Does HD Content Really Matter Yet?

[Lee]

I was wondering what you folks thought about this, do you think many surfers are actually interested (or even capable) of viewing high definition content yet?

It seems to me like this is being hyped right now because it 'could' become the next big thing for porn, not because it is something the surfers actually want to be seeing.

What do you folks think, do surfers actually realize what HD content is?

Regards,

Lee

[sc32803]

I'm a soon to be webmaster but currntly just a porn consumer and I can tell you that the sites that are shooting in widescreen 16:9 HD (like Sean Cody) look amazing on my 42" flat screen TV, which I also use as my computer monitor through an HDMI hook up. I also have video productin experience and would recommend that if any would-be porn producer was starting out they should buy HD camcorders since the prices have come way down.

The thing with HD is once you see it you get spolied and don't want to watch anything else. I'm not a sports fan but I find myself stopping on football games and other sports shown in HD because the picture is so breathtaking.

So to answer your question, if I was tring to decide between two porn sites to join and everything was equal except that one was in HD, I would probably go with that one. In a competitive business like this it might be good to offer that extra icing on the cake.

[basschick]

i don't have a super computer or monitor - i'm not even on a dualcore, but HD videos look flawless when i go full screen, which even the best standard videos don't. i'm always happy to see them as no jagged edges or blurs or artifacting makes for a much better video experience.

at the few sites i've seen that offer their HD at over 4 Mbps, i lose frames while i watch, though - it's too much for my player or something.

[PornTeam]

we just started surveying our customers about HD. I will let you know what they think after. Talking to them on the phone, if it is going to cost more they dont want it. But I will let you know more after we are done asking.

Cheers

[abostonboy]

Lee,

If you are talking about Porn sites advertising that they have HD films on their websites, then it does make a difference.

A few affiliates have told me that when a site went HD and advertised it that way their sales went way up as well as conversions. So, from a consumers standpoint and a programs owners standpoint I believe that filming and advertising HD is worth the investment.

Not sure about the DVD market.

Lloyd

[gaybucks_chip]

As far as web-based delivery, one can render standard def, full-frame video at 3 or 4Mbps with a good codec like H.264 and it should play on practically anything, up to a 50" screen, without jagged edges or artifacting. I suspect a lot of sites are simply uprezzing older, lower-res files rather than going back to the source AVIs and re-encoding them.

That said, however, there's clearly a difference between HD and SD video, and I'm sure HD will eventually supplant SD, if nothing else because of competitive market forces. And I can imagine that even *saying* you have HD video will get surfers to join your site, whether you actually have it, or whether you have SD that you've uprezzed to HD-like bitrates.

As far as DVDs, we had a long discussion with our DVD replicator about the issue a couple months ago, and one of the issues is that Blu-Ray actually requires different equipment (which is something like $500,000 or more per machine) to replicate, while regular DVD machines can be retrofitted to produce HD-DVDs. At the moment, there are very few replicators that actually have Blu-Ray equipment, and those that do find their machines booked 24 hours a day, so getting a replicator to take an order for a small (under 5000 unit) run, when they have constant orders for 50 to 100,000 units from the major movie studios is a bit of a challenge. Not to mention that replication costs are, for now, 3 to 4 times the cost of regular SD dvds.

I think the industry will eventually move in that direction. We started shooting in HD about a year ago. We still shoot some scenes on tape (SD), just because it's a less cumbersome medium to work in, but will probably shift over to all HD within the next few months. It will probably be far longer before we shift all of our DVDs and website properties to all HD.

[basschick]

more than half the pornsurfers i've talked to don't even know correctly what HD is - nor do a number of webmaters whose sites say they offer HD when what they have is very good quality SD. they're always surprised when i tell them their vids aren't HD.

my thought is that if people don't know what HD is, they sure can't tell you if they want/like it.

we just started surveying our customers about HD. I will let you know what they think after. Talking to them on the phone, if it is going to cost more they dont want it. But I will let you know more after we are done asking.

Cheers

[gaybucks_chip]

more than half the pornsurfers i've talked to don't even know correctly what HD is - nor do a number of webmaters whose sites say they offer HD when what they have is very good quality SD. they're always surprised when i tell them their vids aren't HD.

That is a VERY good point. Honestly, I suspect that one could advertise high-bandwidth SD content as HD and very, very few people would know the difference. For that matter, given that even HDV (which isn't true HD) in ultra-compressed mode is about 25Mbits at full screen, I doubt that much of any of the sites advertising HD are actually delivering it.

[nickbaer]

I feel that HD doesn't matter.

I shoot with a fairly new SONY HDV camera... HD anamorphic widescreen.

I luv the camera, I shoot HD, but I import the SD version of the video, and I produce SD DVDs. (The HD tapes are in storage).

I would imagine most consumers are still at the widescreen stage of the evolution of video, and SD vs HD is not much concern.

I enjoy watching TV in HD, but not sure we small adult production companies can put enough resources into the workflow to really make a difference. it seems that modern HD programs on TV is more about the color enhancing and visual effects than what the camera itself captured on set.


On the other hand... our VOD providers (and I have polled the top 5 - that I work with) are definitely NTSC SD, 640x480... they really aren't even 720x480, they are 1960s color TV NTSC 640x480.

I had so cornfused them (and you know who the top 5 are) with my anamorphic 16:9 widescreen DVDs, that I now make a 4:3 640x480 version just for VOD.

[Chilihost]

HD does look really good on a large monitor, and great looking videos and photos means happier members and more rebills.

[FriskyMatt]

Are content suppliers selling HD content yet? If so, is it worth buying?

[SPACE GLIDER]

Wonder what will eventually replace blu ray.

[Dilbertdidporn]

Now you knew the Answer to that Tech waits for no Man!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/7205338.stm

Super Hi-Vision - or Ultra High-Definition TV as it is sometimes known - carries some impressive statistics.

It has a screen resolution of 7680x4320 pixels, 16 times greater than current HD.

I love this figure,,To transfer just 18 minutes of video requires some 3.5 terabits of data.