I was reading a book recently, entitled 'The Sexual Century',published in 1999, charting the history of sex over the last hundred years and society's attitude towards it.
Naturally, there was a chapter on the adult industry and how the business has utilised and embraced new technology.
A mention was made of the use of DVD and the ways in which the adult industry would exploit this medium. In particular, reference was made to the use of more than one camera to record the action, so that the viewer would have the opportunity to view the action from a different angle.
I can't say that I have seen any DVDs advertising this feature, at least not in the gonzo area.
I can only presume that to produce such a DVD must be prohibitively expensive.
Wouldn't we all love the ability to be directors in our own home, and to view the lovely Teagan not only from behind but also from the front. A Jules Jordan film, with the camera under my control would be just aawesome.
Well ... if you could control it that way, it wouldn't be a Jules Jordan film, would it? Because you're taking the decisions out of the creator's hands ...
also, this feature is rarely utilized because a great deal of porn is shot single-camera, and even the second camera, when used, is more often than not to get the soft angle for cable.
The programming part is easy and inexpensive. Now, creating actual second angles and properly timing them to the primary angles, that costs more in both production and editing, pre-authoring.
that's why there are the virtual plaything sort of titles, where this is the entire attraction. I remember when Sunshine plunged first into DVD, they used to put totally unrelated scenes with different people as the "second angle." Sadly hilarious.
The DVD of Marie and Jack: A Hardcore Love Story has this feature. It has been well reviewed as both stroke-worthy entertainment in its own right, as well as offering insight into the editorial process.
I would never shoot a sex scene with less than two cameras. Once that expense is incurred, the cost of creating a multi-angle DVD track is relatively low.
In Tony's film you have the option of picture-in-picture and alternate angle, which is something that I would like to see more of.
Sometimes the PIP is too small to be really effective however. What would it take to have fully split-screen porn? This way you could see the closeup and the full body shots at the same time. I've seen it done only once, and it was hot.
To clarify. The alternate angle tracks of Marie and Jack's love scene (both PIP and nonPIP) are offered as a DVD extra. There is no alternate angle in the festival cut of the film itself. (Though I am currently exploring this possibilbity in the DVD versions of some of my "ligit" work.)
The problem with split screen with only two cameras is it leave a lot of screen real eastate unused (wide black bars top and bottom.) In sizing the PIP window, I played around a lot and ultimately decided to make it just big enough to provide a clue that it might be a good time to change angles. I felt that any bigger covered up too much of the primary angle. Even as small as it is seemed like it might be too much, that's why I created a non-PIP version.
I'd love to do a nice gangbang shoot with about 8 cameras (I think that's the max number of alternate angles DVD supports) all running syncronously. Full time close-up of the woman's face and pussy of course, as well as a variety of medium and longer shots. I've got a very attractive soccer mom from North Jersey who's game, but her male playmates are shy
I wonder if a more viable alternative might be a multiple-screen format, whereby an end-user with two monitors could view an angle on each one simultaneously.
Duh! I'm so stupid. I could have included DB's split-screen as a third track!
This is where DVD and other interactive is so different from traditional presentation formats. It's so hard to get used to the idea that you can include more and let the audience decide what they want.
I think multi-screen might be good for an installed porn "happening", but I don't know that it's reasonable to expect that most people have a multi-screen set-up.
However, DB's complaint and your idea did get me thinking. QuickTime video need not be restricted to 4:3, 1.66, 16:9, 1.85, 2.35 or any other "standard" ratio. Any rectangle will work; I've even got colleagues that are shooting talking heads for high-end industrial shows vertically and then turning the playback equipment 90 degrees.
I put a little test together using footage from the shoot I've got in post. Bear in mind that this is a quick test, and the footage was not shot for simultanious presentation, you can see the "I'll move while you stay still" strategy we use; if I were shooting something like this for simulatious presentation we'd want to be more gentle with the camera movement when changing angles.
