, along with the Lucy Thai and Charmane Star scenes. These were old, canned scenes shot in 4x3. Whoever authored the disc decided to Letterbox Mya's scene instead of having it play out in 16x9. Her BTS however is in 16x9. Go figure.
It seems fans are paying attention to all the technical details of Picture quality right. They do have a point though. Lets hope the issue can be solved in his future shoots.
I really liked LtI3, but I definitely did notice the lighting issue. Especially in Shyla's scene. But here and there in a few other scenes as well. I have to say, I excpected more from Jules than for the girls' skin colors to change from pale to more tan to back again as Jules changed his camera angle.
Huh? I like a darker look. It's one thing I liked about Jenna Haze Dark Side, after the star: 5 of the 8 scenes were NOT filmed in that mansion with plenty of sunlight coming through the many windows. The problem with Lex the Impaler 3 was that some of the scenes looked a little overlit (especially Shyla's tease segment), and the girls' skintones would change as Jules moved into different light with his camera.
+1 for shot-on-video. If I want cinematography, I'll watch Lord of The Rings. When it comes to porn, the more cinematic the scene looks the less natural it feels.
i don't know what jules did but as far as me with dirty rotten mother fuckers. when i started i was shooting in HD-24p mode. i was thinking the 24p would take the edge off the HD that some time can be to sharp. half way though the movie i got in the edit bay and thought it looked a little grainy. where i like grainy if its to set a mood in a dark and dirty scene but i don't like it in a normal scene. i however did not think the scenes looked bad just thought i would go back to normal camera mode for a more clean look.
truth of the matter is staying on top of technology, I decided to purchase a brand new sony xdcam...brand new format, sony chose to use eager purchasers as guinea pigs, I shot the scenes, then discovered a downconversion problem to standard def. which created allot of moire effect, and jagged lines, in order to diffuse this we had to filter the video, creating a more film look....as for the shyla scene, it was blown out for effect, but the after effects that were suppose to be applied to the dvd never got applied.....once sony has a fix for this downconversion issue, I am thinking about re-mastering the dvd with sharper footage....I always prefer sharper images.
+1 Shot-on-video(i spend far too much time having to search for screenshots from titles before i buy them just lately),thanks dikdietrick for saying something i've been trying to get across to people for years but never seemed to be able to put it into the right words ....directors who i highly rate but avoid due to the look of their films include William H and Mike Quasar.On the studio side Anabolic always used to be consistently clear but are now up and down from one title to another and same applies to Sineplex.Other things i avoid for their lack of clear shot-on-video look although loving the content include Bang Bros big tit series,Digital Sin/New Sensations label in general,Alt porn generally,early Vouyeur Media releases(seems to be ok now)and anything euro shot-on-video in pal for Evil Angel and then presumably converted to ntsc for U.S release loses most of it's original clarity.I also think clarity is being lost due to the conversion from HD back to SD,one thing i will say is that although not all their content is brilliant Redlight's product whenever,wherever(and by whoever)it was shot always looks clear as hell.Shot-On-Film looking product also takes any appeal and "realness" out of it for me also,even if it's the greatest content i've ever seen i just wouldn't buy it if it has a filmy look and i'm happy i don't feel alone on this any more either Edited by - ukbadboy on 4/13/2008 5:45:40 PM Edited by - ukbadboy on 4/13/2008 5:59:33 PM
Chris Streams, thanks for replying. It sounds like you won't be using the 24P camera in future releases then. That would be good. Jules, thanks for replying. Hopefully, you will release a remastered version of Lex The Impaler 3. It's not everyday Jenna Haze works with Lex, so a remastering of that scene, along with all the other scenes would really do the DVD justice. Ukbadboy, I couldn't agree with you more on all the DVD titles and companies I had to avoid recently. It's quite a pity because there's some really good stuff from William H., Digital Sin, and 3rd Degree/Zero Tolerance that I have had to pass on.
I'm also glad this issue is being discussed. I was beginning to worry this might be a new trend. This shot-on-film look ruined an otherwise great title for me: Nice Rack 15. The great tease and action were marred by the cinematic appearance that seemed to have a yellowish tint to it to boot! I played around with the Hue setting on my TV but no dice. The heat level would have been much higher with the more intimate shot-on-video look.
I almost mentioned Nice Rack 15 in my previous post as i was also deeply dissapointed in the look of that title after all the rave reviews it got,and i agree it is a great title,aside from the picture quality,wonder why these sorts of aspects never get mentioned by the ADT reviewers ...as i did mention Anabolic titles seem to be ok sometimes but not others....the screenshots on Orgazmik.com for Sweet Cheeks 8(another Ivan title)for example look clear as a bell,they must use different camera's for different shoots at Anabolic.Unfortunately i can only check the titles on Orgazmik that they have chosen to put screenshots up for, and so end up buying titles sometimes,that i wouldn't have if i'd been able to check first...maybe we could have a thread where we can leave feedback on these things?
