Reviewers Recommend
Hookup Hotshot: Episode 464: Iris LeonHookup Hotshot: Episode 464: Iris Leon - review by Captain Jack
Starring: Iris Leon, Jase Leon. Read review
All Forums > The Porn Pool > The Porn Pool Forum Page 495 > Should picture quality be paramount?
AuthorPost
ukbadboy
Member

United Kingdom
89 Posts
1/07
Posted - Aug 12 2007 : 6:54PM
Hey one and all....what are your thoughts on the varying picture qualities(i'm talking overall clarity) between studios and even within studio's?it seems to me that the quality is on the decrease not increase tbh and i gotta say if i started up a studio the most important thing for me would to be to get a picture definition equivilant to the best like jules jordan...redlight(not what it used to be)...anabolic(not necessarily of late though,i've noticed the teens with tits series to be up and down)surely the priority has to be to see these beautiful women as clearly as possible right?it annoys me slighty that certain studio's(zero tolerance spring to mind)vary greatly from one title to another...doesn't exactly increase buyer loyalty,or maybe the technicalities are more complex than i realise? any thoughts?reviewers thoughts especially welcome.. Peace.
UKDave
Member

Taryn Thomas - Born For Porn
134 Posts
1/06
Posted - Aug 12 2007 : 7:04PM
I personally love the picture qualities of todays porn. I watched porn in an era of early video. It makes me laugh now when I think of the really poor picture quality & sound. The best bits were sometimes ruined because the tape was nearly worn out at that part because it had been watched so many times, LOL! Noise bars galore, the music would go all funny!
Thinking back now the poor quality in some ways made it seedier.
Back to the topic though, I agree the likes of Jules Jordan have exceptional picture quality & I love it. Same with Sineplex, some of the close ups you get nowadays are amazing! I haven't noticed a decline in quality from some publishers, maybe I'll be more aware of it now you've brought it up.
ukbadboy
Member

United Kingdom
89 Posts
1/07
Posted - Aug 12 2007 : 7:18PM
Actually dave funny you should mention sineplex they're another studio that were always very consistent and i've recently noticed are hit and miss,point taken about how things used to be and maybe we are spoilt but once you get used to something a wish they'd at least not let the standards drop again...i'm finding myself searching for screenshots for each title i buy lately....never used to have to do that i used to be able to buy from a particular studio with confidence.Even though redlight picture quality isnt what it used to be...they are still at least consistent even with a multitude of directors shooting for them.
Cumwhipper
Senior Member

4050 Posts
3/04
Posted - Aug 12 2007 : 7:32PM
UKDave is right on vis-a-vis the picture quality of most of today's porn vs. from 10 years go and earlier. It's like night and day.
As far as current porn goes, I should think that most studios would care about picture quality, but that's obviously not the case. Among the current studios I'd say that Evil Angel, Jules Jordan, New Sensations and Sineplex are perhaps the best overall.
For me, a really well-lit, well-shot scene with lots of dynamics - full-body shots alternated with close-ups - and of course, eye-contact-with-camera are all important elements. Picture quality should to be crisp and clear, but if a scene has all the other elements, I can live without it.
UKDave
Member

Taryn Thomas - Born For Porn
134 Posts
1/06
Posted - Aug 12 2007 : 7:42PM
I agree about the really well lit scenes. This was my first attraction to Sineplex. Well actually, I'm lying, it was the beautiful girls getting sodomized which attracted me first!
Anyhow, this is important, the clearer we see these beautiful women the better.
Just thinking about Sineplex, I still love 'em, but I think they should now add a little more variety to their settings. Is it always the same couch?!!
 
ukbadboy
Member

United Kingdom
89 Posts
1/07
Posted - Aug 12 2007 : 7:57PM
The same couch it is indeed and has been since the beginning of time lol...the picture is usually excellent but i would question the dynamics of the performances in their stuff!?!?!...i love sineplex for their gorgeous eastern european women and usually excellent picture clarity...kind of goes back to my initial point really as to priorities.
Something Different
Member

96 Posts
1/06
Posted - Aug 12 2007 : 9:47PM
I have definitely noticed some studios work decling in quality.
Bang Bros - Their Tug Jobs series is more compressed then it use to be. They use to use dual layer disks but now they compress it onto single layer and you can see the negative results. It looks more grainy and on motion its more distorted, also the colors don't look as clear.
Private - Their Tropical series is normally very good quality but the last release was much worse. It almost seemed like a copy of a copy.
Wicked - some of their titles from 1998 are much better then 2007 releases. Many of their titles vary in quality. Some of this has to do with their computer effects they edit in. Two big losers were Russian Insitute 8 and even worse was VIP Fuck Cockaine. That one was just so blurry it gave me a headache. Where as the earlier Russian Institute titles were clear.
Hustler - If I look at some of their later titles in the Barely Legal series 60-70 I notice different qualities. Like of 3 titles 65, 66, 68: 65 was definitely the best it was fully widescreen (853x480). 66 was the worst it was widescreen with artificial bars on top and bottom (due to black bars the actual picture is only 64 hex 360) and 68 was in the middle with full standard ratio (64 hex 480). Actual picture quality is similiar but the higher pixels results in better clarity on tvs.
It could be: studios preparing for hd disks and reducing quality to sell them, which has been talked about in regards to mainstream. In the case of Bang Bros its just them cutting corners to save cost. Marc Dorcel is becoming more artsy and artsy means effects which hurts the clarity. I'm really not sure how to explain the Tropical disk, hopefully it was a glitch and they will be back to normal. Hustler's inconsitency could be testing what format sells the best, not sure.
Porn Scout
Deactivated User

