A debate? Tricia said I talk a lot about porn, while producing very little. I agree. That doesn't seem like a debate to me. I suppose we could debate whether or not we're having a debate!
I didn't know what can of worms I was opening but I knew I'd be the one with the black eye. I'm from Canada so the most violent I'm allowed to get is when I'm in the bathroom.you're so damn cuddly that I couldn't see you doing anything other than features.
Out of my own curiosity. Is the disagreement between TC & TD about features v gonzo?
I saw someone mention about engaging the mind of the viewer rather than turning their stomach. Interesting idea.
What I have found in my short time being affiliated with the business is a distinct difference between true "amateur" and the other ranks is the sex. For the most part, and this is a generalized observation. It seems that the the "amateurs" have the passion and heat during sex that says "Hey I'm here, Im having a great time, and this feels soooo damn good!"
But they lack for the most part the production value of good lighting, and camera work something we strive to combine and have been getting some pretty good results.
HDV is just an intermediate format. It's not how the movie will be presented to the viewer (just like shooting on film doesn't require you to have a movie projector). The final product will still be standard DVD, for the time being. Eventually, the final product will be DVD-HD or Blue Ray. When that happens you will need to buy a new DVD player.
It's also worth noting that the current solutions for editing HDV footage are inelegent to say the least. With no way for the audience to be presented the increased spacial resolution (at the significant expense of temporal compression), and no straight forward way to edit in HDV, probably the best way to use the new Sony HDV camera is shoot them in DVCAM (Standard Def.) at 16:9. I doubt anyone would see the differnce between that and native HDV dubbed down to SD. In fact, there's a good chance that on high-motion subject matter (like furious ass pounding sex) that the HDV could look worse.
Two questions. 1. Does that include AVID editing systems? 2. Why would HDV possibly look worse?
I think what makes most DV action sequences look bad (Beside poor camera work)is the interlacing. Thank goodness for the magic bullet plug-in. Most DVCams seem to not have a TRUE progressive feature. At least not in the consumer and pro-sumer versions. But then I could be totally wrong about that.
I was just informed that the XL2 by Canon shoots in true progressive 16:9 format. And captures images in both 30fps and 24fps(Film) formats.
If Blue-Ray wins the format war you may need two DVD players, one for the new format and one for your old DVD discs. DVD-HD players will be backward compatible. Other than that the difference appears to be disc capacity.
Bill, as I understand it, none of the HD cameras are capable of true anamorphic 16:9 -- they still all work on chips that crop the image. I'm sure SOMEBODY will correct me if I'm wrong, but the only way to achieve anamorphic widescreen on a video camera is through use of that specific lens.
I'm really asking about how the DVD will be presented. An image doesn't need to be shot anamorphically in order to create an anamporphic DVD. Virtually all mainstream movies shot in a 1.85:1 ratio are done so through matting, not an anamorphic lens (as is usually the method for movies shot in 2.35:1).
Since the conversion from 1080i to 480i needs to take place anyway, even if the black bars are part of the initial 1080 lines of resolution, they should easily be able to be eliminated in the conversion to 480i. From that, an anamorphic DVD can be created.
Hmmm interesting. I have been operating under the impression that the only true 16x9 format was anamorphic and that everything else was just taking a 4x3 image and cropping it to 16x9. Like the D-Betas and DVCPro cams use a true 19x9 CCD to record the image or have I been misled?
I really don't deal too much with that aspect of the business. Im handed a camera from time to time and asked to shoot something. LOL
But I have grown comfortable with our Canon XL system outfitted with a technik mini35 adapter and cine style lenses.
The use of the word "anamorphic" comes from the days when wide screen was squeezed onto a standard 1.33 frame by using lenses that made everything tall and skinny, (as opposed to spherical lens, which make everything look more or less normal.) Then when the tall and skinny image is projected back out through an anamorphic lens it stretch back out to wide screen and things aren't tall and skinny anymore.
This is similar, but different from anamorphic video.
Anamorphic video is video that will play full screen in normal proportions on a 16:9 monitor. There are two of way of achieving this:
*shoot with anamophic lens
*shoot with cameras that produce 16:9 images.
Camera that shoot 16:9 images do so in one of two way:
* some cameras have true 16:9 CCDs. The Panasonic 900 has 16:9 chips. A "real" HD camera have 16:9 chips. A relatively inexpensive camera that has true 16:9 chips is the XL-2. The new Sony HDV camera also have 16:9 aspect ratio chip. When you shoot 4:3 with these cameras, they actually crop the side of the 16:9 image.
