PornBox.com

Please, comments only about the video quality (not about the action)

My First 4K Video

needed more lighting

I'm still downloading the 4K file

But yes, I agree. More lighting would be good. Overall it appears dimmer than previous scenes.

yes more lighting! but congratulations for the scene, the girls are fantastic

Definitely too dark. And I'm not sure if it was my eyes, but it kinda looked blurry too. The soft-focus takes away the hard crisp edges that make porn awesome.

I like the content though....

I like the style. Maybe a bit of lighting tweaking, sure, but it looks good overall to me.

Yeah it did seem quite soft especially for 4k and as others have said more lighting required it looked a bit flat

I agree with the comments above.
Not quite as crisp as I'd expect from 4K and definitely a bit dark and lacking in contrast.

Agreed with the rest about not as crisp. Also I'm still hoping you'll start releasing in 50FPS or 60FPS (frames per second) as Gonzo has been doing for a year. You'll notice that the framerate heavily impacts how easy the video is on the eyes.
Even lots of US based companies are starting to shoot in 60FPS these days (also DDF network for 4k releases).

^I agree a framerate boost would help. As you mentioned, 50fps would be good

It looks more "natural" which is great but there needs to be more lighting on the "talent" and action. I appreciate the lack of harsh shadows .

4K doesnt require more light, is eventually the camera that needs more or less light.
The video has been shot only with natural light and I agree same parts are a bit too dark. Technically (according to the graphic of the video), what we consider dark is perfectly exposed, and what is more bright is evidently overexposed.
Whatever, evidently porn is better if overexposed.

Small note, there are many way to increase

About the short focus (someone call is soft): its very cinematic and this is the direction where Im going. I want my content to became more "entertainment", not 3 minutes zapping for jerk off. There are many virtuosity in the video, no one noticed anything. I should start to shoot ugly girls, maybe you will notice what I was able to do the first time I shot with that camera.

That cinecamera weighs almost 4 time more then my previous camera and the one I used for the test was not so ergonomic like will be the one I ordered.
Also I was not really confident with the manual focus and many secondary setting.

I though many of you would point the finger elsewhere, but evidently what I consider the big mistakes has gone unnoticed. This is pretty good.

Short focus is ok BUT if you have serious action going on at two focal lengths, a DAP close and one further away, then it is a strange choice.
It ought to draw you eye into the action, to where you want to look and that only works when you can be certain where we want to look!
On exposure i agree, we like porn slightly overexposed. The colors looked natural though

I now also notice that the video seems a bit "streched" in height. So the aspect ratio seems a bit weird, eventhough it's 16:9 as normal. Maybe because it's filmed using a differnet lens. It makes the girls look a bit odd height wise.

geheimenaam wrote:I now also notice that the video seems a bit "streched" in height. So the aspect ratio seems a bit weird, eventhough it's 16:9 as normal. Maybe because it's filmed using a differnet lens. It makes the girls look a bit odd height wise.

I also noticed that. I suspect that the scene was filmed with a 4096x2160 4K camera with 17:9 AR. In order to get this to 16:9 AR, one has to crop a bit from the sides. Or create a different resolution, e.g. 1280x675 for 720p, with black bars top and bottom. Otherwise the image gets stretched.

More dramatically, the audio quality in the May Thai & Crystal scene is really bad. I'd prefer 720p with good audio to 4K with shitty audio.

Fantastic scene otherwise though, really incredible what you can get these beauties to do, and how well you capture it.

^Yeah the audio is really quiet. I have to crank the volume, and even then it's still not loud. And there's almost a bit of an "echo" type sound to it, along with a some fuzz.

The aspect ratio is noticeable as well. Not quite as obvious as viewing a 4:3 film in 16:9, but it's definitely there.

I've actually spent a bit of time with it and i gotta say, it's pretty amazing that you did that in natural light. The new look is really awesome for the closeups i love.

gapefan wrote:^Yeah the audio is really quiet. I have to crank the volume, and even then it's still not loud. And there's almost a bit of an "echo" type sound to it, along with a some fuzz.

Agree. The audio was way too low. So low I thought my speakers were broken. Usually, Giorgio's audio mixes are great (i.e. looping/sweetening moans) and really add to the overall heat of a scene. I frequently watch scenes with over the ear headphones on to get the full intimacy of the audio mix (and also so my neighbors can't hear me blasting a porn soundtrack). For the May/Crystal scene the audio being so low actually put a damper on the visual action.

I don't have a 4K setup so can't speak to the extra resolution offered; however, the natural lighting resulted in muted fleshtones and color didn't quite 'pop' enough for my tastes. Perhaps lighting for the scene could have been augmented just a tad to bring a bit more 'pop' to the stars fleshtones. This is a minor complaint as too much color saturation and lighting can be problematic. In contrast, May's debut scene I found way too bright and had to reduce my player settings to reduce brightness and color saturation during playback on my 1080p 3200 lumen projector. That would be my measure of a scene that went too far the other way on brightness and saturation.

simpledoody23 wrote:

geheimenaam wrote:I now also notice that the video seems a bit "streched" in height. So the aspect ratio seems a bit weird, eventhough it's 16:9 as normal. Maybe because it's filmed using a differnet lens. It makes the girls look a bit odd height wise.

I also noticed that. I suspect that the scene was filmed with a 4096x2160 4K camera with 17:9 AR. In order to get this to 16:9 AR, one has to crop a bit from the sides. Or create a different resolution, e.g. 1280x675 for 720p, with black bars top and bottom. Otherwise the image gets stretched.

More dramatically, the audio quality in the May Thai & Crystal scene is really bad. I'd prefer 720p with good audio to 4K with shitty audio.

Fantastic scene otherwise though, really incredible what you can get these beauties to do, and how well you capture it.

Do you think also the trailer is deformed?
I dont really have access to the encoded video now, but would be nice to know your point of view comparing trailer and final video.

Hello!

- Regarding the lighting, the "technical datas" (the graphic) which show you what is burned, do not specifically says if it's enough light for the kind of action you are capturing.
I mean, a picture can be normally exposed, or over-exposed or whatever, but depending of context, it changes with what your brain expects.

Take a horror movie with vampires, I bet the graphics will show you good exposition (the movie is suitable for cinemas and considered as "good") but of course it's something very dark, not suitable for DPs!

So those graphics are quite usefull but not enough!!

Brains of porn customers have been trained since 15 years to see very bright and ligthened pictures. The main reason is that most of porn producers are not coming from cinema world, so they can deal good with heavy strong lighting (that ensure to have a good stuff). Most of them wouldn't be able to make some "dark lighting" of what you can see in cinema (which are of course well exposed). The easiest the better! Then customers's brain is trained with that, because they are fed exclusively with that sinces ages!

Then you can try many different things in your production, but I think heavy lighting is the key if you want to make viewers happy. In any case, natural lighting will be easy to make people happy with, in my opinion, only with very sunny days, and by pushing the f/value of the camera's lens to the smallest number, but then you get a very short depth of field.


By the way, you can probably correct the lighting a bit during editing, without loosing quality. Of course with 4K, it will take a while on processing!

And yes, contrary to 3D, 4K machines don't need extra light (for 3D you would need to double the ligthing!!)

Last thing, in my opinion, shooting with natural light is very risky! More when you shoot very long and complicated scenes which last several hours... I remember once, shooting porn a very sunny day, I said ''ok, natural light is enough", then after 45 minutes came a very big storm, and I was in real trouble to make fit the first part with the end! Even in summer this shit can happen. Now, I think natural lighting is very very risky, and I 'd consider it only on very special occasions!


