Why do some pay sites still not have use mp4?? MP4 plays decent even on older slower computers WM and AVI both suck. Another thing I have noticed there are some sites that do not have any HD content like the GF sites there are sites that have 4k content so at least having 720p is the way to go now. Also you have sites that do not have 720p but have 1080p like RealityKings and there 1080p videos are like 2.5gb to 3.5gb most of there scenes are not good enough to download at that size. I can see sites not having 1080p or 4k videos because they take up to much space.
That is exactly what I am saying pay sites need to have had and get rid of all the none HD and just mp4. I am ok with good 720p videos not the crappy quality Bangbros and Brazzers have been dropping these video should be 400mb to 500mb bigger
WMV is by far the worst; I always seem to run into seeking issues with those. Most of the 1080p files that sites offer are poor in quality. I get the impression that most videos are shot at 720p and simply upscaled.
Why do they "need" to switch to .mp4? Is nobody downloading it or do you just think that's the best route and that therefore makes it necessary? Re-encoding or transcoding takes time, effort and money and webmasters may not feel there would be a good enough ROI. Non-HD still serves its purpose for those who don't have fast internet connections or are frankly stingy with storage space.
MP4 is compressed nicely the same video in MPEG 2 WM or AVI would be 1/3 to 1/2 bigger size and it plays decently on a older slower computers. I also have the seek problem with WM if I jump like 3min ahead it takes like 25 seconds to 1 min before the video will start playing again Edited by - DJboutit2 on 7/14/2014 3:05:52 AM
^ I'm aware of the benefits of .mp4 codecs over .wmv and I never questioned that .mp4 is vastly superior. My question was a rhetorical one implying that while there are better formats than .wmv, webmasters/bean counters may deem the benefits of doing all .mp4 may not be worth the cost if there are still droves of people downloading whatever isn't encoded in an .mp4 format. Your experience with .wmv may be down poor indexing or a corrupted index, both of which are conceivable in .mp4 or it could be down to you having improper .wmv codecs installed.
I see that all the GFs sites still do not have videos in HD WTF HD video cameras are pretty cheap right now. Any porn pay site that does not release HD videos now should not even be around it is 100% a waste of $$ to sign up to it
^ If those sites are still around, that's because they take enough in after tax and overheads to continue running. If that's the case, they feel what they produce is good enough for the masses and there perhaps hasn't been significant demand for HD video so why change a working formula? Do you know for a fact that HD cameras are not being used? It is not uncommon for video to be shot in HD then downscaled before being published....
^ Unless they're still using cameras that they bout 6-10 years ago, more than likely they're filming with cameras that are capable of HD. They may be mastering/editing their content in standard def, though, just because that's what they've always done. For sites like GF films (and there's some other ones that I remember taking a really long time to get HD on their sites, like New Sensations), I'd say that they are companies that still sell the majority of their product on DVD/VOD, and they just have their websites to say that they have one and not as the primary destination for their content.
^ Oddly enough, I remember New Sensations / Digital Sin having a subscriber website long before most of the other big players in the DVD market got into it. But it's true, their video resolution/quality has always been a bit of a liability.
[Link]
hoochimama Deactivated User
1437 Posts 5/10
Posted - Sep 17 2014 : 3:38PM
I feel most websites didn't increase the bitrate proportionately with the resolution. If you download a 720p scene today the image quality won't be leagues better than 480p DVD, and current 480p downloads are practically unwatchable. ________________________________________________ Please ID these girls from PlayboyTV's Foursome show Edited by - hoochimama on 9/17/2014 3:39:54 PM
My biggest annoyance in porn is that the quality of the videos some studios put out is terrible. They claim to be 1080p HD, but the scene is so fuzzy and distorted - especially when there is fast movement on screen. Elegant Angel and HardX for example shoot some of the hottest performers in very good, well lite settings. However, their videos are unwatchable to me because the image is so poor. Look at studios like Blacked.com, Passion-HD. Their videos are pretty much crystal clear, with usually very good lighting. This is how all porn should be shot. Reality Kings, Brazzers and Naughty America, aren't bad, but they're not in the same league for image quality which is disappointing. They can also be let down with lighting issues often too. Can anyone confirm if Bangbros are now releasing videos to download in 1080p? I've seen some screens suggesting they are, but still in a low bitrate. In general, I wish we had a lot more porn in higher quality, and studios releasing proper 4K material with less compression etc. Edited by - Vawkes on 9/17/2014 7:04:43 PM
I have to agree here, Jiggly. Rural areas of the US are lucky if they have DSL which maxes out (in my area anyway) at 6Mbps down and 0.75 Mbps up. Also some rural areas do not have anything but satellite internet available which maxes out at 12Mbps (both down and up) but has a 5 to 25GB cap on monthly downloads (and costs $140 a month plus taxes). Non HD files are smaller and therefore take up less bandwidth. For example 480p was made to run on a 1Mbps connection and takes up less than a GB an hour (sometimes much less depending on format). Although I don't know of any sites that still use this resolution 360p took up even less bandwidth and size (and on my 19 inch computer screen picture quality was usually just fine).
Posted - Jul 13 2014 : 5:59PM