I would like to see the intimate moments filmed by a person rather than a tripod. I'm assuming that this is the point though, that they are by themselves. but the sounds are always low and you can't see where the action is going. In the Girl Girl shots the cameras tent to move with the sounds and movements so you can hear everything and see everything. mayby mic-ing it better would do the trick to some degree.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Intimate moments
Collapse
X
-
-
The point of an IM/DIM shoot is indeed that the girls are left alone with the recording equipment. Could you give an example of an IM shoot (or several, even better!) where you think the audio is to low? We can certainly look into that.
The camera angles are a bit more of a challenge, since the girl(s) move around during the shoot and the camera itself is in a fixed position (usually, we have some self-shot IM's) the camera needs to get a wide angle. Otherwise the model might move outside the recorded area, still happens occasionally with energetic or enthusiastic models though As a result IM shoots usually don't have much a close-up view.
Doesn't mean you can't SEE everything though, check out http://abbywinters.com/main.php?page=profile&model=2814 and you get a perfect view 'cos the camera is aimed straight at her and she's sitting up. For a closer view you need a bigger screen I suppose
-
I partly have the same comment.
When done right, FTV Girls, having a 3rd party present (clothed, silent, or talking) does really help make an intimate moments video less pointless. Unless a model is talking there really isn't any sound... Which imo is better than cheesy cover music some sites tend to offer.
The effect is disarming because you know the model is at ease with that friend nearby. I'm not sure if that person is their as a comfort to the new models while they are being captured on video, but it does work (more often than AW IM videos do).
Granted some AW intimate moments videos are really good, only those with a good engaging discourse by the model makes you care enough to want to watch her pleasure herself. Even then she must do that right also. I watch them more to get to know the models than what they are capable of achieving on their own in private. It almost feels too private.
Comment
-
I think that when (if ever?) AW starts offering HD video it'll really benefit the IM clips. Right now, the details are lost due to the limited resolution, whereas in HD, the required wide angles could be retained but the subject would be much larger. IMs would be a good place to start with HD as the limited movement would keep file sizes down.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Frans View PostA new encoding/codec called H.264 is currently being tested. I *think* HD video can be easier offered using that. Compresses better, though requires a slightly faster computer to decode.
By-the-way, most "adult" sites seem to offer HD content using Windows Media so there must be something to it. I can only think of one that uses H.264. I won't mention the name (not sure if it's allowed) but it is one recommended by AW.
Either way, HD would benefit most of the videos here, but the IM especially.
Comment
-
H.264 is a part of the answer.
It works very well, as mentioned, for Quicktime videos, but more practically for MP4 format. MP4 works on windows and mac without requiring either quicktime or wmplayer for playback. Nero Showtime actually does an awesome job playing back MP4 format videos.
I really started to like the format because of Femjoy. Their HD videos are stunning and still very tiny. Granted the videos aren't that long, they don't really need to be. For AW H.264 (which can be used on all three formats, wmv mpg(avi/mkv) and quicktime, just means an increase in quality/detail but doesn't directly address what resolution videos should be offered in. 1280x720 is a good sweet spot.
Still bit-rate and resolution are of primary concern, the resolution of AW current content, is kinda tiny even if it is 16:9.
The most recent Femjoy video I have is 1280x720 pixels @ 3.5 Mb per second. Looks gorgeous. But at only 5 minutes long versus an average 15-20 minutes for AW content, the file size of 150 megs would mean a 450-600 meg AW video.
Then there's FTV girls that have 8000 Mb per second bit-rate at a weird resolution, 1440x1080. Stunning without question, but the same problem as Femjoy, the videos are between 5 and 10 minutes to stay between 400 megs and a gig.
Doesn't seem like a huge jump in file size, given the increase in quality. While they remain under a gig I'm sure most members would be OK with downloading larger videos. While some of us who can download 1 gig videos would again, be quite happy to pay extra to make it possible (1280x720 videos encoded with the H.264 codec in MP4 format (to replace the pointless MPEG format) at 30 frames per second or higher).
Comment
-
I think FTV's bitrate is severe overkill, it looks cool on promos probably but you'd need a HUGE screen to see full dvd res. There have been some larger filesize vids on site (around 400Mb at least) and yes most members can and download those. Giving them more choices would be nice though.
Encoding gear is specified here, in case you're interested. Some people still use MPG and it offers good quality to those who use it so it might well stay.
Currently a full g/g shoot is close to or slightly over 1 Gb as WMV download already. I'm wondering how much better a H.264 version of the same shoot at same bitrate would look.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Frans View Postbut you'd need a HUGE screen to see full dvd res.
