Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Shooting 3D?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    Shooting 3D?

    So, 3D is obviously here. It's become practical for companies like ours to shoot 3D. The question is, should we?
    31
    Hell yes, and I'd pay a bit more to see it as well.
    3.23%
    1
    Yes, but I would not pay more to see it
    16.13%
    5
    Maybe.
    29.03%
    9
    No thanks.
    51.61%
    16

    #2
    I'd like to see a shoot or two for novelty factor. Perhaps in the vein of the fitball girls shoot, or maybe even a 3d shoot for every subsite... But I wouldn't really want it to be a regular shoot unless it was absolutely amazing.

    I've seen a small amount of 3d porn and it hasn't floored me yet.

    Comment


      #3
      There's a reason why I voted yes and I'd be willing to pay just a bit extra to see it. While 3-D is obviously here, I am aware of the various 3-D formats out there now and I have to say if it's of the old-fasioned, 1950s style red & blue anagliphic type, forget it. Anagliphic merely washes out the color and makes the video or movie look cheap, as well as it is a distraction from what the producers and directors intend their viewers to experience. But if it's in a format superior to that I would definitely entertain the idea of 3-D vids on AW.

      Where is polarized 3-D technology in the realm of hi-def video? Why wouldn't that format work in hi-resolution video, or is polarized one of the formats Garion is considering?

      There is also the electronic, 'alternating lens' format pioneered by Panasonic and Samsung, that seems to work well in hi-def video, but how cost-effective will it be to produce AW vids in that type of 3-D? I too have had opportunity to try out the Panasonic Viera 3-D system at a local Best Buy and again at CompUSA, seemed fairly impressive but the wire leading to the 3-D glasses base station was cumbersome and distracting at best.

      If not any of these formats, what other 3-D formats out there do you think will work impressively with AW vids?

      Comment


        #4
        I would want to see a sample before committing to paying more. Fitball girls would be absolutely SUPER in 3D I think.

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by garionhall View Post
          So, 3D is obviously here. It's become practical for companies like ours to shoot 3D. The question is, should we?
          Not yet, not nearly enough members will have proper 3D TV's, nor is all the stuff standardized yet. Next year will prolly see a new type of screen (samsung says so anyway;-). Be aware not to get stuck with gear that's next to useless in a year.

          I'm also not sure how much this would increase the difficulty of shooting a scene at all. I can guess what *proper* 3D would add to shoots, but I have my doubts that can be shot that easily right now. I'd prefer more 2D compared to the trouble of 3D right now.

          I agree that tier1's prolly would most benefit from 3D shooting, there's usually more space to play with.

          p.s. It should prolly be noted that I'm rather risk-averse

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by garionhall View Post
            So, 3D is obviously here
            Not obvious to me -- while there is a push for home 3D, it seems to me the hardware is still at early-adopter stage, plus there's definitely a dearth of good content (2D-to-3D conversion sucks; decent 3D-rendered or 3D-shot films like Up or Avatar respectively are still rare).

            Comment


              #7
              I don't think the 3D technology is anywhere near mature enough.
              Give it a year or so and then maybe.
              Right now it's gimmicky.

              But I concur that T1 suff like fitball Girls would be awesome ...

              DP

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by violetafan View Post
                Not obvious to me -- while there is a push for home 3D, it seems to me the hardware is still at early-adopter stage, plus there's definitely a dearth of good content (2D-to-3D conversion sucks; decent 3D-rendered or 3D-shot films like Up or Avatar respectively are still rare).
                Don't forget 'Honey I Shrunk the Audience' and 'It's Tough to Be a Bug.' Two of the best 3-D film experiences I've seen so far.

                Closer to topic, I agree with depictmeuk and Frans in that 3D for home theater is still in its sketchy stages and with all these different formats fo which each of its creators say it works but the results aren't yet as impressive as a theatrical experience. If the different formats find themselfs in a format war then we could expect home 3D to go by the way of C-Quam AM stereo. Every set manufacturer will cease to support it and producers will stop producing.

                Comment


                  #9
                  I honestly don't see myself buying a 3D system in the next 5 years short of winning the lottery. It does seem to be a trend in cinema though. I've seen a few recent movies in 3D, but they always give me a headache. If it truly becomes wildly popular I say go for it. From a business standpoint though I'm not sure. It makes sense to want to be ahead of the curve. I believe further research is warranted. But of course, it's naked ladies in 3D. Of course there's going to be a demand for it.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    My thoughts are generally in accordance with those of Frans and department, to give things time to settle down but keeping a weather eye open on developments, so for the moment I'll give it a maybe but in the longer term then Yes, as for extra costs alas no doubt a regrettable necessity.

                    tom

                    Comment


                      #11
                      Crikey, I'm already falling in love with a new model (or two) every week. How's 3D gonna affect me.

                      I'm in the maybe camp. Generally, my opinion on the 3D question is in line with Frans, depictmeuk, and others. No way will I spend $3000 on a 3D TV to have become obsolete in a year. I wondered if the big adult film studios (vivid, wicked, ect...) are doing any 3D yet.
                      OMG! - http://www.mnn.com/lifestyle/arts-cu...-film-goes-3-d
                      Last edited by bookmanz; 10 August 2010, 10:01 AM. Reason: HEYI RESEARCHED the subject!

                      Comment


                        #12
                        I think we should go with the if-it-ain't-broke-don't-fix-it approach. AW is excellent the way it is and we don't need silly gimicks like 3D to enjoy it. However I do agree that some shoots (like the fitball girls shoot) would certainly be interesting, but not the solos and IM.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Hi there,

                          The answer I gave was no to this question. That is no as in not at the moment. As in this is an idea you should not dismiss or throw in the bin but one you need to park for consideration again in the future.