What I think would be a lot of fun would be four simultainous cameras line up horizontally, with a slight offset in time from left to right. That way you'd get a visual echo rippling across the (very wide screen). Not some thing I'd want to do for an entire movie, but could be interesting if used judiciously.
Lastly, there are a lot of split-screen effects that work really well on the big screen that just don't make it on a TV screen; there's just not enough size and resolution. Size counts, and the video/digital era has in large part forgotten the effect and importance of scale. I for one would love to see a truly great gonzo-style scene shot on film and projected.
I like the split screen in your test TC, very much. Could be the content/subject though. Keeps my eyes dancing beautifully from one side to the next, it's got great potential, I loved being able to see Xana's face and the full body shot and ensuing delightful movements all at one time. It's an elegant way to show a lot material, on first viewing I'd say two screens are enough although I haven't seen more so what do I know? I just guess two people, two screens sort seems to get the best across without confusing the eye.Don't know if I could process more...I'd be willing to try.
On your comment about projection, last week I watched a porn DVD of vignettes from the fifties shot on various film size. One of the vignettes starts with an extreme closeup of a vulva being lathered up and shaved lovingly. The shot fills the entire TV screen for some minutes while elegantly manincured hands do their work, I couldn't help but think when the film was projected that the vulva in question would have been taller than a man. Awe inspiring! Scale is an interesting concept.
Mistimed Don't despair a three minute love gone hard
Daylight Savings Time, is it really Necessary? 972 Posts 3/04
Posted - Jul 8 2004 : 3:57AM
The whole "multi angle" thing has been done by Vivid and some others and I'm just not happy with it. For one thing you need to push a button and then they only last a few seconds the go back to the one angle. I would rather the director/cameraman shoot from both the front and the back giving both views throughout the scene. As far as splitting the screen I'm not a big fan of that. It would be nice to see 16x9 gonzo flicks though! I think there should be more concentration on the editing of the scenes allowing the front and back shots to be more present throughout the scene than what is currently out there. I mean during RC all you get is the front of the action with some close ups of the penetration and face (and sometimes, not very often a behind shot of the RC position) and it just lingers there for a few minutes then it's off to another position doing virtually the same thing. I mean how hard would it be to change angles and do so with good editing? I've see some films with this but they are far and few between.
Solid coverage and crisp editing is the undiscoverd country in porn. Look how many angle and edits there are in a fight sequence, now count the edits and angles in you average porn sequence.
But it ain't easy or cheap. (IMO) Sex doesn't lend itself to the tradition multiple set up approach, and other techniques have the own problems. Either way, "real editing" takes about a day for each 2-3 minutes of screen time.
Daylight Savings Time, is it really Necessary? 972 Posts 3/04
Posted - Jul 8 2004 : 4:49AM
You have a real good point and I didn't know it took so long for editing. As usual your expertise is very helpful. I still say that the editing should be more of a emphasis.
Like everything else, how long it takes has a lot to do with how good you are and how much money there is to pay for it. A top editor on a feature film gets paid more money to spend more time making it just right . Hacks like me get paid less money to spend less time making it good enough .
At the pace that porn companies have to crank out product there really isn't time to do any editing as it is commonly understood in the craft of filmmaking. The best choice might simply be to skip it all together, andII think Zero Tolerance might be onto something with their Drive Thru-Uncut porn, Non Stop Porn. I always tell clients/excutive producers that if we don't have time, budget and/or talent to do something to at least cable TV standards, we should avoid it altogether. I never thought this might apply to editing, but in this case it might very well be the best (or at least a good) solution to the problem of eratic and senseless cutting.
If there simply isn't the time/money to actually edit porn, the best solution might very well be to show the scene in its entirety with no cuts. It puts some unusual demands on the people both in front and behind the camera, but thoughtfully done I think it has potential. A good cameraop can create the same changes in emphasis and perspective that an editor does, and when it's right it has a kind of organic flow that even the best editing can never achieve.
Of course sustaining this for 20 minutes is a daunting challange. But given the way porn is, and apparently must be made, a watchable 20 minute take may very well be a more surmountable challange that creating a crisply edited 20 minute long scene.