FTV's 8 meg bitrate isn't DVD quality, it really is something of their own. It works.
Alternatively another site, two actually, I've seen with widescreen HD content, uses another odd resolution. 1068x600 @ 5 Megs. This is something of a great res and bitrate combination because it is fluid and fills the screen well. Just you can't overlook the slight blurriness (once you've been watching proper HD content for a while). Where the VC-1 imo, for HDDVDs does look better.
Epic Games released this new video documentary, fifth in order, for Gears of War 2. I don't know if it's considered to be good or bad timing to release it in the middle of TGS, but this one is at least interesting to watch. It covers the multiplayer mode and the new modes.
For example, a trailer for Gears of War 2, running at 720p, 30 frames per second. 6.5 megs percsecond bitrate. Stunning. The video is encoded in VC-1 (which I wasn't aware of until I checked). Reminds me why I prefer VC-1 to h.264.
While at 1.7 gigs and 43 frames per second, this Diaries video is yes, just a bit excessively huge for only 15 minutes.
Originally posted by Frans View PostCurrently a full g/g shoot is close to or slightly over 1 Gb as WMV download already. I'm wondering how much better a H.264 version of the same shoot at same bitrate would look.
--
Another great codec out there is x264 or Xvid. The content on some sites that use is is stunning. A free example is gamersyde.com. Download any of their Diaries videos (after installing the xvid codec if you don't already have it). They look as good as watching television.Last edited by lzimbu; 12 October 2008, 01:42 PM.
Comment
-
I work with quite a lot of video, so if you'll permit a few points:
Originally posted by lzimbu View PostFor AW H.264 (which can be used on all three formats, wmv mpg(avi/mkv) and quicktime, just means an increase in quality/detail but doesn't directly address what resolution videos should be offered in. 1280x720 is a good sweet spot.
Originally posted by lzimbu View PostThen there's FTV girls that have 8000 Mb per second bit-rate at a weird resolution, 1440x1080.
Originally posted by Frans View PostI think FTV's bitrate is severe overkill, it looks cool on promos probably but you'd need a HUGE screen to see full dvd res.
Originally posted by Frans View PostCurrently a full g/g shoot is close to or slightly over 1 Gb as WMV download already. I'm wondering how much better a H.264 version of the same shoot at same bitrate would look.
Ultimately, I think the choice should probably be driven by which system is the most widely used and will cause the fewest support calls. Most AW members probably just want to double-click something and view it, rather than having to download a player or CODEC. For that reason, Windows Media with VC-1 seems to be the first choice and probably why it's so widely used amongst other adult sites.
Comment
-
The gear used to shoot stuff is specified here: http://www.abbywinters.com/main.php?...site#videogear, indeed a HV(X)20.
The choice between WMV-HD (VC1) and H.264 has been made already, many months ago. H.264 it is going to be. I'm not sure what bitrate they're going with, we'll have to wait and see I suppose. Especially *see* .
Hmm.. 8Mbit gets you about 60MByte/minute. Average 50 minute GG shoot would become.. 2.7Gb, ouch..
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cryton View PostDon't confuse a container - such as AVI - with a CODEC. H.264 (AKA MPEG-4) is a CODEC, so it can work with certain containers, but not Windows Media (which employs the VC-1 CODEC and is proprietary) or the MPEG used here at AW, which is MPEG-1 and used for maximum backward compatibility.
That's a valid HD resolution because they're using a 16:9 PAR. In other words, it's anamorphic 1920×1080, which is the native format of HDV and what they're shooting on. I spotted some of the girls there self-shooting on the superb little Canon HV20, and it uses the HDV format. The Windows Media encoder allows non-square pixels, so when replayed it displays as 1920×1080. It's actually an excellent compromise between 1080 and 720 and their videos do look excellent... and they need the 8Mb/s at times, especially with outdoor shots.
Actually no. A PAL DVD is 720×576 resolution (NTSC at 720×480 even less) therefore the image area is actually much smaller than that of the average photograph here at AW, so in computing terms a DVD is very low resolution. I don't think FTV's bitrate is overkill either, they have a lot of outdoor shots with a lot of movement, and to keep them relatively artefact-free the high data rate is required. I'll have to check whether they're CBR or VBR. Either way, it's far above and beyond "DVD quality".