                          I do feel somewhat that I have some valid points to make here from my experience of having twice watched my favourite sport football (soccer to some) in 3D at pubs and then considering whether it did enhance the experience or not.

                          When I watched the action it was in a pub where they were showing the 3D version on one plasma screen and the normal version on the other screen(s). Right away it was noticeable that they were using different camera angles/views on the 3D version to on the non 3D version. Therefore the 3D cameras were differently positioned to the other cameras. This I realised having sat through the match is because some shots really do work in 3D whilst other camera angles just don't add any value in 3D. You do therefore need to be a bit more selective to make it worthwhile. A lot of the closer in shots were more spectacular whereas from further away I thought "what's the difference apart from the fact I am having to wear these annoying 3D glasses to watch it properly". It was quite cool but not something that greatly enhanced my watching experience. In fact I think the novelty actually distracted me a bit from the game. It is not like HD where I thought where has this been, now I'm not going back to SD wherever I can help it. I am quite happy to enjoy the game without 3D thanks.

                          I think when 3D screens or TVs become more conveniently priced and they do away with the need for the glasses then this becomes more of a goer.

                          I agree very much with others that this would suit things like the group activity shoots and maybe the occasional solo or IM. I would not support it being used for solos (except if a non-3D version was still offered alongside for the rest of us in which case it would be okay) and especially not for the more active sex shoots like T3s where I think it would really be a bit of a mess really.

                          I vote no for now because:

                          1) Technology is not yet widespread enough or reasonably priced enough.

                          2) I don't think even if a small number of people want it it is fair to then raise the subscription costs for everyone else. If you could somehow make the 3D videos available to those prepared to pay extra (like you have split the site into sections and the more of them you want the more you pay e.g After Dark) then it would be more acceptable.

                          3)I would rather you concentrated on or prioritised things that would add more value to the site at this current moment in time. Things like:


                          1. developing content and recruiting or
                          2. keeping hold of able and experienced staffers and technical folks (photographers, videographers, IT etc)
                          3. being able to attract from across the continent the same quality and types of model who we have been used to seeing on the site in its Melbourne days(by putting money into advertising and raising awareness in other European countries like here in Enland of AW new presence in Europe, Amsterdam in particular etc) .
                          4. transport costs, i.e. getting them to you at your HQ.
                          5.maintaining the quality and amount/regularity of content in the current sections (solo, IM and Girl/Girl)
                          6. developing new ideas like the After Dark part of the site.

                          These things seem more important right now. I don't think I am the only person who would rather see my money reinvested in content and people rather than too much techy stuff. I would complain less about my subs being raised to invest in one of these reasons.

                          The main thing for me is you've made the leap to HQ and quite often HD. I was previously one of the people moaning about file sizes but now I am sold and try and download my videos in HQ formats. This has also been made possible by the greater availability of large capactity external hard drives for affordable prices. To me this jump to crystal clear quality video to match the quality of the photos is much more significant and has improved my experience more than 3D could currently. If you could get some HD g/g offerings soon that would be sweet.

                          4) Some people have experienced 3D and don't particular feel they need or want it right now. Like I say I wouldn't mind the idea so much if you were still offering non-3D versions of the videos which are in 3D. This would mean taking out 2 separate camera crews for a shoot though and I don't know if you would have the staff resources or money to do this. If you didn't I'd rather you just kept with the non-3D for now.

                          Alright well that's my first attempt at constructive critcism of this idea. When I go to the cinema I am attracted to see a film because of any one or more of the following : good/innovative director, beautifully shot/great cinematography, good storyline/well written, good actors/actresses. Not whether it is in 3D or not. Similarly I come to AW because of the quality of your models, photography and videos, the ethos and values of the site and the personal touches like communicating with models and staff via the boards. Also you are unique and not yet bettered in what you do or the range of what you do. People are much more likely to desert the site if they feel the quality of the models/ photos/videos has plummeted, the site is just copying or apeing too much of what is already out there or available on adult sites, the personal touch has gone etc etc, not because there ain't no third dimension.

                          Anyway there you go, I think when a new idea is generated it has to have strong reasons in its favour and to be high in the priorities of things that will add significant value to the site whilst staying true to what has made it a success. Not just for its own sake or because others are doing it. Right now I don't think this is.

                          SF

                          Comment


                            #14
                            I voted no because I don't think that 3-D is a viable technology at this time. The only 3-D movie I have ever seen that I thought was done well was Avatar, and that was because I saw it in the theater in 3-D. Most people don't have (or want) a TV that shows movies in 3-D. Those TVs are expensive and they have found that wearing the 3-D glasses for an extended period causes headaches.

                            I saw bad 3-D movies when I was a kid, and until Avatar, most 3-D was bad. I liked the 3-D effects in Avatar because they were very subtle, not the typical, in-your-face 3-D that was typical. To use 3-D effects at AW wouldn't enhance the experience of watching videos, since most people can't afford the high price of a 3-D TV, and it would only make it more expensive for AW to shoot in 3-D.

                            Right now the fad is 3-D, but that will fade like it always does. Until 3-D gets cheaper and doesn't require you to wear glasses, it will always be a novelty, and I don't think AW needs to spend big bucks to get a 3-D camera that will only serve a handful of people who own 3-D TVs.

                            Comment


                              #15
                              So nothing ever came from this... but it would still be interesting to see at least one 3d shoot.

                              Comment

                              Subscribe to our e-mail newsletter

                               
                              Sign up for the abby newsletter. Don't worry, we'll NEVER share your email address with anyone.
                              Working...
                              X