| Author | Post |
|---|---|
| Sammyboy Member 308 Posts 8/01 |  Posted - Jun 6 2003 : 9:13AMI know this has been covered to some degree before, concerning colors being off, but I think it deserves some more mention here. I really looked forward to both releases, glad to see new companies, and Lucy Lee and Taylor Rain doing dps make for great porn. But, what's up with this glossy look to the video so that it looks more like film than video? I know it was stated the colors were over saturated and shoot with more color gain for "warmer skin tones." If that's it, it still a terrible idea. Porn works great with video because video isn't cinematic at all. It looks crystal clear, raw, cheap, uncinematic as hell, and puts you right in the room with them. And that's what you want for porn. It looks terrible and cheap in sitcoms, but it's great for porn. It look and feels real. There's no distance to it. And what I noticed in both videos was the behind the scenes stuff had the real look of normal video. They must have been using two cameras, and then when there'd be a cut to the first camera it would take on that phony look again. I wish they would just stick to that normal video look. Quit trying to pretty it up. Because of that phony look Taylor and Lucy's dps (and all the others too) were less interesting than other videos where they just did anals. Good lighting, great girls, and great action are enough. Don't try to pretty up the porn. And if it two different cameras, please just use the one everyone uses. Don't try to build a better mouse trap.  [Link] |
| DenverDon Benevolent Firmly Embedded in Depravity 5914 Posts 7/02 | Posted - Jun 6 2003 : 9:35AM I wouldn't want all my porn to have the "same-old same-old" look and feel to it. I appreciate many of the attempts to 'pretty it up' rather than always presenting just the cheap, uncinematic look and feel. I really don't have a problem with a lot of what you say, but to state it as a universal "that's what you want for porn" is where I have a departure. DenverDon  [Link] |
| Sammyboy Member 308 Posts 8/01 | Posted - Jun 6 2003 : 11:23AM new girls than anything else. Maybe I shouldn't have thrown "cheap" in there but I just meant more natural. I think it's just porn basics. And maybe I'm wrong. But I think you go with the look that works best with that medium. If shooting a mainstream movie for theatres or TV you don't shoot it on video. It ain't gonna work. It's like TV variety shows are done on video. It's cheaper, and the look works. The same with the news. All the classiest sitcoms (except for All in the Family) were and are shot on film. When you see a game show shot on video from twenty years ago its looks so real you feel like you could almost reach out and touch the people. It's hard to believe some of them are dead. It feels that alive and real. And that's a great feel for porn. And these companies can do it anyway they want, but I'm glad it's not the norm in porn now. And if they wanna create images that look like they're from a twenty year old porn film. Great. But, I think it's a terrible look. And I think it's a mistake. And maybe I'm wrong. Let's see if it works. But, I'm glad I didn't buy 'em. [Link] |
| rjk13 Member peace, love and revolution 321 Posts 10/02 | Posted - Jun 6 2003 : 11:39AM The film look adopted in these titles distances me from the sex. I can understand using it in story-based porn, or pretty eye-candy artsy stuff, but not in all-sex movies. There is nothing like the immediacy of the video image to intensify the experience. [Link] |
| Mike Quasar Zero Tolerance Reluctant pornographer 1765 Posts 7/01 | Posted - Jun 6 2003 : 12:41PM Personally, I think a lot of Gonzo product looks like a home movie, and I understand that's part of it's appeal, but for me, when i can see every ingrown hair, ass pimple, razor burn and c-section scar, it ruins the experience for me. In regards to No Holes Barred, I suppose my experiment with merging some of the technical aspects of features into the gonzo realm may not be to everyone's liking, which I expected, but more opinions would be greatly appreciated before I completely change the way I do things. Keep in mind that some of the examples given of where video has been more useful than film in television production (variety shows etc), no television production to my knowledge has ever been shot with a $2000 Sony camcorder as is the case with almost 100 percent of gonzo porn. Quaze [Link] |
Flash  Golden Age Classic 11018 Posts 5/01 | Posted - Jun 6 2003 : 12:53PM [Link] |
| aybesea Senior Member Caroline Cage - Hungarian Hottie! 1485 Posts 5/02 | Posted - Jun 6 2003 : 1:01PM Edited by - aybesea on 6/6/2003 1:01:56 PM [Link] |
| rjk13 Member peace, love and revolution 321 Posts 10/02 | Posted - Jun 6 2003 : 1:10PM Sometimes in the film look, it seems like a piece of gauze has been put over the camera lens. Don't mind it so much in tease sequences though. [Link] |
| dumblonde Senior Member 2352 Posts 7/00 | Posted - Jun 7 2003 : 12:43AM
Personally I prefer to see people fornicating in the best possible light, the sex just looks that much hotter to me. Although l haven't seen NHB, I thought that the videography in Ass Cleavage was outstanding, and I didn't feel distanced at all. I really like the professional camerawork when used in combination with the gonzo style, to me that comes close to perfection. [Link] |
| Sammyboy Member 308 Posts 8/01 | Posted - Jun 7 2003 : 3:45AM advocating videos that look unprofessional, cheap, or like home movies in any way. I want them to look beautiful. In fact, that's why I don't much like POV stuff. The angles aren't varied and it all has that home movie look. All I meant was please stick with the sharp, clear, VIDEO images we're now used to seeing and don't dull it down with a filmed look to smooth it out and hide any imagined "imperfections" of the girls. Professionism is great to see in porn photography. Just saw Lucy Lee in Beautiful Girls 7 and she looked never looked more beautiful. Shot on video (like all of Christoff), outside at a mansion, and crystal clear. Not even any anal, and it was much hotter and beautiful looking than her dp in Double Parked 3. And that shouldn't be. But the dp was a dulled image. It wouldn't matter if DVSX or Zero Tolerance were two lousy companies. They're not. They're getting great girls and setting up great scenes with them. And then hurting the scenes by not giving us a crystal clear image. When you see Taylor Rain and Ashley Blue in person it's fantastic to see how beautiful they look and exactly like they do in their videos for RLD, Anabolic, and any other top company. There's nothing to hide, smooth out, or improve. Just show us them in the hottest scenes and clearest images possible. That'll be enough. [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 |