I'm saying it's weird, 1440x1080, because no television or monitor has that as a native resolution. Either the video will be shrunk or stretched for full screen playback. Again though it doesn't matter because as a net video resolution it plays back stunningly well due to the bitrate, which is CBR, and frame rate 30 frames per second. Many of the Girls feature videos here at AW would benefit from 30 frames per second frame rate or higher.
Since you mention it VBR would make a big difference in IM videos where there isn't much motion on screen. The lower bit-rate would allow for a higher frame rate.
WMV with a VC-1 CODEC and VBR - rather than the CBR (I think) AW still use would, in theory, be about 30% smaller.
Ultimately, I think the choice should probably be driven by which system is the most widely used and will cause the fewest support calls. Most AW members probably just want to double-click something and view it, rather than having to download a player or CODEC. For that reason, Windows Media with VC-1 seems to be the first choice and probably why it's so widely used amongst other adult sites.Last edited by lzimbu; 12 October 2008, 08:32 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Frans View PostThe choice between WMV-HD (VC1) and H.264 has been made already, many months ago. H.264 it is going to be.
Originally posted by Frans View PostHmm.. 8Mbit gets you about 60MByte/minute. Average 50 minute GG shoot would become.. 2.7Gb, ouch.
Just looking at the latest FTV update for a real world example; it is a mixed indoor/outdoor shoot and the three segments run to 1 hour, 5 minutes and 45 seconds. Total download, 3.76GB (or thereabouts). The videos are actually 8,192kb/s CBR (192kb/s for the audio) and I've no idea why they're not shaving some off with VBR.
Originally posted by lzimbu View PostI'm saying it's weird, 1440x1080, because no television or monitor has that as a native resolution. Either the video will be shrunk or stretched for full screen playback.
Originally posted by lzimbu View PostMany of the Girls feature videos here at AW would benefit from 30 frames per second frame rate or higher.
Originally posted by lzimbu View PostGiven that VC-1 is natively supported by the current version of wmp, wmplayer 11, and the added benefit of VBR for low motion videos, with a reasonable top bit-rate 6-8 megs, then yes I agree that would really increase the quality of videos for the site, with the fewest possible complaints.
Comment
-
It's 30 or 60. Since there isn't an interlaced versus progressive question AW can use whatever frame rate they like. Where I understand 42-43, that's half 85hz of a monitor.
But from the example I gave, gamersyde.com, they tried 42-43 frames per second to good effect on 720p resolution.
I'm personally not complaining about 25 frames per second. It gets the job done.
If FTV needs a better reason than being the stand out masters of HD videos by using CBR, they can hurt their heads thinking of one. VBR would help but there isn't a problem. High Speed access and HD adoptions seems to have hit a high enough market penetration that as mentioned a great many sites are moving towards HD. But even FTV isn't running FULL HD content at the bitrate limits for their chosen codecs. They've decided on a recipe that they feel good with and their users are happy with.
I'd like to think some sites like AW and Danni.com, the jane-coming-lately's-if-evers, will finally hash out an HD spec of their own.
If it has to be H.264, that's easy to live with. the resolution can be 1280x720 because it makes little difference going higher. But until unlimited broadband hits a high enough penetration in Oz, regardless of overseas members having it, I can get holding back until the moment seems right.
Lastly is that not everyone has several hundred spare gigs kicking around, but with terabyte drives nearing 100USD even that excuse is going to falter soon.
Maybe AW US and AW UK? Give those users the content they ask for while also having international content? That appeal has brought some sites and networks great success. The key being 'networks'.
Comment
-
Originally posted by lzimbu View PostIt's 30 or 60.
Originally posted by lzimbu View PostSince there isn't an interlaced versus progressive question AW can use whatever frame rate they like. Where I understand 42-43, that's half 85hz of a monitor. But from the example I gave, gamersyde.com, they tried 42-43 frames per second to good effect on 720p resolution.
If AW were to start producing 720p at 42fp/s, they also need to start manufacturing their own video cameras!
Originally posted by lzimbu View PostThe resolution can be 1280x720 because it makes little difference going higher.
Comment
-
Yes I mean you can play with the frame rate when you're encoding.
While, at 50 or 60 frames per second, it really doesn't make a difference if your LCD panel is running 50hz or 60hz.
50 would seem to be the best for PAL and NTSC territories who are using a digital panel to view the content, and still be overkill considering 30 is fine. 25 stutters too much like badly encoded TV shows.
In any case... the resolution, 768x432.. is soooo small..Last edited by lzimbu; 13 October 2008, 03:56 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Cryton View PostI'm not sure that's the best choice, but as you say, it'll be interesting to "see" how it turns out and what impact it has on support. I know when the site added Flash there was a public testing period, were there any H.264 tests we could look at?