* Other camera do electronically what anamorphic lenses do optically; they squeeze the image horizontally so that when it's played back full screen on a 16:9 monitor it is correctly properly.
Some cameras, like the DVX-100 offer a 4:3 image that's been cropped top and bottom to a 16:9 image with black bars. This looks more or less like aan anamorphic DVD played back on a 4:3 monitor, but it will never playback full screen on a 16:9 monitor without being blown up in post, and with a degree of image quality loss.
More over, if you have an anamophic 16:9 DVD, there are 3 different way you can watch it on a 4:3 TV
* Letterboxed (normal proportions, black bars top and bottom)
* Pan/Scan (sides cropped about 15%)
* Full Screen (tall and skinny)
I'll save why HDV might suck more than DV/DVCAM/DVCPRO25 if your ultimate playback is going to be SD for some other time.
I will also save the don't believe the 24P hype sermon for later.
Actually, the XL2 does not contain native 16X9 CCD's. Canon has developed a way of maintaining the pixel count in 16X9 mode instead of sacrificing resolution as most other camcorders do.
As far as HD is concerned....
You will no doubt see a bevy of companies now claiming to be shooting in High Definition simply because they bought a Sony FX1 for 3 grand that is capable of shooting in 1080i. In my opinion, shooting and editing in HD or HDV at the present time would be merely for the bragging rights because we are still quite a distance from the ubiquitous presence of High Def DVD players in the American home. Hell, this is the equivalent of the late 70's/early 80's VHS vs Beta wars. Will it be Blu Ray or HD-DVD? For the time being, if you shoot in HD or it's consumer equlivalent HDV, you are still releasing your product on standard def DVD so what's the point? Sure, you can future proof your titles by making a High Def as well as a standard Def edit but this isn't the world of real movies. It's doubtful that porn consumers will buy "Grand Theft Anal volume 3476" or "Straight to the A Voiume 4829" a second time because it's now available in High Definition. Unless you have a softcore deal with Playboy, I can see no practical reason for any gonzo company to be worried about HD at the present time. Certainly the time will come when the transition will have to be made but that time is not now. If you want to cater to the 6 people who have their PC's hooked up to their HD plasma screens by all means shoot in HD and give them a Media Player 9 Disc, otherwise keep making porn as we now know it and wait until the dust settles on a universal format for mass distribution.
That's what I'd thought for a while as well . It turns out though that they'll both be backwards comptible , with the only real difference being an increased storage space on BR (25/50 Gb) over HD-DVD (15/30 Gb) and higher ease of home recording . Though there are still question marks over what DRM , if any , each format will use .
Tony , are any of these commercial lenses truly anamorphic ? I've messed around with my dad's new camcorder which supposedly has a 16:9 lens and the damn thing is a cheat . I'm pretty sure it's half way between 4:3 and 16:9 with some strange means of switching between the two .
Quase , what about online content . Any chance for that to be shot and distributed in HD - no need for a new player or TV to view it . And didn't porn help drive sales of VHS in the early days of home video ? Don't you foresee a similar pattern playing out with HD ?
You are the master of cutting to the chase (excuse excreble cliche) yet again, putting all this nonsense in perspective. Of course, one of Video Team's lifelines is their .... softcore contract with PLAYBOY, so I'm gonna be forced to confront this issue sooner than when I'd prefer -- which would be, frankly, never.
Any advice from first-hand experience what the most sensible camera currently out there is for our purposes?
"Almost unique at the prosumer level, the Canon XL 2 shoots in a true 16:9 ratio without artificial letter-boxing or vertically squeezing a 4:3 image. This camera uses a CCD block with 680,000 total pixels per chip. In 4:3 mode the chip crops the left and right sides resulting in the conventional ratio with 350,000 used pixels per CCD. In 16:9 mode the chip is used at full width resulting in a true 16:9 image utilizing some 460,000 pixels per chip."
If being able to say "Shot at 1080/24P" is the issue than the "pro" HDV camera due out next month is a good bet. This camera looks different/better than it's DVCAM cousins when displayed on an HD monitor, but it doesn't handle high motion as well.
