Poll: Are You Shooting In Hi-Def

[XXXWriterDude]

Just wondering who on here might be shooting in hi-def video. I know there was a thread about this a while back, but I don't recall anyone actually coming out and asking, "Who is and who isn't?" Though maybe I missed it. Apologies in advance if so.

[XXXWriterDude]

Oh, forgot to say... please post a comment in this thread to let me know who you are and what you think about Hi-Def content. I'm researching something for a story.

[TropixxxStudios]

We will be making the switch this summer. We currently shoot with 3 chip Canon GL-2's and a Sony VX2000. We upgraded our computers and software to the new FCP HD and are just saving for the high cost of the HD cameras. Although the prices are dropping very quickly.

Interestingly, we have had a few customers complain about the "high quality" of our video images in the past...not amateur enough for them I suppose.

As such, we went out and bought two Canon ZR60's (very low end consumer cameras) and try to put out some "hidden" or Reality style stuff from time to time. That seemed to make everyone happy.

I can't wait to hear the complaints this time around.

[Squirt]

I've been shooting in HDV for the last year or so.

Love it, though it can be very unforgiving :uhoh:

[IntenseCash.com]

We are going to start shooting Broke Straight Boys in high defintion and well as a new site that should be out in late March. We have shot alot of duo shoots in high def and are still deciding whether or not to launch the site in HD. I think even if you aren't going to use high def now it is good to shoot in high def incase you decide you want to use it later.

Mark

[gaybucks_chip]

You didn't have an option for "Yes, I shoot in hi-def, and it's a pain in the ass, but I think it's worth it." That's my vote.

I just did a pretty detailed post on GFY about a week ago on the hi-def issue. There is a LOT of confusion out there, because HDV, which most of the hi-def cameras under $6000 use, is really more of a "mid-def" format. It does shoot in 720p (720 lines progressive) and 1080i (1080 lines, interlaced), but then it throws away 75% of the data and heavily compresses everything into a data stream that is 1/4 of what true hi-definition is.

The reason for that is because it's not possible to store more than 25Mbits/sec on DV tape. True 1080p or even 720p HD requires a data stream of 50 to 100Mbps, which means that the content has to be stored on memory cards or hard drives.

That isn't to say that HDV is a shitty format; it's definitely better than regular (S) DV. But there is a dramatic difference between HDV and true HD in color depth, and because HDV stores data in MPEG format, it is, by nature, a "lossy" compression method which means that you have to be very careful, because additional data/definition is lost with every generation away from the original. So you can't for example take the edited AVI, bring it in, reedit it, re-output it, and do that 3 or 4 times without introducing artifacts or losing resolution.

We went back and forth for a long time; HDV is a lot simpler to work with because it's a tape format, but we ultimately decided to go with the full HD format and the tapeless recording (and insane amount of storage required) that comes with it.

I would say that if you are shooting content for use on the Web within the next 3-5 years, HDV is probably fine. But because we are shooting for web as well as DVD (and, perhaps later this year, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray), we decided that the investment in the extra technology would pay off in the long term.

Now the only catch is finding ways to efficiently store, backup and manage content where a 15 minute scene that is almost 15 gigs of data (vs about 3 gigs with standard DV)

[A_DeAngelo]

my opinion has changed since I first posted on this topic...

High Definition Could Be a View Too Real
intersting read on the topic of HD in this morning's times... on the subject of one of the major stumbling blocks we became aware of a while back when we were faced with shooting HD videos...

we don't shoot in HD (at least not for now)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/bu...ewanted=1&_r=1

[gaybucks_chip]

my opinion has changed since I first posted on this topic...

High Definition Could Be a View Too Real
intersting read on the topic of HD in this morning's times... on the subject of one of the major stumbling blocks we became aware of a while back when we were faced with shooting HD videos...

we don't shoot in HD (at least not for now)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/bu...ewanted=1&_r=1

We're also really concerned about whether people will want to see the razor burn and other imperfections that show up oh-so-well in Close Up Living Color. So far, we're just downconverting to SD and outputting as we always have. It will be interesting to see what sort of response we actually get when we experiment putting hi def up for people to view.

