sexobsessed

Member



77 Posts

9/13

Posted - Oct 24 2013 : 12:13PM

So to get things started, here are a few that I'm aware of:

http://18OnlyGirls.com/

http://1000Giri.net/

http://argentinamegusta.com/

[link inactive:Blank response from server]http://asiancandypop.com/

http://brazzers.com/

http://futilestruggles.com/

http://gachinco.com/

http://humiliatrix.com/

http://ivanafukalot.com/

http://jinxypie.com/

http://www.mofos.com/

http://muramura.tv/

http://www.sexwithstephanie.com/

http://studentsexparties.com/

http://www.wdgirls.com/

Feel free to add to the list. I thought it would be a cool idea to compile a list of sites which offer 60fps content.So to get things started, here are a few that I'm aware of:[link inactive:Blank response from server]http://asiancandypop.com/Feel free to add to the list.

norrinradd

Member



56 Posts

10/11

Posted - Oct 24 2013 : 7:45PM What's the significance of 60fps ? I thought fps was a benchmark for gaming ?

Thx

Kevin Moore

Member



Subdivided & Synthetic

391 Posts

4/00

Posted - Oct 24 2013 : 10:55PM

What's the significance of 60fps ? I thought fps was a benchmark for gaming ?

Thx Click to expand norrinradd wrote:What's the significance of 60fps ? I thought fps was a benchmark for gaming ?Thx

Basically at 24 or 30fps if you had a ball moving back and forth quickly you would see a motion blur from it. The motion blue would stand out more in 24fps, while in 30fps it wouldn't be as pronounced but still there. With 60fps that same shot wouldn't have hardly any blur. Anything that involves motion would be much sharper since there are more frames.

24fps tends to have a more "film" look. Some people might view 60fps has having a "video" look, but really it isn't the case. It just is because the image tends to be sharper. One of the complaints of The Hobbit was when people saw it in 48fps, it removed some of the more interesting cinematographic elements of filmmaking.

Stagliano shot Viracious in 60fps.

sexobsessed

Member



77 Posts

9/13

Posted - Oct 25 2013 : 8:27AM In my experience, 60fps content is so much more immersive, particularly when combined with an HD resolution.

It's especially good for rough scenes with lots of hard fucking, as every thrust of the pelvis is completely accentuated.



ninja1

Senior Member



3550 Posts

1/08

Posted - Oct 25 2013 : 11:37AM

Motion Blur.

Basically at 24 or 30fps if you had a ball moving back and forth quickly you would see a motion blur from it. Click to expand Kevin Moore wrote:Motion Blur.Basically at 24 or 30fps if you had a ball moving back and forth quickly you would see a motion blur from it.

Register to see fewer ads Adult DVD Talk is Sponsored by email for advertising info

sexobsessed

Member



77 Posts

9/13

Posted - Oct 25 2013 : 12:28PM

So does that mean that 60fps is a useful benefit only for rabbit-fucking style of porn? Or if there is a road race or football match in the middle of the porn scene? Click to expand ninja1 wrote:So does that mean that 60fps is a useful benefit only for rabbit-fucking style of porn? Or if there is a road race or football match in the middle of the porn scene?

I suppose the best way to describe 60fps content, is that it makes you feel as if you're actually on the set with the performers (especially if you watch it on a big-screen TV).



Goldstein

All-Star Member



"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."

6304 Posts

8/10

Posted - Oct 25 2013 : 12:55PM

Motion Blur.

Basically at 24 or 30fps if you had a ball moving back and forth quickly you would see a motion blur from it. Click to expand Kevin Moore wrote:Motion Blur.Basically at 24 or 30fps if you had a ball moving back and forth quickly you would see a motion blur from it. Click to expand ninja1 wrote:So does that mean that 60fps is a useful benefit only for rabbit-fucking style of porn? Or if there is a road race or football match in the middle of the porn scene?

I really want to see the girl's faces, hands, the stud's cocks and the ejaculations, during blowjobs and cumshots, in absolute clarity.

If 60fps will finally deliver this, I'm all for it.

Honestly though, if scenes are shot in true HD by people who know what they're doing, are lit properly and the content delivered to the the consumer in true HD -- with a high-quality bitrate -- blur actually need not be a problem right now.

