Thx
[Link]
Tiny Khloe: 2026 Exxxotica Interview| Author | Post |
|---|---|
| sexobsessed Member 76 Posts 9/13 |  Posted - Oct 24 2013 : 12:13PMI thought it would be a cool idea to compile a list of sites which offer 60fps content. So to get things started, here are a few that I'm aware of: http://18OnlyGirls.com/ Feel free to add to the list. [mod edit: changed thread title a bit to include high framerates other than just 60fps] Edited by - killbillvol69 on Feb 8 2021 Topic Moved by - Flash on Feb 8 2021 [Link] |
| norrinradd Member 55 Posts 10/11 | Posted - Oct 24 2013 : 7:45PM Thx [Link] |
| Kevin Moore Member Subdivided & Synthetic 320 Posts 4/00 | Posted - Oct 24 2013 : 10:55PM Basically at 24 or 30fps if you had a ball moving back and forth quickly you would see a motion blur from it. The motion blue would stand out more in 24fps, while in 30fps it wouldn't be as pronounced but still there. With 60fps that same shot wouldn't have hardly any blur. Anything that involves motion would be much sharper since there are more frames. 24fps tends to have a more "film" look. Some people might view 60fps has having a "video" look, but really it isn't the case. It just is because the image tends to be sharper. One of the complaints of The Hobbit was when people saw it in 48fps, it removed some of the more interesting cinematographic elements of filmmaking. Stagliano shot Viracious in 60fps. [Link] |
| sexobsessed Member 76 Posts 9/13 | Posted - Oct 25 2013 : 8:27AM It's especially good for rough scenes with lots of hard fucking, as every thrust of the pelvis is completely accentuated. [Link] |
| ninja1 Senior Member 2939 Posts 1/08 | Posted - Oct 25 2013 : 11:37AM [Link] |
| sexobsessed Member 76 Posts 9/13 | Posted - Oct 25 2013 : 12:28PM I suppose the best way to describe 60fps content, is that it makes you feel as if you're actually on the set with the performers (especially if you watch it on a big-screen TV). [Link] |
Goldstein  All-Star Member "You have sacrificed nothing and no one." 3689 Posts 8/10 | Posted - Oct 25 2013 : 12:55PM I really want to see the girl's faces, hands, the stud's cocks and the ejaculations, during blowjobs and cumshots, in absolute clarity. If 60fps will finally deliver this, I'm all for it. Honestly though, if scenes are shot in true HD by people who know what they're doing, are lit properly and the content delivered to the the consumer in true HD -- with a high-quality bitrate -- blur actually need not be a problem right now. Now, if we can only get them to stop filming the cumshots against white walls/white furniture backgrounds, or shooting directly into the sun, we might be on to something  [Link] |
| Kevin Moore Member Subdivided & Synthetic 320 Posts 4/00 | Posted - Oct 25 2013 : 4:17PM 60fps is definitely going to make the movements of the performers much crisper and remove any motion blur or jelly effect. The problem with 60fps is most companies in the industry license their product for broadcasters. This is a wide range of delivery systems worldwide that license this content from companies. Most broadcasters won't take 60fps content. They want everything in 29.97 typically. Some are fine with 24fps (23.98). Your biggest hurdle in getting more companies to shoot in 60fps is these companies run the risk of not being able to get those prized licensing deals for broadcast with 60fps content. Even worse it could be shot in 60fps, but then converted to 29.97 for broadcasters. As of right now if I wanted to stay with the look of a DSLR, which I like, the only option for me is the Canon EOS-1C, which is Canon's new line of Cinematic DSLR's. It can shoot 1080p at 60fps. Unfortunately it ain't cheap. It retails for around 14k. The nice thing though is as these cameras get better, there will more and more options for higher frame rates. The key is having a 1080p or 4k resolution in 60fps. A 4k image at 60fps would look really really sharp. It would be impressive. [Link] |
| Kevin Moore Member Subdivided & Synthetic 320 Posts 4/00 | Posted - Oct 25 2013 : 4:23PM [Link] |
| Slice Backhand Member 99 Posts 8/10 | Posted - Oct 25 2013 : 11:10PM [Link] |