-Regarding the sharpness, yes, this scene presents a very narrow depth of field. That's of course beautiful, but sometimes not suitable for following gonzo action.
I think Giorgio, you started to study the material from competitors (tushy and Co). After looking closely yours, my feeling is that, it's very difficult goal to make the same on continuous "gonzo style" filming. If you look closely on Lansky stuff, most of the movie in filmed "cinema-like", I mean he takes an angle, and keeps it. Action is followed by changing the angle and editing between. Then it's a HUGE work on editing. And another style, another way of excitation.
I did it with canon C100 and C300, it's really another job. I mean, as a crazy anal director and porn-boy, such way to work may be really boring and "non-natural". Compare the Lansky stuff (which is nice indeed, but very "artificial" and not "rooted in the flesh") with some good Mason for example.
So, your stuff is much more on being "inside" the action, much more instinctive sex. But technically, with very narrow depth of field, I don't think it's very possible to follow the action.
I think it's a choice between cinema-like with narrow dof which requires horrible editing work (and more preparation in the camera work before the scene) like Lansky does, and keeping a gonzo-instinctive style.
Compare with similar production which stay more on gonzo action than cinema-like (Mason, etc), they have quite similar picture than Lansky, but much much more DEEPER depth of field, and then the capture of the action is more gonzo-like, with less editing between each angle.

So in conclusion, your shift in production sounds great, I think you're trying to find yourself on a new way and that's pretty cool. I'm sure after few hesitations you'll get it!!

-To mix the two things I say above, if you reduce light dramatically (natural light), then you have to go to small f/numbers, then you get a very narrow depth of field (the case here). If you light it up, then you can close lense at f/8 for example, and get a little deeper dof, and then it's more suitable for gonzo action!

Do you have the f/value you used in this one?

-Sharpness II: this time, about sharpness of the details of the scene. It seems the lense you use is very soft (nothing to do with depth of field). Sharper image would be great. Many reasons possible: the lense itself (=> change it), something on the editing (=> you're compressing the original file even in 4K, and at that stage maybe it can happen something), or soft lenses for the f/value you used (some lenses are shitty with f/2.8 and are great at f/8 for example, I bet it's the case here!): maybe try the same with more light and another F/value !!


-Sound is pretty low and not so good. Can come from the editing as from the camera settings. Maybe by gaining few decibels on the editing you can solve it, or at least make it better!




Anyway now you're getting an heavier camera. That's fine. You'll not loose time going to fitness center. You'll have more time to cast new girls!! That's a good news

Giorgio Grandi wrote:Do you think also the trailer is deformed?
I dont really have access to the encoded video now, but would be nice to know your point of view comparing trailer and final video.

Yes, seems to be same.

I think most have been said already, but one word about grading the footage, below is a comparison frame, on the left is raw footage how it looks like taken straight out of the camera (color wise), right one was properly color-graded in post. As you can see here it's quite the difference, right?


Other than that my 2 cents:
- more f-stop light (gives u plenty of room, you can always use some ND to keep shallow DOF)
- needs follow focus
- keep ISO at base (800)
- try some 24, 35, 50, 85mm primes at 1.4 (zooms even at 2.8 won't cut it)
- needs a proper mic (MKH, NTG,...)
- needs a steadycam

digital, exposure is a creative choice that you make to help achieve a particular goal. Which in turn means there is no correct exposure, and thus no over- and underexposure. All you have is the correct or incorrect exposure for you, for your goal, for your work.
does this means that doubleteamedteens has better video exposure ?
an the goal of porn is ?
vivid clarity, details , bight colors, life like situation under a bright sunny day at 1 pm

legalporno is the best, but they need to work out this issues A.S.A.P

Is that working?


Click for Open Full Size

Yes! Definitely working!

From what I can see, that 4K still photo looks incredible, including the lighting!

The only ongoing issue I can see is the resolution difference between your 4K cinema camera resolution of 4096 x 2160 and the standard 4K television resolution of 3840 x 2160.

Not sure how easy it is to do, but I would suggest cropping 128 of either side during the editing process, to get it down to the standard 4K TV resolution. That way the image stays in it's native resolution.

Hoping to see bitrates at 32,000+kbps and frame rates at 50 fps, similar to Gonzo studio

Giorgio Grandi wrote:Is that working?


Click for Open Full Size

Nope. It's dull as fcuk, looks like straight outta camera. Also it's soft, should be far more sharper even wide open with decent set of lens and the shutter should be set faster, it's also blurred as hell.
The colors should look more like this (excuse a lil bit of yellow tint which I can't remove since it's I'm not working on RAW):

The real 4k is 4096 x 2160, 3840 x 2160 is Ultra-high-definition television, basically a fake 4k (like HDV and HD)

Sorry kidloco2, but if I wanted the effect you post producer I would stay with my old camera. Would be something equal to everyone else, I want my content to be different, muffled and with blurred background. Even with one part of the subject blurred. The only gonzo shot in DSLR style, no one does it because is too much difficult and very expensive.

