Gay Porn Site With True HD

[abostonboy]

Is there one that offers their movies in TRUE HD (I know that is a subjective term). I don't mean stream, but offer a true HD encoded movie? Filmed in HD is different than "offering" in HD.

[InsaneSimon]

Is there one that offers their movies in TRUE HD (I know that is a subjective term). I don't mean stream, but offer a true HD encoded movie? Filmed in HD is different than "offering" in HD.

Today I had 2 hours long conversation with my editor. He works for me and he studies "Cinema and TV" at the local University in Milan. He told me that HDV/HD isn't possible with wmv. The term HD in porn has a different meaning than in movie production. It's a matter with bitrate. DV has a bitrate, HD has another bitrate. Doing some maths I figured out how it's impossible offering true HD via web. My question is: how's possible offer HD via web? :D

[DirtyRatStudios]

I don't see that it's impossible. Just impractical, as you're talking about a 1920×1080 pixel video encoded at a high bitrate.

HDV, which isn't true high definition, is encoded using MPEG2 at the same bitrate as DV. If you used the same bitrate but encoded using Windows Media, MPEG4 or H.264 you would get a pretty good result. Many people would be unable to play it on their PC though and it would come in at around 4.5Gb for 20 mins.

[InsaneSimon]

I don't see that it's impossible. Just impractical, as you're talking about a 1920×1080 pixel video encoded at a high bitrate.

HDV, which isn't true high definition, is encoded using MPEG2 at the same bitrate as DV. If you used the same bitrate but encoded using Windows Media, MPEG4 or H.264 you would get a pretty good result. Many people would be unable to play it on their PC though and it would come in at around 4.5Gb for 20 mins.

Well nothing is impossible :D so, yes! Impractical.

[abostonboy]

Today I had 2 hours long conversation with my editor. He works for me and he studies "Cinema and TV" at the local University in Milan. He told me that HDV/HD isn't possible with wmv.

Maybe it's time to get a new editor. HD is totally possible in WMV. To STREAM HD is IMPOSSIBLE (or nearly impossible).

As DRS pointed out, it would be a BIG file size. It MAY seem impractical unless someone somewhere had this cRaZy idea that he wanted to try.

I do totally agree that most computers can not handle what we consider true high def. But why limit porn to a computer? The web is a delivery medium.

Look at itunes. Look at Xbox360.

And it doesn't have to be in WMV anyways.

[DirtyRatStudios]

But why limit porn to a computer? The web is a delivery medium. Look at itunes. Look at Xbox360. And it doesn't have to be in WMV anyways.

It will definitely happen ;-) But right now almost no one has a writer for HD to get a vid onto a disc to play on their HD TV. And I'm not sure how much appetite there is for connecting a PC to a TV to view, assuming the PC can play the video? The codecs that are more recent than WMV tend to need much more processing power too.

But I see the day a few years from now when high definition DVD players will be able to play a downloaded 1920×1080 h.264 file in much the same way as many play standard/low definition AVIs now.

[gaybucks_chip]

Actually, for many people, it's more likely they could view HD on their computer than on their TV.

To view TRUE HD, using a real HD codec rather than HDV, you're looking at about 100Mbits uncompressed. As DirtyRat said, HDV is encoded at 25Mbits, so it is very heavily compressed, heavy on artifacting, and lacking in color depth compared to either the DVCPro HD codec (Panasonic) or the Sony Digital Betacam equivalent to it.

Imagine taking even 25Mbits worth of already incredibly compressed data and squashing it further to 5-10Mbits. It's not going to look nearly as good as the (already not-ideal) HDV source. Same problem with the DVCPro-HD codec; imagine squashing something from 100Mbits (which is already compressed, though not as drastically as with HDV) to even 20 Mbits. Substantial loss is going to occur.

The bitrate necessary to do really good 1920x1080 would probably be 10-20Mbits, and there probably a lot of people that don't have adequate bandwidth even to download it without it taking a million years.