| 10000 days Deactivated User Keep on trolling. What a bullshit! Im fucking unstoppable now ... 717 Posts 3/06 | Posted - Oct 26 2013 : 8:07AM [Link] |
| sexobsessed Member 76 Posts 9/13 | Posted - Oct 26 2013 : 9:19AM I'm currently compiling a list and will post it in the next day or two. Edited by - sexobsessed on 10/26/2013 9:21:09 AM [Link] |
| Kevin Moore Member Subdivided & Synthetic 320 Posts 4/00 | Posted - Oct 26 2013 : 12:08PM [Link] |
| JigglyBoobs Senior Member 1614 Posts 3/12 | Posted - Oct 26 2013 : 12:18PM HFR's all well and good but you have to up your game with sets and props or the realism will show them to be props or sets. [Link] |
| CRFlixxx Member 60 Posts 4/13 | Posted - Oct 26 2013 : 1:08PM I'm tired of Canon because they overpriced all their new cams. The C1-500 should be half the price they are compared to other cams out there. Sony just released a new mirrorless Full Frame SLR called the A7. It shoots 60p, you aught to look into it. I prefer Panasonic G series, all the new ones shoot 60fps at 1080p. Thanks for the list sexobsessed. [Link] |
| Harri Patel Senior Member #SDNY he's all yours. -- Michael Steele 5110 Posts 3/03 | Posted - Oct 26 2013 : 2:54PM [Link] |
| Goldstein All-Star Member "You have sacrificed nothing and no one." 3689 Posts 8/10 | Posted - Oct 26 2013 : 11:46PM I don't care what frame-rate they give it, 3-D sucks. [invalid URL removed] Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed. by Roger Ebert January 23, 2011 After 3D, here is the future of film by Roger Ebert January 29, 2011 Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too) by Roger Ebert * originally posted in Newsweek April 29, 2010 3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood’s current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for. That’s my position. I know it’s heresy to the biz side of show business. After all, 3-D has not only given Hollywood its biggest payday ($2.7 billion and counting for Avatar), but a slew of other hits. The year’s top three films—Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon, and Clash of the Titans—were all projected in 3-D, and they’re only the beginning. The very notion of Jackass in 3-D may induce a wave of hysterical blindness, to avoid seeing Steve-O’s you-know-what in that way. But many directors, editors, and cinematographers agree with me about the shortcomings of 3-D. So do many movie lovers—even executives who feel stampeded by another Hollywood infatuation with a technology that was already pointless when their grandfathers played with stereoscopes. The heretics’ case, point by point: 1. IT’S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION. When you look at a 2-D movie, it’s already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned. When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, “Look how slowly he grows against the horizon”? Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing. 2. IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE. Recall the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did they “need” 3-D? A great film completely engages our imaginations. What would Fargo gain in 3-D? Precious? Casablanca? 3. IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION. Some 3-D consists of only separating the visual planes, so that some objects float above others, but everything is still in 2-D. We notice this. We shouldn’t. In 2-D, directors have often used a difference in focus to call attention to the foreground or the background. In 3-D the technology itself seems to suggest that the whole depth of field be in sharp focus. I don’t believe this is necessary, and it deprives directors of a tool to guide our focus. 4. IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES. AS 3-D TV sets were being introduced at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January, Reuters interviewed two leading ophthalmologists. “There are a lot of people walking around with very minor eye problems—for example, a muscle imbalance—which under normal circumstances the brain deals with naturally,” said Dr. Michael Rosenberg, a professor at Northwestern University. 3-D provides an unfamiliar visual experience, and “that translates into greater mental effort, making it easier to get a headache.” Dr. Deborah Friedman, a professor of ophthalmology and neurology at the University of Rochester Medical Center, said that in normal vision, each eye sees things at a slightly different angle. “When that gets processed in the brain, that creates the perception of depth. The illusions that you see in three dimensions in the movies is not calibrated the same way that your eyes and your brain are.” In a just-published article, Consumer Reports says about 15 percent of the moviegoing audience experiences headache and eyestrain during 3-D movies. 5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM? Lenny Lipton is known as the father of the electronic stereoscopic-display industry. He knows how films made with his systems should look. Current digital projectors, he writes, are “intrinsically inefficient. Half the light goes to one eye and half to the other, which immediately results in a 50 percent reduction in illumination.” Then the glasses themselves absorb light. The vast majority of theaters show 3-D at between three and six foot-lamberts (fLs). Film projection provides about 15fLs. The original IMAX format threw 22fLs at the screen. If you don’t know what a foot-lambert is, join the crowd. (In short: it’s the level of light thrown on the screen from a projector with no film in it.) And don’t mistake a standard film for an IMAX film, or “fake IMAX” for original IMAX. What’s the difference? IMAX is building new theaters that have larger screens, which are quite nice, but are not the huge IMAX screens and do not use IMAX film technology. But since all their theaters are called IMAX anyway, this is confusing. 6. THERE’S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW DIGITAL PROJECTORS. These projectors are not selling themselves. There was initial opposition from exhibitors to the huge cost of new equipment and infighting about whether studios would help share these expenses. Some studios, concerned with tarnishing the 3-D myth, have told exhibitors that if they don’t show a movie in 3-D, they can’t have it in 2-D. Although there’s room in most projection booths for both kinds of projectors, theaters are encouraged to remove analog projectors as soon as they can. Why so much haste to get rid of them? Are exhibitors being encouraged to burn their bridges by insecure digital manufacturers? 7. THEATERS SLAP ON A SURCHARGE OF $5 TO $7.50 FOR 3-D. Yet when you see a 2-D film in a 3-D-ready theater, the 3-D projectors are also outfitted for 2-D films: it uses the same projector but doesn’t charge extra. See the Catch-22? Are surcharges here to stay, or will they be dropped after the projectors are paid off? What do you think? I think 3-D is a form of extortion for parents whose children are tutored by advertising and product placement to “want” 3-D. In my review of Clash of the Titans, I added a footnote: “Explain to your kids that the movie was not filmed in 3-D and is only being shown in 3-D in order to charge you an extra $5 a ticket. I saw it in 2-D, and let me tell you, it looked terrific.” And it did. The “3-D” was hastily added in postproduction to ride on the coattails of Avatar. The fake-3-D Titans even got bad reviews from 3-D cheerleaders. Jeffrey Katzenberg, whose DreamWorks has moved wholeheartedly into 3-D, called it “cheeseball,” adding: “You just snookered the movie audience.” He told Variety he was afraid quickie, fake-3-D conversions would kill the goose that was being counted on for golden eggs. 8. I CANNOT IMAGINE A SERIOUS DRAMA, SUCH AS UP IN THE AIR OR THE HURT LOCKER, IN 3-D. Neither can directors. Having shot Dial M for Murder in 3-D, Alfred Hitchcock was so displeased by the result that he released it in 2-D at its New York opening. The medium seems suited for children’s films, animation, and films such as James Cameron’s Avatar, which are largely made on computers. Cameron’s film is, of course, the elephant in the room: a splendid film, great-looking on a traditional IMAX screen, which is how I saw it, and the highest-grossing film in history. It’s used as the poster child for 3-D, but might it have done as well in 2-D (not taking the surcharge into account)? The second-highest all-time grosser is Cameron’s Titanic, which of course was in 2-D. Still, Avatar used 3-D very effectively. I loved it. Cameron is a technical genius who planned his film for 3-D from the ground up and spent $250 million getting it right. He is a master of cinematography and editing. Other directors are forced to use 3-D by marketing executives. The elephant in that room is the desire to add a surcharge. Consider Tim Burton, who was forced by marketing executives to create a faux-3-D film that was then sold as Alice in Wonderland: An IMAX 3D Experience (although remember that the new IMAX theaters are not true IMAX). Yes, it had huge grosses. But its 3-D effects were minimal and unnecessary; a scam to justify the surcharge. Even Cameron plans to rerelease Titanic in 3-D, and it’s worth recalling his 3-D documentary, Ghosts of the Abyss, which he personally photographed from the grave of the Titanic. Titanic 3-D will not be true 3-D, but Cameron is likely to do “fake 3-D” better than others have. My argument would nevertheless be: Titanic is wonderful just as it stands, so why add a distraction? Obviously, to return to the No. 2 cash cow in movie history and squeeze out more milk. I once said I might become reconciled to 3-D if a director like Martin Scorsese ever used the format. I thought I was safe. Then Scorsese announced that his 2011 film The Invention of Hugo Cabret, about an orphan and a robot, will be in 3-D. Well, Scorsese knows film, and he has a voluptuous love of its possibilities. I expect he will adapt 3-D to his needs. And my hero, Werner Herzog, is using 3-D to film prehistoric cave paintings in France, to better show off the concavities of the ancient caves. He told me that nothing will “approach” the audience, and his film will stay behind the plane of the screen. In other words, nothing will hurtle at the audience, and 3-D will allow us the illusion of being able to occupy the space with the paintings and look into them, experiencing them as a prehistoric artist standing in the cavern might have. 9. WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY: SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D, STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN. In marketing terms, this means offering an experience that can’t be had at home. With the advent of Blu-ray discs, HD cable, and home digital projectors, the gap between the theater and home experiences has been narrowed. 3-D widened it again. Now home 3-D TV sets may narrow that gap as well. What Hollywood needs is a “premium” experience that is obviously, dramatically better than anything at home, suitable for films aimed at all ages, and worth a surcharge. For years I’ve been praising a process invented by Dean Goodhill called MaxiVision48, which uses existing film technology but shoots at 48 frames per second and provides smooth projection that is absolutely jiggle-free. Modern film is projected at 24 frames per second (fps) because that is the lowest speed that would carry analog sound in the first days of the talkies. Analog sound has largely been replaced by digital sound. MaxiVision48 projects at 48fps, which doubles image quality. The result is dramatically better than existing 2-D. In terms of standard measurements used in the industry, it’s 400 percent better. That is not a misprint. Those who haven’t seen it have no idea how good it is. I’ve seen it, and also a system of some years ago, Douglas Trumbull’s Showscan. These systems are so good that the screen functions like a window into three dimensions. If moviegoers could see it, they would simply forget about 3-D. I’m not opposed to 3-D as an option. I’m opposed to it as a way of life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio output away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy. Scorsese and Herzog make films for grown-ups. Hollywood is racing headlong toward the kiddie market. Disney recently announced it will make no more traditional films at all, focusing entirely on animation, franchises, and superheroes. I have the sense that younger Hollywood is losing the instinctive feeling for story and quality that generations of executives possessed. It’s all about the marketing. Hollywood needs a projection system that is suitable for all kinds of films—every film—and is hands-down better than anything audiences have ever seen. The marketing executives are right that audiences will come to see a premium viewing experience they can’t get at home. But they’re betting on the wrong experience. Ebert is the film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times [Link] |
| sexobsessed Member 76 Posts 9/13 | Posted - Oct 27 2013 : 9:45AM http://busty.pl/ http://buttplays.com/ http://cashforsextape.com/ http://clubsandy.com/ http://crapulosos.com/ http://dildoaffairs.com/ http://dominatedgirls.com/ http://DPFanatics.com/ http://fuckmyjeans.com/ http://gapeland.com/ http://glamworship.com/ http://grandpasfuckteens.com/ http://hdmassageporn.com/ http://heavyonhotties.com/ http://hersexdebut.com/ http://hotkinkyjo.xxx/ http://milena-velba.de/ http://mypickupgirls.com/ http://nadine-J.de/ http://norestnetwork.com/ http://onadoggingmission.com/ http://onlyblowjob.com/ http://oldyounglesbianlove.com/ http://pandafuck.com/ http://penelopeblackdiamond.com/ http://piercedaspid.com/ http://pixandvideo.com/ http://prolapsequeen.com/ http://publicsexadventures.com/ http://rocandshay.com/ http://sapphicerotica.com/ http://sexyfightingzone.com/ http://straponcum.com/ http://studentsexparties.com/ http://teachmefisting.com/ http://wakeupnfuck.com/ http://woodmancastingx.com/ http://zoliboy.com/ [Link] |
| ashar Member 67 Posts 12/12 | Posted - Oct 28 2013 : 1:38PM [Link] |
| sexobsessed Member 76 Posts 9/13 | Posted - Oct 29 2013 : 11:17AM Seeing a woman's hand working a guy's cock without the distraction of motion blur, makes it so much hotter. [Link] |
| Goldstein All-Star Member "You have sacrificed nothing and no one." 3689 Posts 8/10 | Posted - Oct 29 2013 : 11:34AM [Link] |
| Xanderian Member 404 Posts 1/11 | Posted - Nov 2 2013 : 8:44PM why because i have watched some 60 fps videos and read some stuff on this matter but as far as i know, the video files i have acquired says "60 FPS" when i look with mediainfo but none of the videos of an example site you mentioned above are 60 fps, they are mostly 30 fps like kevin mooore told. I only thought Jules Jordan used 60 Fps cameras when he shoots for example that Alexis Texas / Jayden James Pool Tease Scene is exceptional ( http://www.julesjordan.com/trial/scenes/alexis-texas-jayden-jaymes-drowning-in-big-booty-big-ass_vid ) Even his videos are not 60 fps when viewed with mediainfo. I'm a bit lost on the matter, please help me get some knowledge [Link] |
| Vawkes Member "Ideas are bulletproof" 668 Posts 8/12 | Posted - Nov 9 2013 : 7:41PM [Link] |
| Kevin Moore Member Subdivided & Synthetic 320 Posts 4/00 | Posted - Nov 10 2013 : 2:31PM [Link] |
| NotMyRealName Member 487 Posts 6/13 | Posted - Nov 18 2013 : 4:07PM The only one that comes to mind immediately is Bra Busters 3 (Julia Ann, Phoenix Marie, Jayden Jaymes, Ava Addams, Melina Mason) but there might be more (perhaps even more in that series.) Edited by - Notmyrealname on 11/18/2013 4:08:09 PM [Link] |
 | |
| MrPurple Member 381 Posts 5/09 | Posted - Jan 19 2014 : 8:36PM |
| MrPurple Member 381 Posts 5/09 | Posted - Jan 19 2014 : 8:38PM [Link] |
| NotMyRealName Member 487 Posts 6/13 | Posted - Jan 20 2014 : 6:45PM The trailer isn't found when you click on the play button but you can get it to play when you hit "download this trailer" right below it. I wish 60 was the standard. [Link] |
| Jaktarn Senior Member 4798 Posts 5/05 | Posted - Mar 30 2014 : 10:06PM Feels like a pretty good USP to help promote content. [Link] |
| snufish Member 580 Posts 4/14 | Posted - Apr 2 2014 : 12:40AM [Link] |
| peake New Member 1 Posts 5/14 | Posted - May 5 2014 : 11:18PM I did want to add one to the list though: http://povd.com/ [Link] |