Now, if we can only get them to stop filming the cumshots against white walls/white furniture backgrounds, or shooting directly into the sun, we might be on to something

Kevin Moore

Member



Subdivided & Synthetic

391 Posts

4/00

Posted - Oct 25 2013 : 4:17PM Shooting that sort of "gonzo" style sex in 24fps is hard because if you move the camera too fast you can get motion blur just from the camera movement. I like the look of 24fps because it does give more that "film" look, but it can make sometimes a jelly effect especially when it comes to shooting with DSLR's for video. I personally shoot in 30fps, which is technically 29.97. The real bonus to 60fps for adult would be the camera movement and when the performers are at their peak energy wise and their is a great deal of fast action.

60fps is definitely going to make the movements of the performers much crisper and remove any motion blur or jelly effect.

The problem with 60fps is most companies in the industry license their product for broadcasters. This is a wide range of delivery systems worldwide that license this content from companies. Most broadcasters won't take 60fps content. They want everything in 29.97 typically. Some are fine with 24fps (23.98). Your biggest hurdle in getting more companies to shoot in 60fps is these companies run the risk of not being able to get those prized licensing deals for broadcast with 60fps content. Even worse it could be shot in 60fps, but then converted to 29.97 for broadcasters.

As of right now if I wanted to stay with the look of a DSLR, which I like, the only option for me is the Canon EOS-1C, which is Canon's new line of Cinematic DSLR's. It can shoot 1080p at 60fps. Unfortunately it ain't cheap. It retails for around 14k. The nice thing though is as these cameras get better, there will more and more options for higher frame rates. The key is having a 1080p or 4k resolution in 60fps. A 4k image at 60fps would look really really sharp. It would be impressive.

Kevin Moore

Member



Subdivided & Synthetic

391 Posts

4/00

Posted - Oct 25 2013 : 4:23PM Another thing to keep in mind is the camera's sensor. A full frame sensor looks much different than a camera sensor that is on your typical video cameras. You get much more information on a full frame sensor. You can currently shoot 60fps with some video cameras but it will have too much of a video look. The big boost in quality will come when more full frame cameras are released with the ability to shoot 60fps in 1080p or higher.

Slice Backhand

Member



100 Posts

8/10

Posted - Oct 25 2013 : 11:10PM Thanks for the info, Kevin. Interesting :) Didn't know about the licensing stuff

10000 days

Senior Member



Keep on trolling. What a bullshit! Im fucking unstoppable now ...

1391 Posts

3/06

Posted - Oct 26 2013 : 8:07AM High framerate (48-60) is pretty great for lowbrow stuff like porn, but terrible for cinema.

sexobsessed

Member



77 Posts

9/13

Posted - Oct 26 2013 : 9:19AM In addition to the above sites with 60fps material, there are also around twice as many which have 50fps content.

I'm currently compiling a list and will post it in the next day or two.

Edited by - sexobsessed on 10/26/2013 9:21:09 AM

Kevin Moore

Member



Subdivided & Synthetic

391 Posts

4/00

Posted - Oct 26 2013 : 12:08PM

High framerate (48-60) is pretty great for lowbrow stuff like porn, but terrible for cinema. Click to expand 10000 days wrote:High framerate (48-60) is pretty great for lowbrow stuff like porn, but terrible for cinema.

JigglyBoobs

Senior Member



1631 Posts

3/12

Posted - Oct 26 2013 : 12:18PM ^ I disagree. When I saw the Hobbit in 3D and HFR, the props looked like props, not the things the props were supposed to be.

HFR's all well and good but you have to up your game with sets and props or the realism will show them to be props or sets.

CRFlixxx

Member



61 Posts

4/13

Posted - Oct 26 2013 : 1:08PM I was hopeful of the Hobbit, but when I saw it, it looked like really good TV. Partly I also feel that was 3D's fault. I'm done with 3D except if the director is good. I saw Gravity in 3D and it was great.

I'm tired of Canon because they overpriced all their new cams. The C1-500 should be half the price they are compared to other cams out there. Sony just released a new mirrorless Full Frame SLR called the A7. It shoots 60p, you aught to look into it. I prefer Panasonic G series, all the new ones shoot 60fps at 1080p.

Thanks for the list sexobsessed.

Register to see fewer ads Adult DVD Talk is Sponsored by email for advertising info

Harri Patel

Senior Member



Real news. Fake president.

13903 Posts

3/03

Posted - Oct 26 2013 : 2:54PM 4K Porn is Here

Goldstein

All-Star Member



"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."

6304 Posts

8/10

Posted - Oct 26 2013 : 11:46PM I hate 3-D.

I don't care what frame-rate they give it, 3-D sucks.

[invalid URL removed] Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed.

by Roger Ebert

January 23, 2011

After 3D, here is the future of film

by Roger Ebert

January 29, 2011

Roger Ebert: Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)

by Roger Ebert

* originally posted in Newsweek April 29, 2010

3-D is a waste of a perfectly good dimension. Hollywood’s current crazy stampede toward it is suicidal. It adds nothing essential to the moviegoing experience. For some, it is an annoying distraction. For others, it creates nausea and headaches. It is driven largely to sell expensive projection equipment and add a $5 to $7.50 surcharge on already expensive movie tickets. Its image is noticeably darker than standard 2-D. It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose. For moviegoers in the PG-13 and R ranges, it only rarely provides an experience worth paying a premium for.

That’s my position. I know it’s heresy to the biz side of show business. After all, 3-D has not only given Hollywood its biggest payday ($2.7 billion and counting for Avatar), but a slew of other hits. The year’s top three films—Alice in Wonderland, How to Train Your Dragon, and Clash of the Titans—were all projected in 3-D, and they’re only the beginning. The very notion of Jackass in 3-D may induce a wave of hysterical blindness, to avoid seeing Steve-O’s you-know-what in that way. But many directors, editors, and cinematographers agree with me about the shortcomings of 3-D. So do many movie lovers—even executives who feel stampeded by another Hollywood infatuation with a technology that was already pointless when their grandfathers played with stereoscopes. The heretics’ case, point by point:

1. IT’S THE WASTE OF A DIMENSION. When you look at a 2-D movie, it’s already in 3-D as far as your mind is concerned. When you see Lawrence of Arabia growing from a speck as he rides toward you across the desert, are you thinking, “Look how slowly he grows against the horizon”? Our minds use the principle of perspective to provide the third dimension. Adding one artificially can make the illusion less convincing.

2. IT ADDS NOTHING TO THE EXPERIENCE. Recall the greatest moviegoing experiences of your lifetime. Did they “need” 3-D? A great film completely engages our imaginations. What would Fargo gain in 3-D? Precious? Casablanca?

3. IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION. Some 3-D consists of only separating the visual planes, so that some objects float above others, but everything is still in 2-D. We notice this. We shouldn’t. In 2-D, directors have often used a difference in focus to call attention to the foreground or the background. In 3-D the technology itself seems to suggest that the whole depth of field be in sharp focus. I don’t believe this is necessary, and it deprives directors of a tool to guide our focus.

4. IT CAN CREATE NAUSEA AND HEADACHES. AS 3-D TV sets were being introduced at the Consumer Electronics Show in Las Vegas in January, Reuters interviewed two leading ophthalmologists. “There are a lot of people walking around with very minor eye problems—for example, a muscle imbalance—which under normal circumstances the brain deals with naturally,” said Dr. Michael Rosenberg, a professor at Northwestern University. 3-D provides an unfamiliar visual experience, and “that translates into greater mental effort, making it easier to get a headache.” Dr. Deborah Friedman, a professor of ophthalmology and neurology at the University of Rochester Medical Center, said that in normal vision, each eye sees things at a slightly different angle. “When that gets processed in the brain, that creates the perception of depth. The illusions that you see in three dimensions in the movies is not calibrated the same way that your eyes and your brain are.” In a just-published article, Consumer Reports says about 15 percent of the moviegoing audience experiences headache and eyestrain during 3-D movies.

5. HAVE YOU NOTICED THAT 3-D SEEMS A LITTLE DIM? Lenny Lipton is known as the father of the electronic stereoscopic-display industry. He knows how films made with his systems should look. Current digital projectors, he writes, are “intrinsically inefficient. Half the light goes to one eye and half to the other, which immediately results in a 50 percent reduction in illumination.” Then the glasses themselves absorb light. The vast majority of theaters show 3-D at between three and six foot-lamberts (fLs). Film projection provides about 15fLs. The original IMAX format threw 22fLs at the screen. If you don’t know what a foot-lambert is, join the crowd. (In short: it’s the level of light thrown on the screen from a projector with no film in it.) And don’t mistake a standard film for an IMAX film, or “fake IMAX” for original IMAX. What’s the difference? IMAX is building new theaters that have larger screens, which are quite nice, but are not the huge IMAX screens and do not use IMAX film technology. But since all their theaters are called IMAX anyway, this is confusing.

6. THERE’S MONEY TO BE MADE IN SELLING NEW DIGITAL PROJECTORS. These projectors are not selling themselves. There was initial opposition from exhibitors to the huge cost of new equipment and infighting about whether studios would help share these expenses. Some studios, concerned with tarnishing the 3-D myth, have told exhibitors that if they don’t show a movie in 3-D, they can’t have it in 2-D. Although there’s room in most projection booths for both kinds of projectors, theaters are encouraged to remove analog projectors as soon as they can. Why so much haste to get rid of them? Are exhibitors being encouraged to burn their bridges by insecure digital manufacturers?

7. THEATERS SLAP ON A SURCHARGE OF $5 TO $7.50 FOR 3-D. Yet when you see a 2-D film in a 3-D-ready theater, the 3-D projectors are also outfitted for 2-D films: it uses the same projector but doesn’t charge extra. See the Catch-22? Are surcharges here to stay, or will they be dropped after the projectors are paid off? What do you think? I think 3-D is a form of extortion for parents whose children are tutored by advertising and product placement to “want” 3-D. In my review of Clash of the Titans, I added a footnote: “Explain to your kids that the movie was not filmed in 3-D and is only being shown in 3-D in order to charge you an extra $5 a ticket. I saw it in 2-D, and let me tell you, it looked terrific.” And it did. The “3-D” was hastily added in postproduction to ride on the coattails of Avatar. The fake-3-D Titans even got bad reviews from 3-D cheerleaders. Jeffrey Katzenberg, whose DreamWorks has moved wholeheartedly into 3-D, called it “cheeseball,” adding: “You just snookered the movie audience.” He told Variety he was afraid quickie, fake-3-D conversions would kill the goose that was being counted on for golden eggs.

8. I CANNOT IMAGINE A SERIOUS DRAMA, SUCH AS UP IN THE AIR OR THE HURT LOCKER, IN 3-D. Neither can directors. Having shot Dial M for Murder in 3-D, Alfred Hitchcock was so displeased by the result that he released it in 2-D at its New York opening. The medium seems suited for children’s films, animation, and films such as James Cameron’s Avatar, which are largely made on computers. Cameron’s film is, of course, the elephant in the room: a splendid film, great-looking on a traditional IMAX screen, which is how I saw it, and the highest-grossing film in history. It’s used as the poster child for 3-D, but might it have done as well in 2-D (not taking the surcharge into account)? The second-highest all-time grosser is Cameron’s Titanic, which of course was in 2-D. Still, Avatar used 3-D very effectively. I loved it. Cameron is a technical genius who planned his film for 3-D from the ground up and spent $250 million getting it right. He is a master of cinematography and editing. Other directors are forced to use 3-D by marketing executives. The elephant in that room is the desire to add a surcharge.

Consider Tim Burton, who was forced by marketing executives to create a faux-3-D film that was then sold as Alice in Wonderland: An IMAX 3D Experience (although remember that the new IMAX theaters are not true IMAX). Yes, it had huge grosses. But its 3-D effects were minimal and unnecessary; a scam to justify the surcharge.

Even Cameron plans to rerelease Titanic in 3-D, and it’s worth recalling his 3-D documentary, Ghosts of the Abyss, which he personally photographed from the grave of the Titanic. Titanic 3-D will not be true 3-D, but Cameron is likely to do “fake 3-D” better than others have. My argument would nevertheless be: Titanic is wonderful just as it stands, so why add a distraction? Obviously, to return to the No. 2 cash cow in movie history and squeeze out more milk.

I once said I might become reconciled to 3-D if a director like Martin Scorsese ever used the format. I thought I was safe. Then Scorsese announced that his 2011 film The Invention of Hugo Cabret, about an orphan and a robot, will be in 3-D. Well, Scorsese knows film, and he has a voluptuous love of its possibilities. I expect he will adapt 3-D to his needs. And my hero, Werner Herzog, is using 3-D to film prehistoric cave paintings in France, to better show off the concavities of the ancient caves. He told me that nothing will “approach” the audience, and his film will stay behind the plane of the screen. In other words, nothing will hurtle at the audience, and 3-D will allow us the illusion of being able to occupy the space with the paintings and look into them, experiencing them as a prehistoric artist standing in the cavern might have.

9. WHENEVER HOLLYWOOD HAS FELT THREATENED, IT HAS TURNED TO TECHNOLOGY: SOUND, COLOR, WIDESCREEN, CINERAMA, 3-D, STEREOPHONIC SOUND, AND NOW 3-D AGAIN. In marketing terms, this means offering an experience that can’t be had at home. With the advent of Blu-ray discs, HD cable, and home digital projectors, the gap between the theater and home experiences has been narrowed. 3-D widened it again. Now home 3-D TV sets may narrow that gap as well.

What Hollywood needs is a “premium” experience that is obviously, dramatically better than anything at home, suitable for films aimed at all ages, and worth a surcharge. For years I’ve been praising a process invented by Dean Goodhill called MaxiVision48, which uses existing film technology but shoots at 48 frames per second and provides smooth projection that is absolutely jiggle-free. Modern film is projected at 24 frames per second (fps) because that is the lowest speed that would carry analog sound in the first days of the talkies. Analog sound has largely been replaced by digital sound. MaxiVision48 projects at 48fps, which doubles image quality. The result is dramatically better than existing 2-D. In terms of standard measurements used in the industry, it’s 400 percent better. That is not a misprint. Those who haven’t seen it have no idea how good it is. I’ve seen it, and also a system of some years ago, Douglas Trumbull’s Showscan. These systems are so good that the screen functions like a window into three dimensions. If moviegoers could see it, they would simply forget about 3-D.

I’m not opposed to 3-D as an option. I’m opposed to it as a way of life for Hollywood, where it seems to be skewing major studio output away from the kinds of films we think of as Oscar-worthy. Scorsese and Herzog make films for grown-ups. Hollywood is racing headlong toward the kiddie market. Disney recently announced it will make no more traditional films at all, focusing entirely on animation, franchises, and superheroes. I have the sense that younger Hollywood is losing the instinctive feeling for story and quality that generations of executives possessed. It’s all about the marketing. Hollywood needs a projection system that is suitable for all kinds of films—every film—and is hands-down better than anything audiences have ever seen. The marketing executives are right that audiences will come to see a premium viewing experience they can’t get at home. But they’re betting on the wrong experience.

Ebert is the film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times

ashar

Member



66 Posts

12/12

Posted - Oct 28 2013 : 1:38PM http://dirtygardengirl.com/



sexobsessed

Member



77 Posts

9/13

Posted - Oct 29 2013 : 11:17AM Something else which a high frame rate definitely enhances is handjobs.

Seeing a woman's hand working a guy's cock without the distraction of motion blur, makes it so much hotter.

Goldstein

All-Star Member



"You have sacrificed nothing and no one."

6304 Posts

8/10

Posted - Oct 29 2013 : 11:34AM ^ Exactly!

Xanderian

Member



430 Posts

1/11

Posted - Nov 2 2013 : 8:44PM sexobsessed, can you elaborate on this matter please ?

why because i have watched some 60 fps videos and read some stuff on this matter but as far as i know, the video files i have acquired says "60 FPS" when i look with mediainfo but none of the videos of an example site you mentioned above are 60 fps, they are mostly 30 fps like kevin mooore told.

I only thought Jules Jordan used 60 Fps cameras when he shoots for example that Alexis Texas / Jayden James Pool Tease Scene is exceptional

( http://www.julesjordan.com/trial/scenes/alexis-texas-jayden-jaymes-drowning-in-big-booty-big-ass_vid ) Even his videos are not 60 fps when viewed with mediainfo.

I'm a bit lost on the matter, please help me get some knowledge

Vawkes

Member



"Ideas are bulletproof"

545 Posts

8/12

Posted - Nov 9 2013 : 7:41PM Can anyone list the Jules Jordan titles released in 60fps, please?

Kevin Moore

Member



Subdivided & Synthetic

391 Posts

4/00

Posted - Nov 10 2013 : 2:31PM Those slow mo sequences were most likely shot at 120fps and then slowed way down in post.

NotMyRealName

Member



479 Posts

6/13

Posted - Nov 18 2013 : 4:07PM @Vawkes:

The only one that comes to mind immediately is Bra Busters 3 (Julia Ann, Phoenix Marie, Jayden Jaymes, Ava Addams, Melina Mason) but there might be more (perhaps even more in that series.)