But... we'll get there :)

[milivanili]

What most sites advertise as HD is this:

1280X720 pixels /2217 Kbps

[basschick]

i'm reviewing a site with 1920×1080 videos right now. they have an 8 Mbps bitrate that doesn't look any better on a 19 inch monitor than their second size of videos which are shown at 960x540 with a 3 Mbps bitrate. 960x540 still counts as HD for me and they offer both, plus 2 other sizes for those on less speedy connections - 640x480 at 1.5 and their 320x240 mpg with approx a 750k bitrate.

btw, other sites i've seen with 1920×1080 used a low enough bitrate that the quality isn't all it can be - although it's still good. i prefer a little smaller with 3 Mbps, it's clear and sharp and goes full screen with no visible loss of quality.

omg - just re-read what i wrote and it sounds like i'm still reviewing the site :rolleyes:

[gaybucks_chip]

The other really revealing thing we discovered in recent tests is we can't discern any noticeable difference with standard def video encoded at H.264 at bitrates above 1Mbps. There's a VERY noticeable difference between H.264 even at 1Mbps and Flash (non-H264 codec) or WMV at 2Mbps; H.264 is far superior.

In other words, 1.5 and 2 in H.264 look the same as 1, and all H.264 looks better than the highest bitrate in Flash WMV. I'm sure differences at higher H.264 bitrates would be much more noticeable in full HD, but we haven't had a chance to try it yet... the one time we tried, encoding too absolutely forever and something went wrong and it didn't turn out correctly, and I haven't had a chance to mess with it since.

[abostonboy]

What most sites advertise as HD is this:

1280X720 pixels /2217 Kbps

Not even close to true HD. Not even close.

[DirtyRatStudios]

The other really revealing thing we discovered in recent tests is we can't discern any noticeable difference with standard def video encoded at H.264 at bitrates above 1Mbps. There's a VERY noticeable difference between H.264 even at 1Mbps and Flash (non-H264 codec) or WMV at 2Mbps; H.264 is far superior.

The downside of h.264 is that it is much more intensive on the CPU. So it's always worth testing vids on an old PC to see what the user experience is like.

[abostonboy]

The downside of h.264 is that it is much more intensive on the CPU. So it's always worth testing vids on an old PC to see what the user experience is like.

This is VERY true. I actually had to put an older computer to use to check that and it is very intensive on the CPU.

[DirtyRatStudios]

Here are some comparision tests:

http://www.dirtyratstudios.com/video-test.shtml

FLV, MP4/h.264, WMV, Real Video, MPEG1

[motnmike]

Check out this article...
Published: Oct. 14, 2007 in Technology

http://www.baekdal.com/articles/technology/HD-video-online/

I think this sums it up well. :cool:

[DirtyRatStudios]

Check out this article...
Published: Oct. 14, 2007 in Technology

http://www.baekdal.com/articles/technology/HD-video-online/

I think this sums it up well. :cool:

Except that it doesn't mention downloading at all and focuses entirely on streaming from a server.

[abostonboy]

Except that it doesn't mention downloading at all and focuses entirely on streaming from a server.

Right. Though there are BW issues to make the model profitable. I BELIEVE that within the next year or two M$ will have a sub $100 device that lets consumers watch videos downloaded from the internet in HD on their TVs. Or some other company will. Removable storage, which would have been the missing link years ago, is just so damn cheap with new technologies coming up, that it's a no brainer that a consumer will pop a card in their computer, transfer a video and go watch it on their TV.

I read an article about this. The whole article was talking about how these little "cards" may replace DVDs in the future. They were talking about a new storage medium that I still don't understand.

I really believe that Porn in a few years will be much different. We just wont be watching it on our computers. And the DVD market as we know it will be dead IF and only IF producers of content can give consumers what they really want.

[DirtyRatStudios]

I'm sure downloadable films on memory cards will happen. I have a DVD player that has both a card slot and a USB2.0 connection into which a hard drive can be plugged.

But I disagree that people will stop watching videos on the PC, especially not shorter videos. People like the web because it is interactive. Men like it because it appeals to the hunter instinct - seeking out things. The days of everyone being a couch potato are over. There are times when you want to lie in bed watching something on TV and other times when you're busy on the PC and fancy watching something for 15 minutes.

Video can be presented in a way that isn't possible on a TV screen and screen size is all relative -- it depends how far away you are sitting. The weird thing is that there is whole move at the moment for separating content from design/presentation (with RSS for example). People are forgetting how exciting and rich 'multimedia' can be on a website.

I do think the DVD is dead in a few years from now though.

[abostonboy]

I do think the DVD is dead in a few years from now though.

My guess: There will be a crash in 2009. Few expect or see it coming.

[DirtyRatStudios]

I have been doing a few more tests with h.264, FLV, Flash Player 9. The white elephant in the room, that no one is talking about in all the hype over Flash video on web pages, is the CPU usage of Flash Player 9.

