PornBox.com

hey
i was just checking old(2015 to somewhere around 2016 and some videos around 2017) of this studio and foundn't that lot of them are not in 4K
would it be possible to upscale them?

Yes, but there would be little point. Videos shot in 1080p lack the information to resolve any additional detail at 4K. The best you could hope to achieve is an AI-enhanced upscale, which uses machine interpolation to "fill in" the gaps, but the AI can only introduce detail it thinks should be there based on the surrounding pixels, which is far from perfect. It's essentially just a sophisticated, machine-driven form of guessing, and the process results in image artifacts. In my opinion, it would not be worth the time and effort.

Mister Ananas wrote:Yes, but there would be little point. Videos shot in 1080p lack the information to resolve any additional detail at 4K. The best you could hope to achieve is an AI-enhanced upscale, which uses machine interpolation to "fill in" the gaps, but the AI can only introduce detail it thinks should be there based on the surrounding pixels, which is far from perfect. It's essentially just a sophisticated, machine-driven form of guessing, and the process results in image artifacts. In my opinion, it would not be worth the time and effort.

oh
i didn't about this
apart from that
what's your take on adding HDR to the upcoming releases?
i know it's bit of an overkill but HDR looks good tbh

I laughed at your mention of 35mm... I don't think anyone in the industry has shot on film since high-quality digital cameras started to come out in the mid-2000's. And that's only for the stills; filming has utilized video equipment almost exclusively since the 1980's. (Analog video cameras in the '80s and '90s, and digital HD/4K cameras since the new millennium.) The only porn movie I know that was shot on film after the early '80s is John Stagliano's Fashionistas, which is ironic when you remember that he is the inventor of gonzo porn, and it cost him a lot of money to produce for a final product that ended up looking quite austere and "painterly". I wouldn't go so far as to call it "sterile", but it had none of the kineticism or viscerality of the gonzo style.

Mister Ananas wrote:I laughed at your mention of 35mm... I don't think anyone in the industry has shot on film since high-quality digital cameras started to come out in the mid-2000's. And that's only for the stills; filming has utilized video equipment almost exclusively since the 1980's. (Analog video cameras in the '80s and '90s, and digital HD/4K cameras since the new millennium.) The only porn movie I know that was shot on film after the early '80s is John Stagliano's Fashionistas, which is ironic when you remember that he is the inventor of gonzo porn, and it cost him a lot of money to produce for a final product that ended up looking quite austere and "painterly". I wouldn't go so far as to call it "sterile", but it had none of the kineticism or viscerality of the gonzo style.

Agree with you, not a fan of those full-length movies like Fashionistas or Buda. Similarly don't appreciate that much the feature movies of Rocco Siffredi, whereas his gonzo ones are outstanding.

There are a LOT of scenes on this site only available in 720P that we know were shot in 1080P (at least).
That to me is more frustrating.
Agreed, artificial upscaling is a waste of time and AI driven upscaling is insanely intensive. I upscaled a Rocco scene from 720 to 1080 which worked well but even on a fast pc it took well over 24 hours for a half hour scene!

That was using Topaz labs Video Enhance btw.

Mister Ananas wrote:I laughed at your mention of 35mm... I don't think anyone in the industry has shot on film since high-quality digital cameras started to come out in the mid-2000's. And that's only for the stills; filming has utilized video equipment almost exclusively since the 1980's. (Analog video cameras in the '80s and '90s, and digital HD/4K cameras since the new millennium.) The only porn movie I know that was shot on film after the early '80s is John Stagliano's Fashionistas, which is ironic when you remember that he is the inventor of gonzo porn, and it cost him a lot of money to produce for a final product that ended up looking quite austere and "painterly". I wouldn't go so far as to call it "sterile", but it had none of the kineticism or viscerality of the gonzo style.

I think the clue is that Otto said "full frame 35mm". Many professional DSLRs (e.g. Nikon) approximate the size and control layout of the old 35mm film SLRs and have sensor sizes which approximate a "full frame" of the old 35mm film. Cheaper lookie-likie DSLRs may skimp on the sensors and take smaller images with fewer pixels.

Yes, I knew what you meant, but "35mm" made me think of film and that made me laugh.

In fact, I can't speak for Giorgio, but many of the productions on this site are already using full-frame DSLR and/or mirrorless cameras. You may decide for yourself whether they are being used to their full potential.

