Progue.Rock wrote:ok, I am speaking of file size.
Do we really need hi-def porn on our little computer screens?
I suppose it depends on your outlook. I mean, we don't 'need' high def porn in the same way we don't 'need' high def nature documentaries or feature films: do we really 'need' to see Gandalf's beard in such detail?
The problem i have with this line of reasoning though, is why anyone would not want to have the best image available? If you go out for a few drinks and see a beautiful woman, would you not want to see her as clearly as possible or would you pause a second to rub a little vaseline into your eyeballs just to blur things up a little?
For my part, there are many things that benefit from high image quality but none more than porn. I really don't need another another 1000 scenes on my pc of digital shit and this is where the real problem with low definition porn starts. When you watch a porn scene you should be looking forward to the action hotting up and getting a bit frantic. However, when the bitrate is too low it becomes something you dread because frantic movement means graininess and blockiness; it means as the action hots up the picture starts to fall to pieces! I find this a problem with a lot of 21sectury scenes. I sub to their site but probably delete a good 50% of the scenes I download simply because their encoding settings are not generous enough to cope with rapid movement: they make great porn as long as everyone remains pretty still
Now, to go back to your original quote "Do we really need hi-def porn on our little computer screens?". I have a 21 inch screen, pretty average nowadays, and a 50 inch tv downstairs (again, pretty average). Now i presume your argument is that HD may be necessary for the tv but not for the PC screen which is a fraction the size? The problem with this argument is that it is just wrong. A quick calculation on the back of an envelope here shows me that my television, being a good 8 feet away (minimum), subtends about 15 degrees of my viewing field whereas the monitor, being much much closer, subtends about 24 degrees. In other words, and blockiness or digital artifacts, brought about by your beloved inadequate file sizes, will be much more noticeable on the monitor than on the tv (and having sent files to my tv via my PS3 and can confirm that is true).
One more point though, on this HD issue. Pixel count does not equal high resolution. resolution is a measure of how much you can resolve, image-wise. Your mobile phone may claim a resolution of 8MP, for example, but in all likelihood what you will get is 8 million pixels of shit with no more actual information, actual resolution, than could be fitted on a 2MP image (if you are lucky). It is the same thing with HD porn. A couple of years ago I subbed to Giorgio grandi's 'no rest network' with all his scenes available in '1080P HD'. Unfortunately, everything the guy films is so blurry and seemingly out of focus that - tragically given the often amazing content - unless you shrink your media player down to a about a quarter-size it is like watching porn after ten pints of ultra-strength ale! In no way can i accept that that is 'high definition': it is digital shit and a terrible waste.
Last thing though progue.rock, a question for you. Why are you so bothered about such large file sizes and feel the need to influence companies away from making them? What is the site that is causing you the problems? The reason i ask is because every site I have subbed to has offered an array of lower resolutions and file sizes for those who aren't so bothered what the picture looks like or have low bandwidth. So what site isn't giving you the options YOU want and makes you feel the answer is to take away the options I want?
).
sorry, couldn't resist. 
Even my collection of torture porn is not that twisted 