Edited by - Notmyrealname on 11/18/2013 4:08:09 PM

Register to see fewer ads Adult DVD Talk is Sponsored by email for advertising info

MrPurple

Member



416 Posts

5/09

Posted - Jan 19 2014 : 8:36PM

Now, if we can only get them to stop filming the cumshots against white walls/white furniture backgrounds, or shooting directly into the sun, we might be on to something Click to expand Honestly though, if scenes are shot in true HD by people who know what they're doing, are lit properly and the content delivered to the the consumer in true HD -- with a high-quality bitrate -- blur actually need not be a problem right now. Goldstein wrote:Great comment! That is also my petpeeve! The f*cking white background. A lot of top directors unfortunately and strangely employs this visual.

MrPurple

Member



416 Posts

5/09

Posted - Jan 19 2014 : 8:38PM

In my experience, 60fps content is so much more immersive, particularly when combined with an HD resolution.

It's especially good for rough scenes with lots of hard fucking, as every thrust of the pelvis is completely accentuated. Click to expand sexobsessed wrote:In my experience, 60fps content is so much more immersive, particularly when combined with an HD resolution.It's especially good for rough scenes with lots of hard fucking, as every thrust of the pelvis is completely accentuated.

NotMyRealName

Member



479 Posts

6/13

Posted - Jan 20 2014 : 6:45PM [link inactive:404 - Page not found]Bra Busters 3 (trailer)

The trailer isn't found when you click on the play button but you can get it to play when you hit "download this trailer" right below it.

I wish 60 was the standard.

Jaktarn

Senior Member



5234 Posts

5/05

Posted - Mar 30 2014 : 10:06PM I think its strange that this hasn't broken through bigger as of yet. Or have most sites/companies switched to 60fps but aren't promoting it?

Feels like a pretty good USP to help promote content.

snufish

Member



268 Posts

4/14

Posted - Apr 2 2014 : 12:40AM Most Producers are used to filming in 1080/30p. This guy shoots in 720/60p (not Porn) http://shop6.hdclipsbr.com/videosfree/Garota%20Fitness%20SP%202014%20-%20Finalistas%20e%20Bastidores%2001-hdclipsbr.mp4 Milena Velba & Roc n Shay are my fave sites. The action is fast and realistic.

peake

New Member



1 Posts

5/14

Posted - May 5 2014 : 11:18PM

I think its strange that this hasn't broken through bigger as of yet. Or have most sites/companies switched to 60fps but aren't promoting it? Click to expand Jaktarn wrote:I think its strange that this hasn't broken through bigger as of yet. Or have most sites/companies switched to 60fps but aren't promoting it?

I did want to add one to the list though:

http://povd.com/

Thyrium

Deactivated User



45 Posts

3/09

Posted - May 6 2014 : 1:04AM I dont know what fps is, but [mod edit: name of tube site removed. Let's not encourage ppl to go to those sites.]

I don't know how those guys stay in business because it must cost them a fuckload in bandwidth. My only gripe is that they don't really do "extreme" porn. :(

Edited by - killbillvol69 on 5/6/2014 7:53:10 AM

YaniX

Member



"Time to Rumble"

20 Posts

5/14

Posted - May 6 2014 : 12:26PM 24fps was set back in the days for filming with film. Its saved money on the amount of film used and sync up to sound.

Now with digital we don't have those issues. Some cinematographers even shoot higher then 60fps for different effects.

I like 30fps and 60fps depending on the feeling I want to show.

I shot " Female Seduction " for AireRose in 60fps

YaniX

https://twitter.com/YaniXFilms

Edited by - YaniX on 5/6/2014 12:56:32 PM

sexobsessed

Member



77 Posts

9/13

Posted - Nov 6 2014 : 2:26PM I've heard that the DogFartNetwork (a studio that specialises in interracial porn) have recently started releasing scenes at 60fps.

NotMyRealName

Member



479 Posts

6/13

Posted - Dec 21 2015 : 1:22PM I really hope the rest of the industry adopts 60 fps. The stuff I've seen from JJV and DF is really great.

It seems like the sweet spot right now is to shoot 4k/60 and then release in in 1080/60 so you have a great looking HD file and a more or less "future proof" 4k original that you can release (like JJV) or wait until 4k is more widely accepted. Regardless, 60 fps feels like big jump in quality to me and I can't wait for the rest of the industry to start shooting this way.

&

It looks like the new EA Joey Silvera flick Ass Tricks was shot in 60.

draghixafan

Senior Member



Less identical crap, more sleaze and bush!