This is one aspect of production that I hope to improve by leaps and bounds when I start doing my own shoots again. (Omar is shooting for my productions in Prague, at least while the pandemic is still limiting my ability to travel, but I will shoot my own scenes when I get the Florida productions up and running.) I have a very nice mirrorless camera and... moderate experience using it. Let me tell ya, those things are very powerful tools, but they take practice. Very easy to learn, but difficult to master...

Mister Ananas wrote:This is one aspect of production that I hope to improve by leaps and bounds when I start doing my own shoots again. (Omar is shooting for my productions in Prague, at least while the pandemic is still limiting my ability to travel, but I will shoot my own scenes when I get the Florida productions up and running.)

This surprises me, I thought you were in Prague. Therefore I couldn't understand why you have to hire Omar, now it's clear.
Forgive me , but then in which measure is the movie yours and not his? Which is your influence if you are far away? I can imagine that you instruct him about what you want to obtain, but finally it's him who shoots the scene.

I paid for everything, selected the cast, the wardrobe, the scenario, provided a shot list, discussed specific filming instructions prior to shooting, supervised shooting remotely, reviewed footage, etc.

It's an imperfect solution because I can't travel to Europe thanks to the pandemic. I have been open the whole time that these scenes are a collaboration.

News flash, SOS shot almost none of the old Sineplex content.

Giorgio doesn't shoot all of his scenes either. Neither does Rocco, for that matter. This is not uncommon.

Hehehe... I don't take offense to constructive criticism.

otto1219 wrote:Cameras must be held STEADY to prevent the viewer from getting seasick, or just plain looking amateurish. In the vid mentioned, the camera person is "zooming with his feet" thus every step he takes results in a bouncing image for the viewer. Not good. Zooming with your feet works for still images, but NOT for video. That's important.

That's actually not 100% true. Nobody uses zoom lens in porn. All cameramen I've seen "zoom with their feet", and they simply disguise the movement. It takes practice.

Part of your criticism is in response to a deliberate choice. I don't like static camera work. I like movement and kineticism. However, you are correct that I can do more to disguise the movement of my body, to minimize the effect of "zooming with my feet," as you put it.

Also, as a general rule, what is in the viewfinder should be composed to show "context." A close image of a grimacing face means little if the viewer cannot see the action causing the grimace.

Not necessarily. Close-ups have their place. I disagree with the conventional approach of avoiding close-ups of the girl's faces. You could argue that I did it too often or held the frame on their faces too long.

A rule of thumb would be to compose the image to include the model's feet, or nearly so. This gives a view of both ends of the girl and puts her reactions in context. Shoot the video keeping in mind that your viewer is going to be viewing with a large screen, high resolution display. IOW, your viewer can zoom, so they do not need you to, unless it is done well and in a way that it is not noticeable, and not excessive. Close ups are important, but if excessive they divorce one action from another.

Agreed, although I don't want to design a scene for a viewer to zoom. The composition of the frame should stand on its own.

So the close-ups are too noticeable / excessive?

Even if some viewers are using an old cell phone to view, don't shoot your content for them, shoot for the high end display; you'll get better quality that way.

I don't shoot for any particular display, but rather from a personal POV.

Zooming does have some advantages. A medium zoom, something like a 24-86 on full frame would work very well, especially if coupled to a tripod, maybe even a tripod on a dolly to allow rolling if needed. And learn how to zoom. It should never be abrupt, or even noticeable. Smoothness rules and the viewer should not even notice that a zoom is occuring...it should be that smooth.

Nobody uses zoom lenses.

Cameras and lighting used to be the problem in porn. Now it's the person behind the camera and the one calling the action. That is easier to fix, but LP seems reluctant to address. However, you seem to CARE to make a quality product, and that has been in short supply at LP, and, is appreciated.

Thanks. You say LP is reluctant to address this issue. Where else are you seeing it? Which other studios? What, in your estimation, are the most common mistakes made?

Whoa there, don't take it personally. I'll take some time to respond to these points later in the day, but I was certainly not rejecting your point of view outright. You made many valid points in your original post.

otto1219 wrote:Why aren't zoom lenses used? That's ridiculous.

Zoom lenses offer the ability to get a closer view of a section of the frame, but it feels more natural in the moment to simply get closer to the action and change the framing entirely. There are technical things related to proximity and parallax that can make zooming feel less natural to the viewer as well. Most essentially, though, shooting in the gonzo style is all about the feeling that the cameraman is an active participant in the action, not merely an observer. That concept informs the entire approach to shooting.