3735 Posts
10/02
Posted - Aug 12 2007 : 10:23PM
I don't think there's much room for compromise in picture quality. I agree that it should be a top priority. Porn is a visual medium after all.
ukbadboy
Member

United Kingdom
89 Posts
1/07
Posted - Aug 13 2007 : 10:47AM
Well i'm glad it's not just me that's noticed it and it's reasuring to hear that it isn't just me that's concerened about it...i have to say more people are considering it a major priority than i expected...that's good to hear.Hopefully someone somewhere will be listening.Another 2 things that have crossed my mind is firstly the quality of the camera's the director uses and how important is that to the final product?I also noticed a year or two back redlight,anabolic and a lot of other studio's increased their running times vastly and dropped extra's...this seemed to result in a drop in clarity also.
Clam Digger
Deactivated User

Many a man fails as an original thinker simply because his memory is too good.
2268 Posts
1/05
Posted - Aug 13 2007 : 12:27PM
Picture quality is not a substitute for hot sex.
You Wish
Member

Last person please turn off the lights
85 Posts
7/07
Posted - Aug 13 2007 : 12:36PM
^here's a novel idea....great picture quality and hot sex.
hmmm mabe I'm onto something cool here. whadya think?
mod: quote removed - see the Forum Etiquette
Edited by - hardware on 8/13/2007 8:16:19 PM
Ramsey
Senior Member

Trina Michaels fan
10332 Posts
10/02
Posted - Aug 13 2007 : 12:44PM
Personally I want the quality to be as sharp as possible and that's why I want to see porn in HDTV quality as soon as possible and I don't care if it means seeing all imperfections. I mean I'm not perfect either so why should I worry about other peoples imperfections?
Roger Herraw
Member

415 Posts
2/06
Posted - Aug 13 2007 : 12:50PM
what sucks is that even if the dvd is extremely sharp looking on a regular analog set, it won't look too good on HD tvs.
BigBobxxx
Senior Member

2681 Posts
5/04
Posted - Aug 13 2007 : 12:55PM
And, if they properly ID the performers too, we might be on to something
Ramsey
Senior Member

Trina Michaels fan
10332 Posts
10/02
Posted - Aug 13 2007 : 1:19PM
And that's why we upgrade to 1080p :-)
 
Tommy Kaye
Member

135 Posts
2/07
Posted - Aug 13 2007 : 4:54PM
In this day and age there isn't any excuse for bad picture quality... except not knowing what the hell you are doing. SD shot on a good camera and handled correctly in post will look very good. No it isn't 1080i or p. Still there is no reason it should look bad on any monitor.
Recently I showed a buyer a copy of The Collectors and Country Fresh DVDs which I shot in SD. She asked if it was shot in HDV..... I said no it was shot in SD on a good Panasonic camera with attention to proper lighting and camera set up. Her response was that the picture quality was amazing for SD. Another very satisfied customer. That is the name of the game.
All of my future projects will be shot in HD:)
RandomPrecision
Senior Member

Enjoy!
8175 Posts
3/06
Posted - Aug 13 2007 : 5:14PM
Well, it's surely important. It's porn and porn is mostly visual. But I've seen some real pretty porn that, nevertheless, failed to even give me a tickle in my shorts. I continue to maintain that vision is the most important thing with porn. Everything else can suck ass but if the people making the flick have a clue what their audience wants to see (versus what they think they're supposed to show just because it's porn), it trumps all. Of course, these days, as TK said, there's just no excuse for bad picture and sound. It should be a given. Not a "feature".
Let's say you're an author and you just sit down and start writing pages and pages of unrelated nonsense. Who's gonna want to read it? Your grammar and punctuation can be perfect but that doesn't necessarily make it worth reading.

Edited by - randomprecision on 8/13/2007 5:17:32 PM

Tommy Kaye
Member

135 Posts
2/07
Posted - Aug 13 2007 : 6:46PM
RandomPrecision you said it very well indeed..... I totaly agree with everything you stated.
ukbadboy
Member

United Kingdom
89 Posts
1/07
Posted - Aug 13 2007 : 7:35PM
I agree random and most of the studio's i've mentioned Do produce excellent quality scenes so why start letting their presentaition down by letting picture quality drop..statement not question lol.And to Tommy....it's real good to hear your so pro-visual supremacy...i look forward to seeing some of your releases real soon
HeyNow All-Star Supporter
Oblivious

Gold Star Hey!
5965 Posts
1/03
Posted - Aug 13 2007 : 9:28PM
Picture quality, the right lighting, the right color settings all that are important. But they also have to prep the girl for that. Makeup those pimples all over even the butt. Verry verrry important. Porn is fantasy and it all has to look good.
BigMatt
Member

Sunrise Adams, Queen of Cute.
498 Posts
12/04
Posted - Aug 14 2007 : 4:39AM
I only watch porn with the girls I like anyway. And I have no problem with their imperfections, if they have any. Girls I'm not that into or who aren't that pretty may not benefit from HD (they would probably look worse) but why should I care if I'm not that into them in the first place? Bring it on.



Jump To: