Not a stupid question at all.

Here's an old thread that (after a few posts) kind of begins to cover the differences between film and video production in porn.

[invalid URL removed]AVN Award Nominations

You are definitely not the only one who likes the older films. Flash is a big fan of "classic" porn, and I certainly have my favorites in that arena as well--although I do tend to mainly stick with the newer stuff.

Welcome to the forum, again! And we hope to see you around more.

Mike L.

[Link]

As for the technical questions that you asked, I think that the biggest difference between the two periods are the medium they are shot on. The majority of adult films produced today are shot on video, which doesn't require much technical expertise to shoot on and a production can be shot for far less money. Most films from the classic period were shot on film, which requires a lot of technical expertise and costs much more, not just for the film stock, but lighting, etc, which meant more money comparatively was spent on creating a classic film than a modern film.

As film requires more technical expertise, I think that more of the directors/camera operators back in the classic age actually had schooling in film production, which probably accounts for the different camera angles and more professional 'mainstream' looking productions. Also, since the productions back then cost more money to produce, I think that the companies were more picky about what they made, which lead to more quality productions than poor ones. Remember though, there are some real stinkers from the golden age as well. You also have to remember that back then, adult films were mainly seen in theaters, so more substance would be expected as you had to draw the customers into the theater.

Remember when reading all this, this is just one person's opinion and may not be 100% factually accurate, especially since I was born in the mid-seventies, so my only experience with classic films has been long after they were produced on home video.

[Link]

I'm not claiming to know all the correct techniques to properly capture a sex scene , but it does seem to my uneducated eye as if some things have been learnt over the years . For example - Watching Taboo was a frustrating experience . After the well composed story elements had played out I was all ready for the sex to start , unfortunately it was a jumble of too close shots . I'm not sure if this is the same across all the Classic features , maybe Taboo was just a poor example ?

[Link]

A MiniDVD cassette cost under $10 and give about 60 minutes run time.

60 minutes of 16mm film is about 2000 feet, which will cost you about $.26/foot, or about $520

Now you have to get it processed. That costs about $.12/foot, or about $240.

So far we're up to $760, and what have we got? 2000 feet of negative. Can't do much with that. If we want to edit it on our TiBook with FinalCutPro we'll have to get it transfered to tape in a process called telecine. This cost anywhere from $.15/foot for a one-light transfer to $500/hour in the telecine suite doing super custom color correction. Let's say for our purposes we're going to get a best-light transfer at $.25/foot, or about $500 for the whole 2000 feet

Our total is now $1260 and we have 60 minutes of raw footage. Now we start editing, ie throwing footage away.

Big budget movies routinely throw away footage at a ratio of 20:1. I suspect that most gonzo is more like 3:2 or 2:1. That means our $1200 bought us 30-40 minutes of finished, onscreen wank time, or about 25% of what it takes to produce a finished gonzo disc. All we need is another $3600 of film, processing and transfer to finish our shot on film gonzo master piece.

This is why porn, even "big-budget" porn is not shot on film anymore (yes there are a few exceptions). This is why Mike Quazar laughs at me when I talk about shooting gonzo on film.

T.C.

[Link]

The $10 MiniDV cassette record sychronous sound through the same camera.

If we want synchnous sound on our shot on film porno, we need to hire a sound specialist and rent him expensive, specialized sound recording equipment.

Then we'll have to pay someone to sync it up with all that pretty film we shot.

T.C.

[Link]

Mike L.

[Link]

Shooting on tape until you have something resembling worthwhile , the scattergun approach , means that porn will never improve . The lack of thought that seems to be the norm for some gonzos speaks to this . There are some decidedly average camera men seemingly intent on never improving their techniques , doesn't that mean the only progression is towards more niche markets ? The other bonus of film is that it presents aspirational porn far better than video tape , so the stuff I like ( beautiful women decked out to the nines ) is enhanced by this format . A selfish argument sure , but probably quite popular in the US , the land which brought us Playboy and Penthouse .

[Link]

Mike L.

[Link]

In my defense I had been watching a truly abominable piece of work called Goodaughters , staring Shanna McCullough . There's only so much frustration with crappy angles that a guy can take .

[Link]

Mike

[Link]

As far as size, check out the Anton Aminima; a fully functional Super16 camera about the size of a large handicam. Even my old Eclair ACLs aren't much bigger.

The big consideration is cost/skill. Shooting film is much more expensive, doesn't give you feedback while you're shooting that something's going wrong. To shoot film you have to know what you're doing, and know you know what you're doing. It's really not that hard, but you can't just review and watch what you did in the onboard LCD screen.

-T.C.

[Link]

Edited by - saki on 12/24/2003 4:52:10 PM

[Link]

so Hi Board :)

btw, I am not new to porn cause I am working industry at differrent site since years, and well know to some of the biggest board, but what I really appreciate are the moderator here

Edited by - oil on 12/28/2003 6:45:59 PM

[Link]