A lot of gonzo porn, including pretty much every studio on LP, tries to capture this idea of the "floating camera", which is kind of hard to define (and, I am now realizing, I have never actually tried to define before this very moment), but it's basically the feeling that the camera is a floating "fly on the wall" with agency of its own, like another participant in the action, rather than just a static object. I think it evolved out of the necessity for a cameraman to change both the height and angle of the camera quickly with no prior warning, since gonzo productions are unrehearsed and the camera needs to be able to adapt to the spontaneous decisions of the performers without disrupting the flow of the scene. The cameraman relies upon his hands to convey that movement, so things like zoom lenses often just feel clunky to them, and nobody uses a dolly because that would sacrifice their ability to capture any sense of fluidity with their hands. The performers show awareness of it too and often adjust to accommodate its presence. Erm... I don't know if I am explaining that very well... But at any rate, a zoom lens disrupts the sensation of the "floating camera" because it doesn't feel like a "floating" sort of movement.

Practice will not eliminate physics. No one can zoom with their feet as well as a zoom lens can. That is why I also suggested a serious tripod on a dolly, to move smoothly. Or maybe put the camera, if it must be handheld, on a gyro hand held gimbal.

I'm telling you, I have never seen a zoom lens or a dolly used in gonzo porn. Never. Not even once. It simply isn't done. A few people use gyro gimbals, and I've been looking into that option for my own scenes, actually. That is a good suggestion.

A camera can move, but not if it detracts from the porn. And as a viewer I am saying it does. I am sure you are not saying that it is a deliberate choice to have an unsteady jerking camera shooting porn, right? Porn viewers want a clear/clean image, not some "artsy" camera work.

I am saying that it is a deliberate choice to have the camera move around. The jerkiness is something that can be improved, and I'm certainly no expert at that. I disagree that the primary goal should be to deliver a "clean" image, as you are defining it. Lighting, focus, exposure, etc. are all requirements, of course, but movement is a stylistic choice. In my own productions, I just need to work to make that movement smoother.

I am saying that there are too many closeups of the girl's face as she is being DAP'd or otherwise debauched. Some facial closeups are fine, but I want to see what is causing her facial reaction. A wider shot allows that, ie to see both ends...and I can zoom on my display if I want. I am free to zoom in on her face if I choose or her bottom, if I want. I don't want the camera person to make the decision for me about what part of the frame is "important." I want the freedom to choose where to look. My vision may be different, so include more so that the viewer can decide, not the cameraperson.

But what you're describing is not a close-up shot. That's a wide shot. You would just be making a choice to zoom in and create your own "DIY" close-up, but it's not the same thing. I am saying, as a director of my own productions and speaking only for myself, that I don't agree with that approach. The director is there to make directorial choices about what you see. You can't have the level of customization that you're talking about without bolting the camera to the floor and locking the frame for extended periods, which (again, speaking only for myself) is flat, static, and boring. And how am I supposed to know when you're bored with the shot? Ready to move on? What if I linger on a position for too long, or cut away just when you think it's getting good? You simply can't get the granular level of viewer customization you're talking about until we invent a holodeck or something like that.

I don't shoot for any particular display, but rather from a personal POV.

Huh? Those are 2 different aspects of shooting. They don't overlap. they are unrelated.
POV is a style of compostion/framing. the "display" is the device on which the porn is viewed, eg a Samsung 55" 4k flat screen Model55H33772.
And from what I saw in the one vid I viewed it was not POV. POV is what the recipient of the blowjob sees, not what the camera person sees.
Maybe I am misunderstanding you, though?

I meant "my personal POV" in the sense of my intuitive feeling for how the shot should be framed, not in the sense of the shooting style of "POV porn".

Nobody uses zoom lenses.

Nobody? In the whole wide world? Ever?

Nobody in gonzo porn. I have certainly never seen a zoom lens used in a Gonzo or Giorgio scene on this site.

I hope I am not offending when I ask this, but you do know what I'm talking about, right?

Yes. I am not an expert, but I do understand. There are still perceptible differences in parallax when using a zoom lens vs. moving the camera physically closer to the action. Focal length cannot create parallax out of thin air.

Thanks for listening and I'll stop now, I hope I made my points in a non offensive way.

Just don't take it as a personal affront. I am addressing your points earnestly and I respect the things you want to see in porn, even if I do not agree with them 100%.

Again, offered as constructive. Porn shooting has a bit of an advantage over other film-making (not "film" obviously). In porn the action is the ONLY thing so good action needs good camerawork--and direction-- to be captures successfully, assuming the actors are attractive enough. Jerky camera work and a camera person who decides what the viewer wants to see (which is actually what only the camera man wants to see and that could easily be different from the viewer's choice) those things can make a good video bad, and that happens often. No one ever admires the supposed artistry of the camera person in porn. No one likes a herky jerky camera.
They want to see the fucking clearly and without distraction

The only thing I'll add is to say that no director can deliver a viewer-tailored experience to the extent that you are describing because it is not possible to anticipate what all of your viewers want to see. What you describe as a "herky jerky" camera may be described by another viewer as "dynamic". What you define as a clear shot may be defined by another viewer as "static".

Let me ask you this. What is your impression of the camera work in this video? Take a minute or two and tell me what you think of this cameraman's shooting style. https://www.xvideos.com/video8452230/al ... s_creampie

^ ... Having said all of that, I did actually zoom at one point in that Marley / Zoe scene, in piledriver. I had forgotten about that. There was no way to get close enough to the back of the couch because of the stair railing, so I just zoomed.

Mister Ananas wrote:I paid for everything, selected the cast, the wardrobe, the scenario, provided a shot list, discussed specific filming instructions prior to shooting, supervised shooting remotely, reviewed footage, etc.

It's an imperfect solution because I can't travel to Europe thanks to the pandemic. I have been open the whole time that these scenes are a collaboration.

News flash, SOS shot almost none of the old Sineplex content.

Thank you for the explicative answer! Would you mind to reveal some names of the models you are going to book next?

Mister Ananas wrote:News flash, SOS shot almost none of the old Sineplex content.

Can you please elaborate some more about this?

Who was then in charge at Sineplex? Or do you mean that he was in charge, but didn't shoot the scenes, though signing them?

In order to answer that question, let's step back for a moment and define the role of a "director", as well as a "producer" and a "camera operator". Different people are going to have different ideas about this, but they are not the same thing. They are each distinct roles in the production process.

A director is the person who makes specific creative choices and exercises final authority over the finished product. They define the content of the scene and make choices about the specific working parts that combine to form the whole. Casting, lighting, wardrobe, positions, camera angles, etc... All decided and approved by the director. Each part of the whole must conform to the director's vision for the end product.

A producer is the person who funds the content and sets the "house style" that all directors are expected to follow. They manage the day-to-day running of the studio, but mostly leave the production of the content itself for the director to handle.

A camera operator... is the guy who operates the camera. In mainstream film production, a camera operator's role is quite basic, but in porn he is almost like another performer in the scene. Gonzo camera needs to be dynamic and responsive to the actors. It's very mobile and agile, so the skill of the camera operator can make or break a scene.

Now, each of these roles are separate and distinct, but a person can fill more than one of these roles at a time. A director can also be a camera operator. A producer can also be a director. Many times, one person can fill all three roles simultaneously.

By my definition of these terms, SOS was mostly a producer at Sineplex. He absolutely defined the template that the directors were expected to follow, but he did not do much of the actual work on the scenes himself. Don't get me wrong, sometimes he did, and he was the best director in the entire production (including myself)... but most of the scenes were directed and shot by other people.

I would define my Prague scenes as produced by myself, shot by Omar, and co-directed by the two of us. He makes a significant contribution and I don't want to sell him short. But it doesn't really matter. What matters is that you enjoy them and that they sell so we can make more of them.

Those might seem like arbitrary distinctions in the world of gonzo porn, where the director, producer, and camera operator are often the same person, but it becomes more relevant to bigger productions where they are often separate people. For example, Tushy was produced by Greg Lansky until recently (I don't know who replaced him), directed by various people like Derek Dozer and Julia Grandi, and shot by professional camera operators who would make Otto blush with the scope of their technical skill and knowledge.

That's the big advantage Tushy has over anyone else in the industry right now. The quality of their cinematography is peerless. Unfortunately, their direction is unimaginative and dull.

