Sales are down. The girls already get less paid than they used to.
Now the next step is cutting back on technical equipment and people who know how to use it.
[Link]
| Author | Post |
|---|---|
| Something Different Member 96 Posts 1/06 |  Posted - Dec 27 2008 : 1:03PMHere we are its 2008 and studios should be getting ready for Blu-ray with better picture quality. Yet some studios are putting out product that is inferior to their own work in previous years on their dvds. What is the strategy behind that? Get us to notice a bigger difference with Blu-ray or lack of quality control or a cost cutting measure? Bang Bros released Brandi Belle 8 on dvd recently and the quality appears to be like a copy of a copy of a copy of a vhs tape with severe pixelation, poor focus and washed out colors....particularly in the first scene. Yet the older Brandi Belle dvds are of better quality. Certainly if they put out dvd or worse quality on a Blu-ray disk and expect a higher price they better call a bankruptcy attorney. Thoughts? Anyone notice this with any companies? [Link] |
| juha Senior Member 2752 Posts 3/05 | Posted - Dec 27 2008 : 2:18PM Sales are down. The girls already get less paid than they used to. Now the next step is cutting back on technical equipment and people who know how to use it. [Link] |
| brown_eyed_girl Member 58 Posts 12/08 | Posted - Dec 27 2008 : 5:28PM [Link] |
| Fernandez Deactivated User 781 Posts 12/08 | Posted - Dec 27 2008 : 5:46PM [Link] |
| brown_eyed_girl Member 58 Posts 12/08 | Posted - Dec 27 2008 : 6:38PM I guess if HD also highlights freckles, peach fuzz, and birthmarks that would be a positive. [Link] |
| Anadin Member 307 Posts 4/05 | Posted - Dec 27 2008 : 8:22PM Seriously do you guys really feel you've been shielded from the real horror that is pornstars. You know SD pictures can be damn good, whatever the imperfections were we've been staring right at them for a long time and somehow we've been able to tolerate it all. [Link] |
| rexthedestroyer Member 16 Posts 10/08 | Posted - Dec 27 2008 : 8:57PM [Link] |
| Something Different Member 96 Posts 1/06 | Posted - Dec 27 2008 : 9:53PM 1. How would your buying from a studio be affected, that you normally buy from, that downgrades it quality to about vhs level for its dvd releases? 2. Do you have any examples of studios that have released current product that is of lower picture quality than its older releases? 3. I have a theory that people that don't like hd porn are the same people that can't tell the difference between fake and real tits, am I right? [Link] |
| undone Deactivated User what's for dinner? 214 Posts 6/07 | Posted - Dec 27 2008 : 10:27PM [Link] |
Flash  Golden Age Classic 11018 Posts 5/01 | Posted - Dec 27 2008 : 11:22PM [Link] |
| bartx Member 49 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Dec 28 2008 : 12:35AM The mid and longer range shots turn out a lot better. However, the close-ups can be downright scary. I did a recent review that went into some detail concerning the high-def aspects of porn from the viewer's perspective. I found the best part was the mid-range shots, from about the perspective where you would be standing 6-8 feet away from the performers. It gave me a sense that I was on the set. The long-range shots were less "what the hell is going on?" and more, "wow, Jenna Haze looks awesome from 20 feet away". I also just checked out Bring'em Young 27 in Blue-ray where the clarity took away from the scene due to the younger performer's blemished complexions. It was a rental but the price range on the purchase of that DVD was 30-50 US, which is total insanity if you ask me. Edited by - bartx on 12/28/2008 12:36:33 AM [Link] |
| Prophit Member 378 Posts 1/07 | Posted - Dec 28 2008 : 3:43AM And as for the HD vs SD discussion I don't know why every time this topic is discussed someone has to come up with this ridiculous "you can see the flaws on girls" argument. I have heard this a thousand times now and I'm pretty sure in 99% of all cases it comes from people who haven't even seen a porn Blu-ray. I myself couldn't care less about slight imperfections on the performer's bodies. And you can see those in SD too as long the camera is close enough. HD basically means more pixels right? So in SD you got enough pixels already to show almost any imperfection as long as the camera is real close. HD only shows it real advantage when the camera is further away from the action. [Link] |
| aussie_guy77 Member 121 Posts 4/07 | Posted - Dec 28 2008 : 5:47AM [Link] |
| bartx Member 49 Posts 2/07 | Posted - Dec 28 2008 : 9:09AM I think it is a subjective area relative to the viewers taste. For example, personally, I have never cared for the up-close, gynecological shots. HD makes it even worse for me in that regard. But I like the feeling of being in the the room or on the set, so the mid and long range shots in HD make it that much better. If a viewer doesn't care to see the flaws and HD exacerbates them, than they will not care for certain aspects of HD filming. It isn't "ridicules", it is a matter of taste. [Link] |
| the unknown pervert Deactivated User I'd like to stay but I've got a plane to catch. 3243 Posts 5/06 | Posted - Dec 28 2008 : 9:26AM [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 |