Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intimate moments

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

    Intimate moments

    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.

    #2
    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

    Comment


      #3
      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


        #4
        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


          #5
          A 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.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by Frans View Post
            A 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.
            H.264 is used for HD television broadcasts in many parts of the world (Sky use it in the UK as do many of the American networks) and it's a popular QuickTime format. Not sure if it's the best choice here though, using Windows Media HD is more widely compatible (see their showcase for examples) and it's already what AW offers. In either case, you're right, HD does require more computer resources so SD would have to remain on offer too - and four different CODECs is getting a bit much from a content management standpoint.

            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.
            Last edited by Cryton; 11 October 2008, 10:59 PM. Reason: Add a postscript.

            Comment


              #7
              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


                #8
                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


                  #9
                  Originally posted by Frans View Post
                  but you'd need a HUGE screen to see full dvd res.
                  Indeed. And when you do have one, to quote my manager, Holy Fucking Shit.

                  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 Post
                  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.
                  It'll boil down to the bitrate and framerate. Generally the videos on AW are very smooth, which means they are encoded at a good framerate, 25 frames per second. If that gets bumped up also to 30 frames per second or 60, then you'll see some serious quality. But larger file sizes.

                  --

                  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


                    #10
                    I work with quite a lot of video, so if you'll permit a few points:
                    Originally posted by lzimbu View Post
                    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.
                    Don'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.
                    Originally posted by lzimbu View Post
                    Then there's FTV girls that have 8000 Mb per second bit-rate at a weird resolution, 1440x1080.
                    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.
                    Originally posted by Frans View Post
                    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.
                    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".
                    Originally posted by Frans View Post
                    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.
                    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.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      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


                        #12
                        Originally posted by Cryton View Post
                        Don'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.
                        I tried not to but wasn't aware wmv didn't support h.264. Which frankly is great since VC-1 is better.

                        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".
                        Yes 'DVD' is not a worthwhile resolution anymore. I literally can't watch dvd movies anymore.. or normal broadcast television. HD was what I've been waiting for these past few years since satellite, and I'll never be able to go back. Like going from stereo to surround.. something is just 'missing'.

                        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.
                        Given 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. Just a matter of resolution. The more people who have access to HD panels the more 720p and 1080p resolutions would make sense for the majority of members. It doesn't seem though like people have widescreen panels nor have they the bandwidth to the download 800 meg to 2 gig videos multiple times per week.
                        Last edited by lzimbu; 12 October 2008, 08:32 PM.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by Frans View Post
                          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 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?
                          Originally posted by Frans View Post
                          Hmm.. 8Mbit gets you about 60MByte/minute. Average 50 minute GG shoot would become.. 2.7Gb, ouch.
                          Well it's not for everyone that's for sure, and you need a fairly decent computer to process the clips, but with unlimited bandwidth ISP accounts and download managers it's not a completely impractical concept.

                          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 Post
                          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.
                          True, but it's quite common. In fact BBC HD broadcast at 1440×1080 in the UK, the 1.33:1 PAR correcting the aspect ratio when viewed. This is what FTV's videos are doing, which is quite clever of them actually because they're encoding 1,555,200 pixels instead of 1,966,080 but the playback size looks the same.
                          Originally posted by lzimbu View Post
                          Many of the Girls feature videos here at AW would benefit from 30 frames per second frame rate or higher.
                          Do you think frame rate would make that much of a difference as against resolution? 30fp/s is NTSC - which is why the American sites encode at that rate - but the next step would be 50fp/s progressive and the file sizes would increase again as a result - almost double in fact.
                          Originally posted by lzimbu View Post
                          Given 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.
                          That was my thinking too, and it seems that's why most other sites are using WMV. But having said that, any HD clips would be really welcome!

                          Comment


                            #14
                            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


                              #15
                              Originally posted by lzimbu View Post
                              It's 30 or 60.
                              Not in Australia, it's either 25fp/s or 50fp/s, since it's a traditional PAL territory.
                              Originally posted by lzimbu View Post
                              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.
                              You can't do that with video. Video cameras - unless we're talking the high-speed variety - shoot at 24fp/s, 25fp/s or 50fp/s (or 30/60 if NTSC) the former having the option of being interlaced or progressive, where interlaced has fifty fields per second. You can't then decimate that to a different value without all manner of horrendous artefacts - unless the frame rate increase is an exact multiple of the shooting format. Even then, you'd only be attempting to interpolate frames and not actually creating additional information, plus in doing so, you'd also vastly increase the file size.

                              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 Post
                              The resolution can be 1280x720 because it makes little difference going higher.
                              It's a good compromise, but isn't a huge step up from 576 (because it's the horizontal resolution that really matters), 1024 is vastly superior.

                              Comment


                                #16
                                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


                                  #17
                                  Originally posted by Cryton View Post
                                  I'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?
                                  Initial testing threads are here and here, those are OLD however. Much has been changed and tweaked. Enrico would be much better at answering these techy questions, but he's rather busy these days I gather.

                                  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


                                    #18
                                    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


                                      #19
                                      Originally posted by lzimbu View Post
                                      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?
                                      Of course not, that's not what Flash is for. It's a STREAMING format, so it should be..well.. viewed streaming

                                      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


                                        #20
                                        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


                                          #21
                                          ^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


                                            #22
                                            Well, I doubt that live IMs would be terribly practical, what with the time difference, but I suppose you could always ask HQ. ;-) I'd be mildly surprised if it were a thing that AW wanted to take up, but hey, you never know.

                                            Comment


                                              #23
                                              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


                                                #24
                                                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


                                                  #25
                                                  It would be something completely different, and as you mentioned, IIM would be a section onto itself if there were enough models who would commit to it.

                                                  Though I still have my doubts about just how interactive AW content should get.

                                                  Comment


                                                    #26
                                                    i use FLV just thought i'd add that..coz i just watch bits and peices of my shoots...


                                                    shhh...dont tell anyone im on here...i should be sleeping

                                                    Comment


                                                      #27
                                                      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


                                                        #28
                                                        Limo girls was fun

                                                        Comment


                                                          #29
                                                          Originally posted by rachelred View Post
                                                          AW have done some IMs in cars but I don’t know of any while the car was being driven.
                                                          Did 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


                                                            #30
                                                            Originally posted by Mermur View Post
                                                            Did 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.
                                                            Thanks for that. I had downloaded the vids but not the backstage, Ill do it now and check it out.

                                                            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