“Hide that pimple or else…”
In Raw World of Sex Movies, High Definition Could Be a View Too Real
The XXX industry has gotten too graphic, even for its own tastes.
[Pornographic movie studios] have discovered that the technology is sometimes not so sexy. The high-definition format is accentuating imperfections in the actors — from a little extra cellulite on a leg to wrinkles around the eyes.
[…]
Producers are taking steps to hide the imperfections. Some shots are lit differently, while some actors simply are not shot at certain angles, or are getting cosmetic surgery, or seeking expert grooming.“The biggest problem is razor burn,” said Stormy Daniels, an actress, writer and director.
There’s only one newscast in DFW in hi-def, the ABC affiliate. Nothing to do with pr0n, but I’ll bet the vanity factor is in there somewhere. Couldn’t be the lack of tech, could it? This is a fairly large market…
IIRC Playboy and other R-rated skin mags used optical filters that slightly softened the image of the lady in the foldout, because it looked better. Other imperfections were airbrushed away. The same thing will probably happen in pr0n and other HD movies, either optically or electronically.
Sounds like WETA may be opening up a new department. ILM, too.
I read years ago that HD TV would face the same sorts of problems encountered during the transition from black and white to color. As I recall, it said TV set designers from the B&W era were used to selecting colors according to how they would show up in shade of gray, so the first color TV shows tended to look garish and uncoordinated until everyone learned a new approach. Same was predicted for HD – directors and set designers who let small imperfections go because they wouldn’t show up on the screen suddenly would have to take a lot more care with small details.
As usual, it seems, pr0n is leading the way.
It was too boring, so I didn’t watch all of it – but, one of the HiDef channels [HBO? SHO?] is offering a documentary on the remake of Debbie Does Dallas.
It’s in Hi Def and the “skin tones” were just fine.
CGI to the rescue!
There is no such thing as bad technology, only bad clothing.
Here’s the future of HD porn: http://tinyurl.com/3e398j
From the original post:
Producers are taking steps to hide the imperfections.
And by imperfections, what they mean are the things that make women (and men I guess) unique and sexy (except for those who stopped maturing sexually at age 14).
That’s why I love the low grade amatuer porn. Reality is hot.
..start by checking the spelling of “Porn” in the headline.. 🙂
#9
Some education for you. 😉
“The biggest problem is razor burn” – I disagree. Razor burn’s already apparent in standard def, please WAX those folks, then give them a cold bath to reduce the swelling. Also, leaving a little fur adds to the realism and heightens the “viewing” experience.
I think the performers (they aren’t actors or actresses at all) worst trait is actually that most of them have tattoos and piercings. The self-mutilation is a really good indicator of their psychological profile. Especially the chicks with the C.F.M. tattoo above their butt crack — so tacky, it’s only there for an audience in the “rear” of the theater.
#9: n()()b factor spotted!
“Mr. DeMille… I’m NOT ready for my HD Closeup!”
J/P=?
I for one prefer the 70s pr0n.
I’m not into the extra waxed/shaved performers with killer abs and well oiled skin.
#2. The problem with doing CGI or optical filtering of the razor burn or implant scars is that it messes with the (rather low) budgets of most pr0n films (It is ALL profit)
Once the costs of that kind of work come down, I can see it. Pixelcorps to the rescue!
#4. I understand when they did the first HD shots of local news sets in some areas, they looked so shabby that they had to do rebuilds.
#13 Angel, you’re such a dirty whore. All into the hairy and such, I love that! Send me an email…
XOXOXO@@@XOXOX@@XOXOX@@@XOOXXOXOX@XOX
Favorite quote from an overnight guest, “Why were my underwear on the floor, yet I was wearing my pants?” — nobody knew, REALLY, nobody except the livestock knew what happened there…
I’ve never found the actual genitals to necessarily be that attractive anyway. They are what they are, and what you do with them is most important; but if I want something to look at, I’d prefer a nice pair of breasts.
I couldn’t name a single porn star but I love actresses roughly my age who still look good like Sharon Stone, Fran Drescher, Demi Moore, Bo Derek, etc realizing full-well that they greatly benefit from the low-def.
Seeing them in hi-def would probably totally destroy my fantasy! And maybe ruin their careers.
Didn’t the “talkies” do the same thing to some leading men who had high register voices?
i would think porn stars would be smart enough to use wax.
then again, they ARE porn stars.
#15
gimme your email addy 😉