I don't think this is the same thing, but I have avoided a lot of Evil Angel and JJV titles as of late because so often the people in the scene appear to have orange flesh tones due to either the lighting or camera I assume. I am not big on watching orange people fuck, I have to have natural flesh tones while watching porn. On the other hand, it has saved my wallet big time! Jaysin has had a lot of this lately, and it's a shame because I love the filth he films.
I guess that maybe the big turn on for me is the nearer i can get to feeling like i'm in the same room as the performers watching them through my very own eyes in person the better...so anything that lessens that feeling be it image clarity or flesh tones are negative points in my book,it all takes the "realness"factor away...so it is kinda the same thing shark1.
[Link]
PuckerPounder Deactivated User
136 Posts 3/08
Posted - Apr 14 2008 : 5:53PM
My tip to jules would be to re-watch ass worship 1 and weapons of ass destruction 4, these editions are unsurpassed! With the exeption of ass worship 6 Jules's titles havent't been as daring. What happened to the huge anal toys?? Mr jordan??... P.S The way you worked Guage's stinker in WOD 4 set the bar for all anal scens after that for me. K+ Edited by - PuckerPounder on 4/15/2008 5:43:32 PM
[Link]
PuckerPounder Deactivated User
136 Posts 3/08
Posted - Apr 15 2008 : 5:42PM
Sorry, I seem to have killed this thread. I should add to my above comments that the other WOAD and AW flicks have been some of the best porn around, it's just the bar was set so high in the titles mentioned above. Jule's camera work reflected his eagerness at that stage to invade the female ass, ang gave a real 'kid in a sweet shop' feel to the asses involved. Keep up the good work Jules, and I love you for the flicks, 'mentioned above'!
Commisioner of Porn Quality Control 522 Posts 2/08
Posted - Apr 15 2008 : 9:58PM
Still can't beat 35mm film. I know it's expensive, hard to edit, but I just watched Fashionistas again the other day and WOW, perfection. Then I watched Safado in the HD format and it basically looked like any other movie. (I wasn't busy this past weekend and The Masters was boring.) I'd love to see the directors today go "old school" a little more and capture the sexiness of some top stars in a format that makes them look glamourous. Weapons Of Ass Destruction 6 would be a great place to start.
Commisioner of Porn Quality Control 522 Posts 2/08
Posted - Apr 15 2008 : 10:04PM
I was concerned in Gape Lovers that there had been a nuclear power plant disaster in Porn Valley. Even the vegetables that were shoved in Heather Gables ass looked contaminated.
I don't agree. I think all three Fashionistas films would have worked better with the less fancy, more intimate video look. When it comes to porn, nothing beats the good old shot-on-video image.
I partly agree with you. Maybe because it was Evil Angel that I was somewhat disappointed in the film formats to the Fashionista films. If one could somehow be objective, I suspect they wouldn't be as critical. I have no general visual problems with 35mm film or many other kinds of camera. As long as it's not too grainy or especially distorted, I can mentally adjust to most any film format. A hot woman will generally look hot no matter what. Not saying I don't prefer the usual Jules Jordan format, but just saying I don't absolutely have to have it everytime. I like that different directors use different formats. I don't want every single film made to have the exact same look. And I don't think it matters nearly as much to other fans as others are suggesting.
^ I know quite a few porn watchers in real life, and this is one of the things we all agree on. Porn is always hotter when it makes the viewer feel like he's right there, watching REAL sex. Directors often ruin this important aspect by trying to get too fancy with it; whether it's by using frantic MTV style editing and camera tricks, or going for a "cinematic" appearance that takes away all the intimacy and authenticity. As long as the sex itself is hot, I couldn't care less whether the director has his own "artistic style" or not.
