Slashdot Mirror
Porn Industry May Not Decide Format War
nixkuroi writes "MSNBC Reports that the porn industry may be overstating their numbers and, as a result, may not be the decider of the next winning movie format. Even more interesting: Vivid Entertainment says that despite Sony's refusal to license Blu-ray to the adult industry, they've found a way to replicate the technology and will release Debbie Does Dallas on both formats. Film writer Jimmy Digiorgio states, in an email with MSNBC: 'In the past, porn embraced new technologies that were just gaining a foothold. DVDs are not new, and I don't think consumers perceive Blu-Ray and HD-DVD as new technologies. Instead, they see them as an evolution of an existing technology.... With Blu-ray [versus] HD-DVD, porn will go where the masses go.'"
no way do I want to see any of these "actors" in HD, either format.
Sent from your iPad.
Porn or not, I find it quite worrying that Sony is able to dictate who is allowed to print films onto Blu-ray. If indeed that is the situation.
Is it significantly more worrying than that Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo are able to dictate who is allowed to print games designed to be played on a television onto discs?
What is the point of putting something that looks like 8mm film on HD, BluRay, or DVD for that matter?
I suggest you read Slashdot
Porn is only but one factor in who will win the format war. In the early 80's porn really made a difference in the Beta vs. VHS war because there was such a large demand for people to be able to enjoy porn in the comfort of their own homes. That was a huge driver and made a difference in VHS toppling Beta.
Fast-forward to today, does anybody think that the driver for HD Porn is as strong as being able to watch porn in your own house back then? It's not... So even though porn may be a factor in the blu-ray vs. HD-DVD war, it certainly won't play as big as a role as it did back int he 80's when it was Beta vs. VHS.
All these porn studios won't be able to ignore the millions of PS3's out there for long if there is in deed a market for this kind of stuff so in the end, like Vivid, they will find a way to bring porn to Blu-Ray if they have a chance of making a profit that way.
With Blu-ray [versus] HD-DVD, porn will go where the masses go.'"
Basically he's saying that they see no real need to choose/anoint a particular format now anyway, as they, just like everyone else, acknowledges that the DVD->HD jump is nothing compared to the VHS->DVD jump. So when, and if, a format takes hold and gains momentum, they'll just ride the wave. They have little to nothing to gain by selecting a camp now.
I can only hope that Blu-Ray goes the way of Betamax, MiniDisc, and PSP Movies. It seems that Sony has a habit of developing good standards for media, but they don't gain market dominance because Sony holds on too tightly to them.
I think you misunderstand. I don't think it's the adult industry claiming they have an exceedingly large amount of clout.
It's everyone pointing out that, historically, porn was a factor in deciding new media decisions and adoption. Initially, Sony wouldn't allow adult titles on Beta, and it's popularity in VHS contributed to the success of that format.
This isn't the adult industry going around saying "all your base are belong to us", it's analysts and pundits saying that, in the past, they have played a large part. This whole thread is the someone from the adult industry saying "umm, it will be the consumers who decide this, not us".
But, it is an inescapable fact that an incredible amount of porn is sold on DVDs each year, and, it rivals the Hollywood system in terms of volume and moneys involved. And, it's probably big enough to influence the number and type of players being sold.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Women are unequal and always will be. We men, so much better than women in every way, will always tack the "ress" onto "act" to symbolize this, damaging fragile girl's self-esteem and causing them to fail calculus in high school and earn less then men for equivalent work. Also, I personally have meaningless sex with brainless bimbos that I never plan to marry.
Didn't Sony already claim that this is not true?
If they did, then I believe them.
How cynical would I be if I didn't?
And eventually, a new crop of porn directors will come up, who have learned their craft on HD Video (I can't believe I'm carrying on this conversation). The extreme close-ups make sense in a VHS 480i world, but not in an HD world.
It's no different then the rest of television adapting. Most shows are show on film, and I the last time I read about the "technology of porn" was 5 years ago discussing HD adaption, and at the time, Vivid and Wicked were shooting their "movies" on film like a normal movie (multiple angles, stationary cameras, etc.), and everyone else was doing video (amateur style zoom-ins, etc., single camera, limited audio editing).
Today, a pro Audio/Video editing rig is pretty powerful and straight forward, HD Video cameras cheap and powerful, so unless you have a preference for film (I personally do for movies, and I'll take a film transfer, grains and all, over an HD Video shot any day, but for porn, I have no idea, ask porn aficionados). I mean, watch an HD Net football or hockey game some time, since they are only shooting for HD, they pull the camera back, letting you see more action. Then watch an NFL HD broadcast, the camera is set for SD, so despite the greater resolution, most of the sides of the screen is wasted (you NEVER need the edge of the shot to go more than 2 yards beyond the deepest back, but if you have centered for SD, you just have grass behind them), etc.
Some directors, rather than whining about Pan-and-Scan videos, shoot their movies with a cinematic 2.15:1 box and a television 4:3 box on the camera. When they set their shots up, they set them up for the movie experience and the television experience they want. In that case, you aren't "loosing image to go pan-and-scan" or even worse, shooting 4:3 and zooming in for the theatrical release, you have setup the movie to be shown in two ways, two experiences.
No reason that HD porn isn't shot on video, multiple cameras, multiple mics (actual set mics, not the built in on the camera one), like a real movie, not heavily zoomed in, and editing for a 16x9 field. There is no need in HD land to do major close-ups, and you can watch the people engaged in the behavior, not just the genitalia. You might have to cut back on looping and reusing footage, but so what.
In the age of amateur/quasi-amatuer Internet porn, where anyone can take nude pictures, put them online, or get them discretely printed at CVS, and home camcorders are small and $300-$500, I would think that the professional adult industry would WANT to move up market. They need to compete with the amateur offerings, and real production values could no doubt help.
Compare HD Net's HD Video productions to the Network's film conversions. The film vs. video choice is a personal choice, there is no wrong choice. However, HD Net is SHOT for HD, it is shot assuming that you have a large, detailed screen. The Network are shot for 20" SD televisions. HD Net's production shows you the set and what's going on, the networks zoom in to a lot of head shots, ask yourself which looks better on an HD setup. The same rules apply for porn.
On the plus side, one of the complains from the adult veterans was that all the imperfections show... they don't mean pimples and normal skin imperfections, EVERY actor and actress is complaining about that, mainstream or porn, and until they stop zooming in for the HD shots, it will remain a complaint. They mean all the plastic surgery scars, weird stretch marks from enhancement, etc. If HD shows all of that, while it may not eliminate plastic surgery in the adult space, it will force people to focus on quality (a well done augmentation), not just get the biggest your body can support... and that's not a bad thing.