2966 Posts

7/09

Posted - Aug 18 2016 : 1:47AM

I've heard that the DogFartNetwork (a studio that specialises in interracial porn) have recently started releasing scenes at 60fps. Click to expand sexobsessed wrote:I've heard that the DogFartNetwork (a studio that specialises in interracial porn) have recently started releasing scenes at 60fps.

An updated list would be much appreciated?

draghixafan

Senior Member



Less identical crap, more sleaze and bush!

2966 Posts

7/09

Posted - Aug 18 2016 : 1:56AM

Now, if we can only get them to stop filming the cumshots against white walls/white furniture backgrounds, or shooting directly into the sun, we might be on to something Click to expand Goldstein wrote:Now, if we can only get them to stop filming the cumshots against white walls/white furniture backgrounds, or shooting directly into the sun, we might be on to something

And quoted you in my thread - In a white room.. with white couches..

draghixafan

Senior Member



Less identical crap, more sleaze and bush!

2966 Posts

7/09

Posted - Aug 18 2016 : 1:57AM

Something else which a high frame rate definitely enhances is handjobs.

Seeing a woman's hand working a guy's cock without the distraction of motion blur, makes it so much hotter. Click to expand sexobsessed wrote:Something else which a high frame rate definitely enhances is handjobs.Seeing a woman's hand working a guy's cock without the distraction of motion blur, makes it so much hotter.

And quoted you in my pleading for TUGJOBS to return and in 60fps here - Bangbros wants your Feedback

snufish

Member



268 Posts

4/14

Posted - Aug 20 2016 : 1:44PM As you can see by the replies here versus the replies in the 4k thread that the producers rather go 4k instead of 60 fps. I'm guessing these producers are shooting the 4k in 30 fps? I'm sure customers would love a 1080p 60 fps video in high bitrate, maybe 35 Mbps. If I were a producer I would shoot in 4k and offer it in 480p 60fps at 25 Mbps and 1080p 60 fps at 50 Mbps.

draghixafan

Senior Member



Less identical crap, more sleaze and bush!

2966 Posts

7/09

Posted - Sep 20 2016 : 12:40AM

As you can see by the replies here versus the replies in the 4k thread that the producers rather go 4k instead of 60 fps. I'm guessing these producers are shooting the 4k in 30 fps? I'm sure customers would love a 1080p 60 fps video in high bitrate, maybe 35 Mbps. If I were a producer I would shoot in 4k and offer it in 480p 60fps at 25 Mbps and 1080p 60 fps at 50 Mbps. Click to expand snufish wrote:As you can see by the replies here versus the replies in the 4k thread that the producers rather go 4k instead of 60 fps. I'm guessing these producers are shooting the 4k in 30 fps? I'm sure customers would love a 1080p 60 fps video in high bitrate, maybe 35 Mbps. If I were a producer I would shoot in 4k and offer it in 480p 60fps at 25 Mbps and 1080p 60 fps at 50 Mbps.

coming soon

Senior Member



1526 Posts

2/11

Posted - Sep 20 2016 : 4:48AM Cumlouder also started releasing scenes at 60fps. Big difference.

Much more into that than 4k.

JohnW

Senior Member



5638 Posts

6/08

Posted - Sep 24 2016 : 6:00AM

^ I disagree. When I saw the Hobbit in 3D and HFR, the props looked like props, not the things the props were supposed to be.

HFR's all well and good but you have to up your game with sets and props or the realism will show them to be props or sets. Click to expand JigglyBoobs wrote:^ I disagree. When I saw the Hobbit in 3D and HFR, the props looked like props, not the things the props were supposed to be.HFR's all well and good but you have to up your game with sets and props or the realism will show them to be props or sets.

1) The special effects were just not good enough and the improved motion quality in high frame rate revealed that. That should sort itself out over time.

2) You're mentally conditioned over a lifetime to 24fps theater and 30 (60i) television. Your only way to cure that is to expose yourself to and get used to higher frame rate content.

JohnW

Senior Member



5638 Posts

6/08

Posted - Sep 24 2016 : 6:05AM

Cumlouder also started releasing scenes at 60fps. Big difference.

Much more into that than 4k. Click to expand coming soon wrote:Cumlouder also started releasing scenes at 60fps. Big difference.Much more into that than 4k.

We still have two major issues that don't seem to be going away soon and that is 1) <60 frame rates and 2) low bitrate on both streaming and downloadable porn.