i dont think you can say this about Voyeur, they are not OK now. They took what could've been an enjoyable movie in Gauntlet 3 and made it unwatchable, or, disappointing as has been mentioned in a number of threads on ADT. Granted, the sex scenes are fairly clear but the interview segments are horrible with a fake grainy old 35 mm film look that basically consists of a darker, almost sepia tone shade and annoying vertical lines moving up and down the screen. I look forward to a change for the 4th instalment because, like some of the other films discussed here, the content is great... BTW i also enjoy Elegant vids, specifically William H's camera work and quality
I think it's preference for each director. Some like the 24p look some like the standard 29.97. With each viewer and each movie maker, it's an opinion and preference of what they like. I like shooting in 24p because already shooting on HD, in my opinion, the image is too sharp for porn. We put make-up on girls for a reason. We don't need certain aspects sharper. My new Canon XH A1 shoots in 24p, 29.97 and 60. I choose the 24p look for the softness and more filmic look. I am filmmaker by trade and when I finally switched from my film cameras to digital for the last few mainstream projects, I went with the 24p cameras to at least hold up some form of film feel. It's just my preference and has nothing to do with what's right or wrong. About the yellow or orange tones. It's the way the cameraman sets his settings on these cameras. But most of any color issues can be fixed in post. When I shot Nice Rack #15 I shot it with a camera I never touched before. HD was thrust upon us. There was one scene I had issues with but throughout the production fixed most of my issues. Many people loved the way the movie looked but of course with anything, people have their own opinions. I don't use that camera, just used it for NR15. It seems to go very yellow at any over exposed area, plus it's horribly too contrasty. I love my Canon these days. And about reviewers not mentioning camera issues. I have seen both sides of the spectrum, where they are too harsh or not harsh enough. It's all by choice and preference. Plus some people are afraid to say anything negative or better yet seem to praise strictly because someone has a name. I have seen numerous examples of that, geez I saw a trailer here where all credits went not only out of TV safe but were off the QT area. The lighting was decent and the trailer was very boring. Yet it was praised and none of that was mentioned because the director had a name. Maybe that movie was top notch but their representation of the movie online was very disappointing. HD is a new monster for everyone these days ... from lighting to shooting to editing. We are all learning as we go and still to this day come upon issues we need to resolve. Be patient with the people you trust that give you the porn you like. www.IamIvan.comAnabolic, the Barry Bonds of Porn
I'd have to respectfully disagree with Ivan here. I don't think there is such thing as too sharp for porn as far as image quality is concerned. I'd like to see all the vivid details if it's there. MORE REALISM. Gonzo shouldn't be shot with "softness and a more filmic" look - that takes the heat factor away. Like another poster said, "If I want to see cinematography, I'll watch Lord Of The Rings".
Cinematography is creative lighting, angles, and telling the story with a camera. Softness or sharpness has little to do with gonzo. The old movies were shot on lower grade video and released on lower grade VHS. That is as soft as it gets. Throw in an old VHS movie and see how sharp that is or even a DVD released on a 4 hour disc. The quality is soft but the gonzo sex and style is still there. Sharpness came with new higher resolution cameras and in my opinion does not define gonzo. Unless you come on set or sit in a make-up room and see the flaws that people try to cover up or avoid, many don't see that part of the production and don't understand certain struggles. When porn started with HD, all cameraman and editors I know cringed at the idea. But to each his own for what they like. www.IamIvan.comAnabolic, the Barry Bonds of Porn
Thank you for saying that. My own porno viewing experience doesn't extend to anything older than the late 90s, but some of the gonzo from that era did not have great lighting or picture quality. Which isn't to say that it couldn't be arousing, but it wasn't because of its crystal clear picture. I'm thinking of some of the old stuff from Vince Vouyer that I've seen. Now, Jules's early Evil Angel releases (I've never seen his earlier stuff) could look a lot better than a lot of the shot on film features of that era, but I think that speaks more about Jules's talent and the intent and/or incompetence of the couples' porn companies, than it does about the relative merits of film or video as recording media.
Jules Jordan @ AEBN
Posted - Apr 12 2008 : 4:32PM
....directors who i highly rate but avoid due to the look of their films include William H and Mike Quasar.On the studio side Anabolic always used to be consistently clear but are now up and down from one title to another and same applies to Sineplex.Other things i avoid for their lack of clear shot-on-video look although loving the content include Bang Bros big tit series,Digital Sin/New Sensations label in general,Alt porn generally,early Vouyeur Media releases(seems to be ok now)and anything euro shot-on-video in pal for Evil Angel and then presumably converted to ntsc for U.S release loses most of it's original clarity.I also think clarity is being lost due to the conversion from HD back to SD,one thing i will say is that although not all their content is brilliant Redlight's product whenever,wherever(and by whoever)it was shot always looks clear as hell.Shot-On-Film looking product also takes any appeal and "realness" out of it for me also,even if it's the greatest content i've ever seen i just wouldn't buy it if it has a filmy look and i'm happy i don't feel alone on this any more either 
...as i did mention Anabolic titles seem to be ok sometimes but not others....the screenshots on Orgazmik.com for Sweet Cheeks 8(another Ivan title)for example look clear as a bell,they must use different camera's for different shoots at Anabolic.Unfortunately i can only check the titles on Orgazmik that they have chosen to put screenshots up for, and so end up buying titles sometimes,that i wouldn't have if i'd been able to check first...maybe we could have a thread where we can leave feedback on these things? 