I'm not entirely sure about this but I *think* H.264 was partially chosen because Macs can handle that better as well. Again an assumption but I think MPG is mostly used by Mac users these days, so if H.264 (at a low bitrate) can replace MPG we could drop MPG entirely without loosing much functionality for most members. Again, that is purely personal speculation.
Comment
-
Which has to be it (Mac support) since Microsoft's VC-1 would be best for Windows platform only.
So Quicktime encoded with h.264, and MP4 using h.264, and WMV with VC-1 would be 3 good formats for AW to support.
I don't understand why FLV was adopted at all or why MPEG was retained. If only as a quick preview format sure, but do people seriously download and archive FLV?
Comment
-
Originally posted by lzimbu View PostI don't understand why FLV was adopted at all or why MPEG was retained. If only as a quick preview format sure, but do people seriously download and archive FLV?
What was happening is that people opened the wmv/mpg vids directly from the link. WMP pretends to stream in such cases but it's not exactly ideal given the bitrate and download speeds. So now we have a proper streaming alternative and yes it IS used by members. Usually to preview prior to downloading the mpg or wmv version but some members (or models) have a such a restricted connection (Australia even has traffic limits like 5Gb/month!) that they need to use flash in order to view video at all.
Comment
-
Well, much as the close-up issue in IMs can probably be fixed with technology, I myself would actually also like there to be more of the "interactive" breed of IM. I'm not saying that the classic IMs and DIMs should go, but I really loved Chloe B's solo/IM thingie, and wish there were of the kind. Granted, not every girl is going to be comfortable doing specifically that, but for those who are, why not do it? There definitely is something to be said for the voyeuristic appeal of the classic IM, but I reckon the idea of having that different breed of IM, in which the feel is more of the model inviting the voyeur to watch, and thus allowing the camera angles to be more varied and interactive, would be kinda nice too.
Comment
-
^You'll find most of us agree.
Static camera IM may have it's fans but I'm with you on there being someone, who knows what she's doing, behind the camera.
My only question is would it be more P.O.V. style, where the model has invited the camera along for the ride or us the viewers? OR something more interactive still?
It would be a subtle thing for the model to be addressing the person behind the camera or us, versus the model getting feedback live from a Live audience.
Some sites, notably Danni.com, have live events where the model can address her fans live. So we can ask for those camera angles we want to see.
Live IMs?
Comment
-
I only mentioned it because you mentioned interactive. I wanted to know just how interactive you meant. With us or the person holding the camera.
Would be interesting to get that live interaction from models and members if technology permitted. And as you mentioned immie the models and AW HQ were into the concept.
Comment
-
excellent.... I understand what you are talking about again.... never thought I would have been totally lost in a thread called Intimate moments.
I like the IM and to a lesser extend DIM exactly how they are now... the whole reason the IM was introduced was for the model to be totally alone.
The "interactive bread of IM" can still be done as a redux and found via the lists.... we don't wont them to have an excuse to add a forth site, solo, GG, IM, IIM... three is way more than enough...
Sorry... I'm getting of the point... I'm more than happy with current format knowing that we are getting IM's from some models that may not feel as comfortable with someone else in the room, or alter what they would normally do to be more camera friendly. And can you imagine the caous that a live interactive IM would have... 186 members all asking for different camera angels or touching different parts... poor girl would just be entertaining there would be no IM.
In short - if it ain't broke don't fix it
Comment
-
IM in motion
I have an idea for an IM. Although it can’t be a traditional IM because it will need another person there.
The other weekend I did an interstate road trip with my partner. It was a long drive, so to pass the time he stashed some toys in the glove box. He drove the car and we discussed a few raunchy topics and then he said check in the glove box. Once I found one of my favourite toys, the next hour of travelling seemed to just disappear. One of my thoughts that pushed me over the edge at one stage was thinking about having a camera setup in the car and being on an AW clip.
It was during the day, but it is a big car and no one can see in very well. AW have done some IMs in cars but I don’t know of any while the car was being driven. Just make sure the driver doesn’t get too distracted.
RR
Comment
-
Originally posted by rachelred View PostAW have done some IMs in cars but I don’t know of any while the car was being driven.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Mermur View PostDid you watch the backstage video of the Marigold and Christiana T3? It contains a scene - with Christiana masturbating while Marigold is driving - which comes quite close to what you describe.
Comment
Comment