I'm testing on an Athlon XP2200 1.8GHz with 1Gb RAM. A PC I can work on very comfortably for everything I need to do. I can edit DV on it in Vegas...

These videos will play OK in a standalone player, but they jump along in Flash Player 9 (even plain FLV). In fact, even a h.264 384x288 pixel video hits 95% CPU usage. I wonder if Adobe will do something about this, or whether the player is destined to be bloatware from version 9 onwards?

Compare that to Windows Media which plays smoothly when embedded at 640x480 (about 95% CPU usage at 640x480 embedded).

When many of us are only just ready to give up designing for 800x600 screens and aim for something larger, it seems to me it is going to quite some time before we can confidently embed large videos encoded with h.264!

[motnmike]

Except that it doesn't mention downloading at all and focuses entirely on streaming from a server.

Correct, but it also mentions storage space and bandwidth considerations as well as a few other topics.

I have been downloading HD content for television viewing in 1080i since late 2005 on the X-box 360 and 1080p since late 2006 on the PS3.

IMHO…
I have watched 1080p video downloads from Sony and can say with 100% conviction that downloaded 1080p video matched against a Blu-ray disc doesn't even compare. On the downloaded video I see pixilation, artifacts as well as gradient issues, even on 1080p downloads. While watching the same content on the same 1080p television I get a much crisper, clearer picture and the audio is amazing.

While there may be an eventual end to the DVD market. At this point I do not believe a hard core connoisseur of high quality video entertainment will be willing to upload all their prized content to hard drive after hard drive, (we all know how they get corrupted). ;)

The masses will have DVD players and slow internet connections for a long time and downloading HD content is still in its infancy.

[abostonboy]

I love this thread. Two posts from Michael in the SAME thread! :)

[motnmike]

I love this thread. Two posts from Michael in the SAME thread!

Nice! 666

Did you want me to bring up that HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray thing again?
HD-DVD:whip:

I actually just watched Grunts on Blu-ray.

Very impressive.

[abostonboy]

Nice! 666

Did you want me to bring up that HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray thing again?
HD-DVD:whip:

I actually just watched Grunts on Blu-ray.

Very impressive.

I watched Close Encounters. Pretty nice. Grabbed like 20 Blu Rays in Amazon's last B2G1.

[motnmike]

I know, CE3K is awesome on Blu-ray. :cool:
The colors really come out on the mothership.


When I find some more Blu-ray deals I'll let you know. A few weeks ago I got First Blood and Terminator 2 for $7.99 each. whistle

Once in a while Amazon does a buy one get one free too.

[DirtyRatStudios]

The maximum total bitrate on Blu-ray is 48 Mbps compared to 10.08 Mbps for a standard DVD. That doesn't tell the whole story though, because Blu-ray can be compressed with AVC/H264 - MPEG-4 AVC, giving more quality for the bitrate.

An hour of data at top bitrate on a standard DVD would be 4.7Gb. With Blu-ray it would be almost 5x that - about 25Gb :)

It is going to be sometime before you can download anything of that quality. The monthly 'fair-usage' on many broadband packages is less than 25Gb and that would burn through many monthly web hosting packages within one or two downloads.

[motnmike]

The maximum total bitrate on Blu-ray is 48 Mbps compared to 10.08 Mbps for a standard DVD. That doesn't tell the whole story though, because Blu-ray can be compressed with AVC/H264 - MPEG-4 AVC, giving more quality for the bitrate.

An hour of data at top bitrate on a standard DVD would be 4.7Gb. With Blu-ray it would be almost 5x that - about 25Gb

The Dirty Rat is right; however, many Blu-ray movies aren’t even close to a 48 Mbps.

Take a look here…
http://forum.blu-ray.com/showthread.php?t=3338

IMHO whistle

DVD as we know it should be around for a while. It will most likely take a few years for bandwidth technology to get fast enough to really matter. I know about Comcast’s new developments and the satellite Japan shot a few months ago. :rolleyes:
We've all heard this kind of talk before. :bang:
In the future downloads and streams will get close to Blu-ray quality, but not until the masses upgrading their connections $ Cha-Ching $.

Oh yeah, the small device market is emerging fast, but it shouldn’t be relevant for some time because these devices storage capacity is roughly the same as a few Blu-ray discs.