Comparing to my camera, most of porn producer in the word are shooting porn using the iPhone 3, what you see is what Im looking for (and Im already compromised, I would love to be even more extreme on the blurring).

However the screenshot gives one idea only about the color, because the video is sharped like the hell, just the focus is very short and the background is not in focus (anyway the focus is longer then the first 4k experiment).

Shutter speed... the shutter speed should match the frame rate or eventually the frequency of the light for avoid flickering (but Im shooting without any artificial light, so fuck it).
Frame rate must be 30 fps, it cant be 60 fps. 60 fps makes the video darker and she shadows more intense. You are even lucky we are on internet, 24 fps would be even more cine.

I hope I do not piss you off... anyway with FLV you can arrange more contrast and saturation if you can not do without. For me its almost what Im looking for (but Im going to change something in future)

I always though you're creating new trends in the porn world!

That's really the case now and I hope you'll follow your line... even if we sometimes think it's a bit "strange"... new things are always "strange" and I think we'll accomodate and then we'll not be able to see something else than your stuff

Side note: UHD is not fake 4k for Christ's sake, it's just different standard, UHD is more consumer/commercial focused, 4k (4096) is a cinema DCI standard.

Thank you Giorgio for clearing up your creative intentions. I don't know about the others, but you didn't pissed me off at all, I'm rather curious about what are you trying to make. But since you wanted to discuss this thread technically, I have to raise my hand and say: "I just think there's something wrong with that shot you posted", regardless of the camera used or desired creativity. Following your steps you have used, I can't see any production value to it, sorry. IMHO there are issues with the footage which I mentioned above and I disagree on the most you wrote above regarding the technical part (ie. the shutter speed should match the frame rate or eventually the frequency of the light for avoid flickering hahaha it's just not true and if you won't get it you will never get the look you are after). The camera you have could easily be used (and sometimes actually is) to shoot a movie for theaters, but in order to do that, you have to know how. I think I know what you are trying to do and I believe eventually sooner or later you will get there, but right now I just don't see it and I'm not sure if I will like it after all.

I don't wanna sound over critisizing or negative, because I'm not, what I'm trying to say here is there have been a lot of "tried and failed" over the years to make porn look different and I'm 100% sure most people won't appreciate it, because they just want to have a good jerk or whatever. They can't see the difference and that includes nonsense internet hype.

visigoth2020111 wrote: WE WANT HARDCORE PORN THE BEST NOT ART

Is the last scene of Proxy not hardcore enough?? What do you want me to do?? Do I need to tuck 2 rocket in the ass of each girl and dismember her hole??
Whatsoever, I can do it also with nice cinematographic effect, it looks beautiful, natural and real. Like to look through a window, instead then inside the television.

kidloco2 wrote:

Giorgio Grandi wrote:Is that working?


Click for Open Full Size

Nope. It's dull as fcuk, looks like straight outta camera. Also it's soft, should be far more sharper even wide open with decent set of lens and the shutter should be set faster, it's also blurred as hell.
The colors should look more like this (excuse a lil bit of yellow tint which I can't remove since it's I'm not working on RAW):

4kfinal_2.jpg

+1

I dont understand technical terms, but first pic looks washed, too white... for me, need more contrast/saturation... color correction?

PS: 4K is a good jump looking to the future, but honestly i still prefer a good 1080p with best quality possible

I think everything looks great!

Keep up the incredible work GG!

/ Do not look the cap
/ Download the video and place it on you 4k super HD TV

Then we can talk about

Giorgio Grandi wrote:

visigoth2020111 wrote: WE WANT HARDCORE PORN THE BEST NOT ART

Is the last scene of Proxy not hardcore enough?? What do you want me to do?? Do I need to tuck 2 rocket in the ass of each girl and dismember her hole??
Whatsoever, I can do it also with nice cinematographic effect, it looks beautiful, natural and real. Like to look through a window, instead then inside the television.

