But tmd5 does make a good point that porn can look bad in high definition. Will high def increase the quality of porn productions?

[Link]

Gianna has quite a few stretch marks at various locations on her body, yet it would be hard to find anyone who doesn't think she is a great performer, and beautiful to boot.

But I agree about one thing. The move to hi-definition will definitely make these flaws more apparent. Hollywood has been griping about this for some time.

[Link]

I'm actually at the opposite end of the spectrum. I like seeing details. It makes it seem more realistic.

Acne? OK...maybe I'm not thrilled about seeing zits but they happen and I even have some myself. Stretch marks? I dunno. Maybe it's an odd fetish of mine but I actually like them.

At any rate, this has been a gripe of mine for years with porn. I don't want to see hazy, soft focus porn. I want to see the girl as she would really appear. If she has flaws, then so be it. Most of the girls I've ever been attracted to have had flaws. For me...it just makes it a bit more realistic. I've always HATED the obviously airbrushed and/or softened/blurred still pictures. Unless the girl has absolutely terrible skin or flaws, it isn't necessary. The more of her real skin I can see whilst fantasizing about her, the better.

Another possibility could be that you're seeing digital artifacts which have nothing at all to do with the appearance of the performer's skin. I don't know much about upscaling video but if it's anything like audio, upscaling will not add anything to the picture that isn't already there (except for maybe artifacts). You can't pull detail out of thin air. How does it look in standard mode? If you think it looks better in standard mode, then you should view your porn flicks in standard mode.

Edited by - RandomPrecision on 10/20/2006 5:34:48 AM

[Link]

These 'key components' are in your Oppo. Not state-of-the-art, but performing way above price level. Maybe your player is a more 'average' performer than your screen, or maybe the cables in use are, or the grid is? Generally, the higher the quality of the electronics in use, the higher the quality possible to reproduce, and the higher the risk to see 'negative' artifacts. Tip (already said in this thread): use native-definition settings (i.e.: disk in standard definition?: set your player @480p and screen @72 hex 480). Or simply re-adjust your eyes ...

p_n

As in porn a DVD is 'over-priced' all to soon, it's of no surprise to see lots of low quality porn DVD's ...

Edited by - pinc_noiz on 10/20/2006 8:18:46 AM

[Link]

One thing I'll state flat out, is that I DON'T want to see razor-burn-stubble and ass-pimples in HD clarity.

HD clarity is great for porn as long as the proper care (i.e. effort) is taken with make-up and lighting. And, I'm not talking about air-brushed sanitizing either!
Seeing the "real" details on the performers can be a real turn-on when you're into them. Almost like you can smell and touch them.
Bianca Pureheart, in North Pole #59 , for example, obviously has some facial acne-type issues. They are tastefully handled with make-up, etc. Far from detracting from her appearance, it is all part of her "look" and a real turn-on.
On the other hand, if this same scene were shot in a filthy Extreme warehouse "set," with no make-up and the lovely harsh lighting from the neon lights in the ceiling grid, it probably would be unbearable.

HD is going to separate the men from the boys, and the artists from the hacks. Studios and directors who produce quality may be able to benefit from HD.

Finally, a serious question:
Isn't the transition to HD really more of an issue of porn maintaining compatibility with emerging technology and hardware (as opposed to any real improvement in the porn viewing experience)?

[Link]

People are just people. I don't mind imperfections on otherwise good looking people. Realism is good. And if a director want the movie to look "unreal" he or she can just choose to add some blurry filter. That's an artistic choice I can respect. But don't take HD away from us just because people are not perfect.

[Link]

p_n

[Link]