[dr dick]

we've shot some content in HD for a client. we won't be going there soon ourselves. i don't think it's worth the extra costs, not for most porn that is. close-ups in HD are downright scary. does anyone really want to see that? i don't think so. i think HD is good for establishing shots and out-doorsy kinds of stuff. i personally wasn't impressed with in studio shooting in HD.

[SPACE GLIDER]

close-ups in HD are downright scary.

You ain't a woofin'. Suppose it would be fine if my goal was to enjoy autopsies.

[XXXWriterDude]

Interesting responses. The question I have, though, is what are the benefits of shooting in HD, besides clarity of picture?

I think it's very interesting how so many of us talk often of our fondness for the old grainiess and grittiness of '70s porn -- and there are many porn fans who still say this is their favorite porn -- so why would we want to move further away from that? Isn't sex supposed to be a little gritty and imperfect to begin with?

[dr dick]

I think it's very interesting how so many of us talk often of our fondness for the old grainiess and grittiness of '70s porn -- and there are many porn fans who still say this is their favorite porn -- so why would we want to move further away from that? Isn't sex supposed to be a little gritty and imperfect to begin with?

my sentiments exactly! this is what we say in our mission statement:

Do you remember the golden age of porn?
— Those innocent, unassuming, joyful, playful, classic films of a bygone era?
— The days when the sex was earnest, wild and hot, yet oh so sweet?
— When production took a back seat to honest, unabashed passion?
— The time before all the polish and gloss, before the cult of hyper-masculinity?
— Before all the posturing and self-absorption, before the body stereotyping and humorless, deadpan sex?
— The days before the cookie cutter, assembly line productions that currently rule the marketplace?

Well, we do! And we are delighted to present our homage to that brief time when we celebrated our sexuality with wild abandon and carried on without pretense.

Daddy Oohhh! Productions labors to capture some of the spirit and pathos of that golden era. We produce projects that celebrate sexuality, not denigrate it. We replace what has somehow gone missing from porn lately; the romantic, alluring and seductive aspects of sex. We remedy this by putting the playfulness back into sex play, and doing so with wit, style and a sense of humor. We assume that this will strike a successful cord with all sex positive people.

So if you sense that something has gone missing from adult entertainment lately why not check out our titles and see if they help restore your faith in good old-fashioned smut.

[XXXWriterDude]

my opinion has changed since I first posted on this topic...

High Definition Could Be a View Too Real
intersting read on the topic of HD in this morning's times... on the subject of one of the major stumbling blocks we became aware of a while back when we were faced with shooting HD videos...

we don't shoot in HD (at least not for now)

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/bu...ewanted=1&_r=1

Hey Tony,

I couldn't get this NY Times link to work. Looks like that page has been taken down.... Grrrrr!

[A_DeAngelo]

sorry - you have to join up at the NYT to view

it WAS live in my post a week or so ago

[Squirt]

Interesting responses. The question I have, though, is what are the benefits of shooting in HD, besides clarity of picture?

I think it's very interesting how so many of us talk often of our fondness for the old grainiess and grittiness of '70s porn -- and there are many porn fans who still say this is their favorite porn -- so why would we want to move further away from that? Isn't sex supposed to be a little gritty and imperfect to begin with?

I've been struggling with this same issue

On one hand my squirtit.com site was amateur and since I've been transitioning to pro am I've gotten emails from subs asking me to keep things the way they were.

On the other hand I have my sleepingmen.com site, which is extremely low tech, shot in nightvision (black, gray and green) and is doing considerably better in sales then the squirtit site.

My instinct tells me that in only particular niche cases will HDV be successful in porn, or any other media.

People are used to seeing things a particular way, with their own eyes, in a certain resolution, anything to fuzzy, or to clear, will be distracting to the content I think , in most cases.