I only just caught up with this thread.

2 comments, nothing technical

1. The best craftsmen develop their trade until it is an art form. I think that's the direction in which Giorgio is moving. I think that's the right way.
If you think about the opposite, when someone with no technical competence announces that he makes "art", it always looks like shit. Probably it is shit.
So I think it's good that Giorgio learned his trade well, and now he's experimenting more and making great entertainment.

2. I'm all for looking beautiful, natural and real. In 4k you also want to see every pore and pimple. Otherwise there's no point to 4k. It's just marketing.

And you don't need 2 rockets. Or a pineapple. Just that grenade that Roxy Dee was using will be fine. Thank You.
Actually, better not show that size of grenade to every girl. Some of them may run out of the studio screaming ...

I don't understand people complaining for 4k movies. this is the estándar rigth now, I want to see this amazing girls like I was there almost smell them! This is porn not art cinema

awanfuvet:

Look at 4k as the drive in the market. You have it, you're in, you don't have it, you're out of the league regardless of individual's point of view.

Even technically 4k makes a LOT of sense. From upgraded users' experience to endless possibilities for producers when editing thus cutting costs to re-shoot a scene etc.

If the cost of broadcasting and OTT delivery wouldn't be so high we would have even had 8k regulary.
Luckily new ultra high efficient video codecs and SoCs wil lmake it easier to adopt.

kidloco2 wrote:awanfuvet:

Look at 4k as the drive in the market. You have it, you're in, you don't have it, you're out of the league regardless of individual's point of view.

Even technically 4k makes a LOT of sense. From upgraded users' experience to endless possibilities for producers when editing thus cutting costs to re-shoot a scene etc.

If the cost of broadcasting and OTT delivery wouldn't be so high we would have even had 8k regulary.
Luckily new ultra high efficient video codecs and SoCs wil lmake it easier to adopt.

Thank you. I agree.

Maybe I misunderstood the points other people were making.

My point was that the average customer buys their expensive new 4K device and wants to see, or at least believe they see, a perceptible increase in sharpness.
Otherwise, for the customer, 4K is just marketing.

I have no problem with shallow depth of field used to blur out distracting backgrounds and to shift the viewer's attention to where the director wants it. However, for me, in these days of widescreen format, if there is more than one centre of attention in a simple porn movie eg. 2 girls, they should almost always be shot in the same plane of focus. IMO in porn it's normally a bad practice to use differential focus to blur out one girl (somebody's favourite) and force the viewer to watch another.

It angers me that so many studios/websites claim to offer their content in 4K quality, where as it is nothing of the sort.

Giorgio is one of the very few people who release actual true quality 4K videos.

avanfurwet wrote:My point was that the average customer buys their expensive new 4K device and wants to see, or at least believe they see, a perceptible increase in sharpness.
Otherwise, for the customer, 4K is just marketing.

I have no problem with shallow depth of field used to blur out distracting backgrounds and to shift the viewer's attention to where the director wants it. However, for me, in these days of widescreen format, if there is more than one centre of attention in a simple porn movie eg. 2 girls, they should almost always be shot in the same plane of focus. IMO in porn it's normally a bad practice to use differential focus to blur out one girl (somebody's favourite) and force the viewer to watch another.

You're welcome.
4k is just a technical aspect of the resolution, more pixels across the screen, how do you fill the individual pixels is up to you. It can be all white, all black, all sharp, all blurred

Vawkes wrote:It angers me that so many studios/websites claim to offer their content in 4K quality, where as it is nothing of the sort.

Giorgio is one of the very few people who release actual true quality 4K videos.

Well, from the well known sites yes, not so many, but many of them are cutting corners on cameras and encoding.

Giorgio has the potential to release technically very good quality (he uses very good 4k camera body), but he cuts short on the lens (perhaps no money left for them? ), post, and other aspects like lighting and props.

For me 4k was the next necessary step, just evolution. I started with 4k almost 4 years ago. But to have overall quality scene, it takes much much more than just have 4k (look at poor PW).