Mister Ananas wrote:...
Let me ask you this. What is your impression of the camera work in this video? Take a minute or two and tell me what you think of this cameraman's shooting style. https://www.xvideos.com/video8452230/al ... s_creampie

I will give you MY opinion, even though the question was directed at otto specifically.
The tease was awful! The camera captured segments of the woman in what is a relic from the VHS era of too poor resolution to see anything but closeups properly. We have 4K and large screens now, show me the whole girl for crying out loud! I also got really annoyed at the use of the frog-perspective all the time. This seems to be used in order to capture both boobs and face in a frame with limited resolution. I find much of the techniques used in that video to be a product of the limitations of its time, rather than something that should be mimicked today.
Instead of taking too much inspiration from how scenes were shot back when every pixel was precious, take a step back and think about what YOU want to show the viewers and proceed from there. You keep saying that gonzo porn is all about letting the viewer be part of the action, but I know for damn sure that if I were to watch a scene being produced live, I wouldn't be keeping my head where the camera is. I would position myself at an angle where I could see the model's face the whole time while still being able to glance at the business parts from time to time, in order to appreciate a good pounding. We have the means now to give the viewer the whole picture, why then restrict our view to single body parts at a time?

Because it's creatively interesting. Raul didn't shoot this way because he was trying to maximize his use of the screen resolution. (And this was shot many years after the VHS market had died.) He did it because it's dynamic and it makes the scene pop! Don't believe me? He kept doing it well into the HD era until he retired.

Now again, Raul is very extreme, and I don't want to replicate what he did exactly, but the general idea of filming with dynamic camera movement is something that I personally like.

Thanks, Mister Ananas for your interesting and exhaustive explanations! I like your style which, as I said, it's something fresh with a very pleasant "old fashion" vibe.

I will be producing in Miami and possibly Tampa as well.

otto1219 wrote:In the video itself in the first few minutes we see more of her shoes than of her face. There's a few seconds of shots of the back of her knees--maybe a fetish for some, but not the usual viewer. the tease is BORING.
The girl is assuming many erotic positions, but becauase of the "creativity" of the camera holder we see only bits and pieces and from awkward angles, including actually fucking touching the lens with a breast. Yeah that's really erotic, a blacked out frame.

Yeah, I agree that touching the lens to her breast was overkill. Raul was always very extreme; I have no interest in taking it to that level, but I do want to push further in the direction of his eye for kinetic movement.

When the boobs appear the framing cuts off the top of her head. And it's shooting from an angle that shoots up her nose. And from the point of view of a midget. What is wrong with an eye level shot??? What is wrong with seeing more of the girl as if she were at the foot of your bed stripping for you? Then at the 2 minute mark the camera starts going back and forth, back and forth.

Changing the vertical level of a shot (among other things) can emphasize or exaggerate specific elements of the subject. It's a deliberate choice made to heighten the effect of the shot. You just don't like it... which is fine, and that's your prerogative, but it's not objectively bad.

This has nothing to do with the resolution of your screen and everything to do with your personal preferences. Most people watch porn on their phones anyway, so from a commercial point of view, I should be shooting with their screens in mind, not yours. I don't, and as I have said I don't shoot with any particular screen as a "target", but the case can be made objectively that your personal preferences are shaping your tastes, not your screen resolution.

And that's a good thing. That's what porn is all about (or should be), for both a viewer and a director, but it's not like the resolution of screens went up, so now we all have to shoot content differently. That has very little to do wth it beyond basic technical changes to our workflows.

I was referring to the frog's-eye view https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/frog%27s-eye_view but misremembered the exact phrase.
And just to get it on record. Your poll is broken due to a poor choice of options and a much too small sample size. You should not base your arguments on that, that's just silly. I don't believe Mr Ananas will fail, but I don't think he is entirely correct either, especially with regards to relaxed constraints opening up previously unfeasible shooting styles. For my part I will agree to disagree with Mr Ananas on that particular point, and will leave it at that.

otto1219 wrote:You really believe most people look at porn on their phones? You really believe that? And your source is...Raul?
You've seen the poll I put up.
NO ONE looks at porn on their phones

Hehe, Raul is not my source for that information, but it is what I believe. The proliferation of mobile technology is the kindling that has fueled the online adult content boom. The success of platforms like [spam] is a testament to that, and the user statistics for Xvideos and its competitors confirm that. In 2019, mobile devices made up 83.7% of Pornhub's total traffic globally. That's a lot of people. Your poll, while anecdotally helpful because it provides insight on how the "core" customers who are invested enough to post here view their porn, is not statistically sound and does not overrule the metrics from these other sites.

TBH, sorry, but I think you're setting yourself up for failure thinking that.

My sales so far have been excellent and I certainly hope they continue to improve.

Mister Ananas wrote:...The proliferation of mobile technology is the kindling that has fueled the online adult content boom. The success of platforms like [spam] is a testament to that, and the user statistics for Xvideos and its competitors confirm that. In 2019, mobile devices made up 83.7% of Pornhub's total traffic globally. That's a lot of people...

