In general, I have not held opinion either way on the place that POV movies hold in porn. As with any other genre, I have seen both good and bad. However, there always was something that bothered me and I just figured out the problem. Today, I watched Red Light District's 2006 POV gonzo release, "Twisted Vision #4" with an all-star cast featuring Sasha Grey, Denise K, Mia Rose, Sasha Knox, Aubrey Addams with the ever present Michael Stefano behind the camera on each scene. Aubrey and both Sasha's did anal, everyone looked great, Michael with rock hard and the last scene with Aubrey was literally FILMED IN A CHURCH!!! Sounds great, right? So what is the problem? I noticed in the first scene when Michael had Sasha Grey with a ball gag and blindfold that she was supposed to be ravaged. When she repositioned for anal, it was a soft anal. When Denise was writhing around just waiting to be taken, Michael stood his ground and let her come to him. The problem, as I see it, is that since the director/cameraman/stunt-penis needs to use one hand to hold his equipment, that means he has to use his other to hold the camera (sorry - very little joke there). My point is that the man cannot get as involved in feeling up the woman, playing with her body, tugging at her breasts or hair or even something as simple as squeezing her ass. I watched this star studded movie and will not do so again. This definately put a damper on future POV DVD's for me. Anyone else feel this way?
[Link]
tritone Deactivated User
1009 Posts 4/03
Posted - Jan 29 2008 : 8:03PM
This is something you sacrifice in order to get the unique camera angles of POV. It doesn't really bother me much at all and in fact, I don't want the stunt dick putting his hands in the frame that often anyway. The way to get around this is to have a 3rd person filming the action who simulates POV by shooting directly above the head of the male talent. Most POV series that try to do this fail miserably because the camera perspective is skewed enough so that it doesn't feel like POV to me. Robby D., however, is quite adept at filming this way in the Jack's POV series, Pulse POV, and the Throb series. I would reccommend those flicks to you if you want POV that looks like the real thing AND where the male talent seems more involved. I will continue to prefer the authentic POV where the camera guy is the talent as well. This just feels more real to me and I don't care about giving up the extra hand or even some power in the fucking. The actress can make up for this in her performance and whatever else is missing you can fill in yourself, using that first person perspective to really draw you into the scene like no other angles can. Best POV series: Twisted Vision (M. Stefano), Any POV by Erik Everhard, POV Fantasy (Brother Love), Perverted Point of View (Mike John, Tony T.) , Nice Fucking View... (Jake Malone), POV Pervert (Mike John). I am still waiting for Tony T. to make another POV flick. He totally nailed Perverted Point of View #7 - #10 and then nothing for 2+ years! C'mon Ivan -- get Tony T. back in the POV game for Anabolic !!!
That problem could be solved with some kind of head-mounted camera. Although quality might be an issue. But I'm sure there must be some quality specialty cameras that are made so that they can be worn and their wearers could have their hands free. Such equipment may be out of the price range of the average consumer but a porn producer should be able to afford it. They rarely use the zoom lens anyway so that shouldn't be a problem. Edited by - randomprecision on 1/29/2008 8:55:45 PM
[Link]
tritone Deactivated User
1009 Posts 4/03
Posted - Jan 29 2008 : 9:46PM
A helmet cam could work, but these features would need to be present: 1. A wireless control mechanism that could be attached to the wrist during filming. Zoom could be handled here, amongst other things. 2. Something to monitor realtime playback. Feedback is essential so that shooter knows he's getting the right shots. Its not enough to use a monitor cause he'd have to look at that monitor and obviously this would screw up the camera angle. The best solution is some kind of eyepiece that would extend from the camera gear somehow. One eye can focus on the footage being recorded and the other would be free. This would free up both hands and greatly increase mobility for the actor as well. I would STILL, however, use this freedom cautiously. Go hands-free to fuck her harder/faster -- but do go so far as to spoil the illusion for your viewer by putting your arms into the frame too often. Edited by - tritone on 1/29/2008 9:47:52 PM Edited by - tritone on 1/29/2008 9:50:01 PM
I'm with tritone here. If I'm gonna watch a POV scene, then I want it to be authentic 1st person POV. That's part of the turn on. When the POV is simulated with a 3rd person holding the camera, it takes away from the raw realism of what POV is supposed to be about IMO. Edited by - xxaru on 1/29/2008 11:32:37 PM
That's true bigfoot. But I don't mind this, because when I buy a POV movie, I'm mainly looking for 2 things : 1) great eye contact during the blowjob and 2) a good look at the girl's ass sliding backwards and forwards on the guy's cock when he's sitting down during the reverse cowgirl. Because it is POV, you often get some great coverage on these two points. I agree that the guy's movement is restricted by having to hold the camera, so you may not get the same close intimacy between the performers, but these two shots make POV worthwhile for me.