If a good image at 1080 at a reasonable. price is the issue, then the Panasonic 900 (shoots native 16:9 and 24P w/3:2) with quality uprezzing in post is a good bet. Under many/most conditions, this camera/process will look better than HDV.
If produce "real" HD footage is the issue, then your only real options are a "real" HD camera or shooting on film and posting on HD.
Your guess is as good as mine on which one is laser dics, which one is betamax and which one is VHS.
"The aspect ratio is not achieved via native 16:9 chips, as that would put the price of the camera way outside the prosumer price point of US$5,000. The XL2 utilizes its 4:3 chip in a way that is unique among 16:9 modes. The XL2 uses an oversized 4:3 CCD, then crops the left and right side to achieve the 4:3 image. The 16:9 image, however, does not crop out the edges of the acquired pixels, and effectively records to tape an image that is 720 x 480. "
Okay, now you're spliting hairs. Their using a native 16:9 section from a larger, (presumably more readily avaible) chip, rather than producing (presumably more expense) 16:9 chips of the exact same size as the effective area of the "cropped" 4:3 chip. Point is you're getting native 16:9 with the XL-2, no anamorphic lens, or digital squeeze.
Yes and no. The entire concept of viewing any type of movie in the privacy of ones home was a brand new and novel concept at the time. VHS was ultimately selected because it was cheaper. VHS thus became the ONLY way to watch porn in your own home (aside from your 8mm projector). There are so many ways to aquire porn nowadays that I don't see the industry playing a large role in the ultimate outcome of the High Definition format wars.
As far as online content, if that is your primary market by all means shoot in HD but you still have half the country using dial-up at the present time.
Rest assured, everything will be HD in few years no matter what.
Of this there's no doubt. The next economic up turn and everyone's going to go out and buy a wide-screen TV. They may or may not notice what flavor or technique is used to fill all the pixels on that wide screen (uprez, HDV, HD, film to HD) but they will absolutely notice if a show's got "curtains" (black bars on the left and right border.)
Just as Ted Turner colorized old black and white movies, you can bet your ass your going to see Gone With The Wind presented with a 40% horizontal stretch.
Depending on the budget you are working with, you could shoot with a "real" HD camera such as the Panasonic Varicam but more practical to the present realities of the industry is the Sony Fx1. It is to HD what the VX1000 was/is to DV when compared to a high priced DV camera like the Sony DSR300.
From what I understand Playboy is phasing out any and all standard definition content but something shot with the FX1 would likely be accepted under their new criteria. I predict that it will be the new VX1000 for the industry. Essentially it's "good enough" and Playboy can still say that it's techincally HD.
Again, I know everyone in the industry is anxious to stamp "shot in HD" on the box cover but that really doesn't mean much until it can actually be viewed in HD.
24p means "24 progressive frames" which is essentially video that mimics the look and speed of film by adding redundant frames to allow the video to still play back at 29.97 frames per second (the normal speed of video) I shoot everything in 24p because I find the look of film much more flattering than the harsh reality of video. That's just me though. Some people hate "film-look" video.
Yes, that includes AVIDWhy might it look worse? DV is pure spacial compression. HDV uses the same banwidth as DV but has to keep track of six times as many pixels. It does this by using temporal compression; IIRC some new flavor of MPEG. The fewer pixels change frame to frame, the better MPEG works. Lock offs and talking heads work well on MPEG. Handheld taxes the codec. Handheld of highmotion really taxes the codec.There is an easy way to disprove the 24P hype. Go out and shoot side by side tests with film and with a Panasonic 900 or DVX-100. Shoot your film at 24fps, 30fps, and 60fps; shoot your video camera at 24P, 30P, and 30i. Have your film transfer done frame for frame with the 30fps stuff, one frame for one field with the 60fps, and with 3:2 pulldown with the 24fps stuff
Now compare your footage, and you'll see that the frame rate doesn't matter. In fact, the 60fps film stuff, which is temporally analigis to 30i video will knock your socks off.
The reason the electronic companies are making such a big deal about 24P is because that's the one part of film they can offer. They can't give range, tone, or resolution, so they're marketing the idea that 24fps is the secret to "the look of film" (A few years ago Magic Bullet was hyping black bars top and bottom as a key ingredient in the "look of film")
If you don't believe me about this, ask yourself this: Why do production that are shot on film, but destined for TV shoot at 30 (29,97 to completely accurate)? It costs more, they don't get that "look of film" 24 to 30 pulldown thing that Panasonic hypes so much. So why would they do it?