OK, but does the data also say how much of that c.85% was drive-by traffic streaming free content which is often low(er) resolution and short.
I guess you're trying to capture more "premium" traffic where surfers actually pay you for better quality content, which they may possibly enjoy on a better screen.

That free content exists as a promotional tool to attract paid subscribers who have either never heard of LP or aren't very familiar with it. On top of that, it would be a mistake to believe that this forum represents the majority of paying customers on LP. Quite the contrary. The forum only represents a small sub-set of paying customers that I call the "core" audience, or if you prefer, the die-hards. We are the people who mash F5 at release time to see what was published the moment it becomes available. I promise you many customers are not doing that. They don't have the time or the interest to devote that much attention to a porn site, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but they are still paying customers and their dollars still count for something.

Mister Ananas wrote:That free content exists as a promotional tool to attract paid subscribers who have either never heard of LP or aren't very familiar with it. On top of that, it would be a mistake to believe that this forum represents the majority of paying customers on LP. Quite the contrary. The forum only represents a small sub-set of paying customers that I call the "core" audience, or if you prefer, the die-hards. We are the people who mash F5 at release time to see what was published the moment it becomes available. I promise you many customers are not doing that. They don't have the time or the interest to devote that much attention to a porn site, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that, but they are still paying customers and their dollars still count for something.

Of course, but I thought you were talking about 85% of people using mobile devices on [spam] as an example?
IDK how many of those people might buy actually stuff at [spam] (if their credit card will let them), or what devices they might watch their purchases on?

The free content that draws them to LP (and other pay sites) is taken from paid content. Therefore, that content has to be shot to perform well with both audiences. On top of that, a lot of people who use LP are viewing their purchased content on a mobile device.

What a thoughtful and technical discussion on cinematography. Just want to say thanks to all of those who contribute this thread intellectually. Especially you Mister Ananas, nice to have a director who posts regularly and responds to fans on this forum.

Yeah please don't upscale anything, that's just lying to the costumers, LP can get in trouble for that.

It should only say 4K if it was shot on 4K, period.

Topaz AI software will upscale the videos & increase the quality. But need a very good PC and graphics card. We are enhancing our old 480p videos to 1080P videos now, quality is very good.

filthyk9pissslut wrote:Topaz AI software will upscale the videos & increase the quality. But need a very good PC and graphics card. We are enhancing our old 480p videos to 1080P videos now, quality is very good.

What videocard horsepower do you need?

What horsepower video card do you have... onboard cards won't work:D

System and GPU requirements per Topaz website here

Also, it runs on Windows and Mac but not Linux.

avanfurwet wrote:System and GPU requirements per Topaz website here

Also, it runs on Windows and Mac but not Linux.

wow 27 hours from 720p to 1080p for an ancient scene I found. My spare system may be to old, lol. Interested to see what the results will be. I have a ton of SD scenes from the old days. May be worth upscaling my old Anabolic videos.

drevokocur66 wrote:

avanfurwet wrote:System and GPU requirements per Topaz website here

Also, it runs on Windows and Mac but not Linux.

wow 27 hours from 720p to 1080p for an ancient scene I found. My spare system may be to old, lol. Interested to see what the results will be. I have a ton of SD scenes from the old days. May be worth upscaling my old Anabolic videos.

0.61 frames per second to be exact.

So I gave up reading at around mid Dec 2020. (Post date)
However, I'm kinda surprised that I keep hearing not only here, but at least 4 other threads where people lament the "dynamic" camera and instead want that cold BORING stationary camera set far back as to capture EVERYTHING at once. That sucks. Don't like it go where that is employed then.
If you're gonna say that this type of hard content isn't shot in that style, it's probably for a reason. Especially in this day & age of almost everything has it's own dedicated service (not only porn but EVERYTHING) then Just go make your own. Since everyone seems to know everything about porn production, then it shouldn't be a problem.
People act like it's no big deal that anyone can do this. Well then just go out, form an LLC or company whatever, and shoot your own porn to your exact tastes. See how well that works for you, see how it sells and then most likely, fold go out of business...

Mr. Ananas stated it perfectly (not verbatim); He pays, he set it all up, he gets to do it his way.

having said all that, it is not only informative but greatly appreciated, any and all insights you give us on the inner-workings/decision making of your production. At least for me it is. For those that truly care, or just want be more educated on such things it is refreshing, as for too often we are left in the dark only to have to form our own theories with out any info to base such things on.
Regardless of stylistic taste, I think we can all agree on that...