| Thyrium Deactivated User 44 Posts 3/09 | Posted - May 6 2014 : 1:04AM I don't know how those guys stay in business because it must cost them a fuckload in bandwidth. My only gripe is that they don't really do "extreme" porn. :( Edited by - killbillvol69 on 5/6/2014 7:53:10 AM [Link] |
| YaniX Member "Time to Rumble" 9 Posts 5/14 | Posted - May 6 2014 : 12:26PM Now with digital we don't have those issues. Some cinematographers even shoot higher then 60fps for different effects. I like 30fps and 60fps depending on the feeling I want to show. I shot " Female Seduction " for AireRose in 60fps  YaniX https://twitter.com/YaniXFilms Edited by - YaniX on 5/6/2014 12:56:32 PM [Link] |
| sexobsessed Member 76 Posts 9/13 | Posted - Nov 6 2014 : 2:26PM [Link] |
| NotMyRealName Member 487 Posts 6/13 | Posted - Dec 21 2015 : 1:22PM It seems like the sweet spot right now is to shoot 4k/60 and then release in in 1080/60 so you have a great looking HD file and a more or less "future proof" 4k original that you can release (like JJV) or wait until 4k is more widely accepted. Regardless, 60 fps feels like big jump in quality to me and I can't wait for the rest of the industry to start shooting this way. & It looks like the new EA Joey Silvera flick Ass Tricks was shot in 60. [Link] |
| draghixafan Senior Member Less identical crap, more sleaze and bush! 2378 Posts 7/09 | Posted - Aug 18 2016 : 1:47AM An updated list would be much appreciated? [Link] |
| draghixafan Senior Member Less identical crap, more sleaze and bush! 2378 Posts 7/09 | Posted - Aug 18 2016 : 1:56AM And quoted you in my thread - In a white room.. with white couches.. [Link] |
| draghixafan Senior Member Less identical crap, more sleaze and bush! 2378 Posts 7/09 | Posted - Aug 18 2016 : 1:57AM And quoted you in my pleading for TUGJOBS to return and in 60fps here - Bangbros wants your Feedback [Link] |
| snufish Member 580 Posts 4/14 | Posted - Aug 20 2016 : 1:44PM [Link] |
| draghixafan Senior Member Less identical crap, more sleaze and bush! 2378 Posts 7/09 | Posted - Sep 20 2016 : 12:40AM [Link] |
| coming soon Senior Member 1705 Posts 2/11 | Posted - Sep 20 2016 : 4:48AM Much more into that than 4k. [Link] |
| JohnW Senior Member 1351 Posts 6/08 | Posted - Sep 24 2016 : 6:00AM 1) The special effects were just not good enough and the improved motion quality in high frame rate revealed that. That should sort itself out over time. 2) You're mentally conditioned over a lifetime to 24fps theater and 30 (60i) television. Your only way to cure that is to expose yourself to and get used to higher frame rate content. [Link] |
| JohnW Senior Member 1351 Posts 6/08 | Posted - Sep 24 2016 : 6:05AM We still have two major issues that don't seem to be going away soon and that is 1) <60 frame rates and 2) low bitrate on both streaming and downloadable porn. [Link] |
| bahadir Member 200 Posts 7/14 | Posted - May 10 2017 : 8:00PM [Link] |
| snufish Member 580 Posts 4/14 | Posted - Apr 15 2020 : 7:40PM |
| snufish Member 580 Posts 4/14 | Posted - Feb 7 2021 : 5:11PM HD Clips BR https://buccwild.com/ https://brazilianbigbutts.com/ clips4sale.com/114318 http://www.ianalxxx.com/HOME.html Edited by - snufish on 2/7/2021 5:13:33 PM [Link] |
| tacticalpiss Member 275 Posts 2/10 | Posted - Feb 7 2021 : 5:12PM [Link] |
| Zingerbrook Member 580 Posts 3/17 | Posted - Feb 7 2021 : 6:17PM Wowgirls and Wowporn do HFR. [Link] |
| tacticalpiss Member 275 Posts 2/10 | Posted - Feb 7 2021 : 11:20PM This argument doesn't hold true for gonzo porn though where the objective often tends to be to give you the feeling you are directly observing the action. Even for directors who do want the footage to look quite stylized I am sure there are other means through which you can achieve this while still shooting at higher framerates. [Link] |
| Zingerbrook Member 580 Posts 3/17 | Posted - Feb 8 2021 : 6:38AM [Link] |
| snufish Member 580 Posts 4/14 | Posted - Feb 8 2021 : 2:33PM [Link] |
| Use the code below to link to this topic or a specific post. |
| URL of this thread |
| Link to this post with HTML |
| Link to this post with Forum Code |