My take on POV is that it's a good technique to use for PART of a scene. Not for the whole time, because then you're stuck with a less complete product.
Ever seen the British sitcom Peep Show? Using head-mounted cameras to shoot from a character's POV is the show's main gimmick. I don't know how much their cameras cost, but the video quality looks fine on DVD. The cameras are strapped to the actor's forehead, hanging down between their eyes, so that the actor just has to turn their head and look in the direction they want to film. Based on the DVD commentary I remember, it's meant to be very easy to get the shots they want. There doesn't seem to be as much motion sickness inducing shake as when a hand-held camera is used. Personally I don't see why they'd need to use zoom (or other camera features) in a porn film that's meant to be first person perspective. If they want a close up then they can move their head closer to the action, that way the genuine POV feel isn't broken. I'd buy a porn movie entirely shot like that, if just for the novelty value. Edited by - Dave_K99 on 1/30/2008 3:51:57 PM
Well, I personally feel that the zoom lens sometimes isn't used enough. And when it is, it often isn't used to it's full potential. There are other camera controls that porners should be using but many don't. Such as exposure controls, white balance and so forth. Most porn appears to be shot cheap and dirty. Which, given the nature of what they're shooting, it's really difficult to shoot it any other way. But it results in a sloppy looking final product even with slick, tight editing. If the exposure or white balance is off, it's very difficult to try and correct that later. Problems with composition aren't that easy to fix without degrading video quality either. If all of these problems are present in porn shot with handheld cameras, they would be amplified (probably) with head-mounted cameras unless the shooter went to extra trouble to get everything just right. And that's got to be hard to do when you're trying to have sex.
I quite like porn that's a bit amateurish, it often feels a touch less fake to me. A lot of my favourite scenes are ones shot with a single hand-held camera and little editing. Even things like cuts when the performer changes position tend to take me out of the action. I've seen a few performers say something similar; that it's hard to enjoy having sex when the director is constantly pausing the action to get different camera angles and positions. With POV it wouldn't bother me at all if the composition was a bit sloppy, maintaining the first person perspective feel is more important in my opinion. I can see why other people would want something more slick and polished...
Well, the directors are compensating. They want spontaneity as opposed to meticulously crafted DirectorOFPhotography work. Which I can understand, you don't want to waste a half hour changing the lighting, scenery and camera settings after each position change. BUT, It's nothing pre-production couldn't take care of. Id be interested to see how stable the head cam's are, as well I'd imagine there could be some problems with seeing exactly what you are filming(framing) Edited by - payday on 1/30/2008 4:47:38 PM
[Link]
tritone Deactivated User
1009 Posts 4/03
Posted - Jan 30 2008 : 6:27PM
Well see this is one instance where having an actual hand held camera would be optimal. I agree that moving the camera closer to the subject is better than using the zoom. But if the camera is mounted on your head, getting closer could create problems with the perspective. Imagine a reverse cowgirl where you'd want a tight shot of the girl's buttcheeks to see the penetration. You'd have tilt your head up and crane it forward -- which would actually bring more of her back into frame (I think) than her buttocks. I can imagine it would also be pretty damn uncomfortable. True, its actually "more" POV since the cam is really on your head -- but its not the hand-held POV precedent we've gotten used to. ...And I consider POV a certain kind of fetish. There is nothing wrong with having an entire scene in POV Monkeypower writes:Sure, if what you are watching is a traditional flick then it would be off-putting to have entire scenes in POV. But when I buy/rent a POV flick, I want to see 90-100% POV -- that's what I purchased it for. It really annoys me when directors throw other angles into POV flicks. If you're going to do POV -- do POV. If you want to do other stuff - save that for "regular" flicks. For instance, I was generally pleased with the recent Ass Stretchers POV from JJV. But Mario Cassini has a real problem with dropping out of POV for certain stretches. In the Aurora Jolie scene he's shooting from the side a lot and while I admit it doesn't look bad ...that wasn't what plopped down $24 for. I want to see 100% POV on her juicy bubble ass. If you think holding a certain shot too long makes it boring -- then cut some footage. Don't throw us out of POV just to kill some time because you want variety. That's why I love Tony T. & M. Stefano's shooting so much. They never break the POV, ever. P.S. -- Thanks for the update Ivan. I'll definitely check out the latest Balls Deep. Edited by - tritone on 1/30/2008 6:27:59 PM Edited by - tritone on 1/30/2008 6:28:25 PM