BTW, I just bought two DVX-100A cameras. I'm not saying 24P is meaningless, but it's not the magic secret to "looking like film."
Mike Quasar - I agree with that for sure. Most consumers don't have HD viewing equipment. And there are still alot that have no idea what the hell HD means. Truth be told I have a high def plasma flatscreen and when I watch Enterprise (Shot in high def) I really dont notice much difference than when I watch it on my regular TV. Actually my regular TV seems to be clearer. LOL
I also think that it's better to wait another few years until HD is the standard. You know when you can go down to your local Wal-Mart and buy an HD TV for $200.00. Because the technology is probably going to drasticly change between now and then.
Tony, thank you for your explanation. Now could you please explain it to this redhead as if she was a 6 year old? I.O.W you totally lost me. LOL
Between the typos, misspelling and technical jargon, I don't blame you.
Short answer:
Right now HDV looks more like a marketing gimmick than a break through. It may mature into the HD version of DV, i.e. a format useful to some professionals under some circumstances. But for right now it mostly looks like a $3,500-$5,000 way to say "shot on HD". The idea that it's going to give anyone what a Varicam, or SonyHDCAM, or Viper can give you is just silly.
The biggest benefit of shooting 24P is that you can make 24P DVDs. The idea that a clever feature on a $3,500 dollar camera is the key ingredient in making the footage is shoots look like what comes out of an Arri SRIII is silly; even if you put black bars on top and bottom.
Lastly, people do amazing looking work with DV (hello Quase), and for them, HDV and 24P are going to make their already good looking work look even better. But Sony, Panasonic, et al don't care about Quase, all they care about is selling units. And sort of like pornographers, they'll stamp the box with whatever they think will catch your eye, regardless of what it really has to do with what's inside the box.
Do you have it hooked up properly? for HD signal you need: 1) a television capable of displaying 780p, 1080i or 1080p (DVD can only do 480p at best, regular cable is 480i at best) 2) a high definition package (cable or satellite) 3) a digital cable set-top box (for your cable or satellite service) 4) either a component, DVI or HDMI cable connecting your set-top box to your TV (S-Video can't do it) 5) you may need to configure the set-top box or TV to use/transmit the better quality picture 5) Depending on your area you may have as few as 5 or 6 channels that broadcast in High Def.
Surround sound is another matter and only slightly less complicated.
I have a digital set top box and the only thing I use it for is the DVR (PVR) and radio stations. I watched a football game on a 720p LCD Projection HDTV and it looked pretty good, can't imagine how nice 1080p will look.
For what it's worth DVD can also be 576P (PAL) , although I admit that's just nit picking . The biggest complaint I've heard from people attempting to watch HD in America is that the TV networks often cheat the audience . Sometimes they'll broadcast a 480P source which has been uprezed to 720P , other times just 480 itself amazingly .
The stuff I've read about BlueRay from AVS forum suggests that 1080P is expected to be the standard resolution from the get go . Should be a major step forward .
Totally unrelated question , but is there a 24P mode which mimics the 25 fps of PAL , or is this an NTSC only feature ?
If a camera shoots in progressive frames, 25fps PAL is pretty close to what you get with an NTSC 24p camera with the pulldown added. Many indie or low budget filmmakers have shot their projects on PAL instead of NTSC because the transfer to film is easier, of course Tony would know more about that than me.
Seriously, if we cut to the "benefit to the porn consumer thing," I don't see HD as having any practical benefit.
Why? Because most people (i.e. the porn talent onscreen) do not look particularly "better" in the detailed clarity that HD provides (i.e. ruthlessly exposing every flaw... bad skin, ass pimples, wrinkles, stretch marks, etc.). Don't even get me started on inferior production values. HD is breathtaking with longer shots and natural landscapes (say the Grand Canyon), but brutal on close-ups of people's body parts.
The whole rationale behind HDTV in the first place was to increase the resolution available so that, when people start watching 30" to 72" TV screens (of all the various types) in order to get the "theatre experience," the image doesn't look like shit.
Why would it "look like shit"? The traditional standard NTSC broadcast TV provides the exact same resolution regardless of how large a TV-set or larger screen you are viewing it on. This, for example, is why the image on a 13" TV appears to be sharper and clearer than the image on a larger size screen. The larger screen is just a larger version of what you're seeing on the 13" screen, except now the eye starts to detect all the inherant "flaws" in the picture due to the limited resolution.
So, if you have larger screens (let's draw the line as larger than 27"), you need more resolution just to make the images look good. Of course, HDTV and whatever flavors of HD-direct-to-the-screen-functioning-in-effect-as-a-monitor eventually come to fruition, can and will produce spectacular images.
But so what? The cost of producing porn in HD will add significantly to the cost of production, produce questionable quality benefits as to the look of porn and needlessly raise the cost to consumers.
I can see Quaze and guys like Ninn, Avalon and Blake as being capable of producing porn of the quality to merit the full HD treatment. This means the whole production values thing... the sets, the clothes, the hair, makeup and grooming. Gonzo and studio series porn, however, just don't merit or benefit from HD.
Perhaps, when HD becomes the norm, it will make sense down the road because everything is then HD and the costs are no more than what NTSC is now.
The moment will be very apparent.
Just as DVD and VHS co-existed (before DVD took over as the standard for commercial video releases), HD and NTSC (and PAL) will co-exist for a long time before critical mass for the move to HD is achieved. We're still in the Betamax vs. VHS stage. We don't even have universal standards yet.
Food for thought... Think any consumer is going to give a rat's ass about dual-layer consumer DVDs once the 20-30 GB HD-friendly format is finally agreed on (as if they do now anyway)?
Bottom line is that CD and DVD technology – particularly the consumer investment in hardware and media content – is so massive, that nobody is going to be in any rush anytime soon to run out and "upgrade" everything all over again. And besides, anything that replaces CDs, DVDs and the related technologies they support will absolutely need to be backwardly compatible.
Honestly, I see a 10-to-15-year transition period before HD becomes "the standard."
As far as the setup of my television yeah I have all the little newfangled dinglehoppers and junk. Digital cable included. But oh well. I dont watch that much TV anyway. LOL
Don't get digital cable and HD cable confused. They're not the same thing (although most people think that they are). Digital cable can include both SD and HD channels. If you have HD, there will be two seperate channels for anything that is HD. For example, there's HBO and HBO-HD. Both contain the same content. The difference is that one is 480i and the other is 1080i. Even then, some of the content on HBO-HD is just upconverted SD.
Also, don't assume that your UPN is currently broadcasting anything in HD. The FCC mandate is for digital, not HD. Some station owners have not been willing to make the investment in HD and are only doing the absolute minimum necessary. If the local UPN is not broadcasting the HD version of Enterprise, then it doesn't matter what equipment you own or the level of service that cable company is providing.
Yeah but they are is the thing. Or at least CLAIM to be. Though I think the explanation of the larger the screen the more faults you see in the image is what is going on here actually. I can just notice a lot more of the flaws. Kind of like getting real close up to a smaller TV screen where you can see the pixels.
I've seen way too many cases where people bought a ws tv, "because its the future" or the sales guy told them so, and they watch broadcasts stretched to fill the empty space. The funny thing is when I ask them if they're satisfied with their tv, they seem to be very happy... not even mentioning the fucked up aspect ratio of 90% of what they watch. I asked one of them to turn off the stretching when we were watching sports, which is very hard to follow when stretched. "No way, whats the point in widescreen then?" was the the reply.
Should be interesting to see what the new HD media options do for porn. Even if they don't shoot in HD, companies will have 50+ gigs to play with on a blue ray disc. I'd be happy just having the standard definition video but at higher bitrates.
I'm so sick of everybody touting the supreme quality of dvd when I still see banding in all the gradients--even in mainstream movie releases. DVD was a geat improvement over VHS, but my old betacam sp still kicks it's ass. Hopefully blue ray (or whatever) will end forever the "not enough room on a dvd so I had to compress the shit out of the video" excuses.
This is a great discussion, and I've enjooyed reading it. Sadly I have nothing to add besides the fact that I'm moving it to Tech Talk where it really belongs..
The original question was, would gonzo go high def this year. The answer is it most likely went gonzo between last year and this year. The gonzo HD I've seen is 'Fan Sexxx' series put out by NASTY PIXXX & starring Shayla Laveaux. Could it be more appropriately called pro-gonzo since she's a big name star?
Almost a year has passed. There has been a lot of HD porn releases, but most minor titles. Few big titles with famous stars, and to my knowledge also little gonzo. But I might have missed it. Does anyone know?
Posted - Jan 20 2005 : 6:02PM
