Jesse Jane.
Recently Jesse Jane’s been talking (NY Times – registration required) about getting corrective surgery to make her implants look less like dead Fraggles under the glare of a high-definition camera (she could also try eating food – it’d make her skull look less knobbly). Sadly for Jesse, the surgeon’s not the answer.
Porn’s problem is the close-up and though HD will make it worse, any camera placed close enough to define pores and body-hair will expose the kind of flaws you usually happily ignore because you’re getting some.
Jesse has more reason to be concerned than most because she works for Digital Playground. Joone her boss is a dedicated gearhead and uses the best equipment he can afford, real HD broadcast cameras, not the camcorder/desklamp rig favored by the gonzo crowd. She’s knows, as does the rest of the industry, the most perfect bodies are found on the youngest performers and is trying to find a way to stay camera-friendly and prolong her career (which is why Nina Hartley’s first HD feature’s going to be a real specialty interest).
The porn lifestyle doesn’t help. Smoking destroys the skin and make-up is clearly visible in HD. Performers fond of both look particularly bad up-close (as you’ll discover at the AEE show) but at least on TV the distances are reasonable, the lighting superb and the angles kind.
Until the jizz bizz has access to the digital vaseline used by the studios to make Kiera Knightly, Sandra Bullock and Cameron Diaz look flawless the best way of preserving porn’s ‘perfect’ illusion in HD is going to be younger performers, midshots and squinting. Meanwhile prepare for a lot of hasty, desperate and pointless surgery followed by a couple of unexpected early retirements.
Popularity: 73% [?]
Synchronicity.
Saw this post today. http://tinyurl.com/2dyzug
I know for some they are so excited for the next thing, whichever camp they fall under; Blu-Ray or HD. I have as of this writing some 573 titles in my collection. And another thirty waiting to be watched – blind purchases. But I supose what truely bothers me is the DRM for the formats. The idea that they can remotely disable your player. This format will never belong to you – ever. You’re leasing it. That bit of info should be in the front of every piece of benefit for it.
‘Bout time you posted about this – I’ve been waiting for it since I read the NY Times article the other day.
ANYway, I’m hoping a move to HD will force some of the… ummm… less-attractive pornsters out of the mainstream. Let’s face it – over the years, especially after the invention of cheap internet porn, the ladies have gotten more plentiful, but with that body boom comes a lot of ladies that have no business being in front of a camera. These people will NOT be part of the HD future, hopefully. (In a like vein, I’m hoping it’ll also weed out the meth-heads, because if smoking damages the skin, meth anally rapes it with no Vaseline.)
JohnIan – Check that link for me. It looks spammy to me. I firmly believe Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are going to die fast. They’re just not what people want and the web’s about to make HD easier, cheaper and less controlled. They’ll regret never giving us decent DVD packaging (and thus making the discs more desirable). It’s all about the content and that’s going to cease being physical in the next 5 years.
Chris – You’re right, some people are going to look rough in HD. Of course, if that hits revenue the industry will move to shooting more favorably, but without raising costs. That’ll mean younger talent and perhaps a market which favors skin condition over bone structure. Funnily, the fashion business has been that way for years. There are tons of fugly models but none with acne.
That’s odd.
Uncompressed link.
http://www.newlaunches.com/archives/virtual_makeup_a_reality_.php
You’re right Chris.
A friend of mine has a latina porn fetish. He showed me this woman, can’t recall her name. No. The girl should not be in this industry. Maybe something, behind the camera. Just because a gal is willing doesn’t mean she should.
In my experience there is room for a wide variety of body shapes, ages, etc… Not a pure reflection of society at large necessarily, but each performer has her fans even if she is not 21, busty, thin and wrinkle free. I knew a guy who loved performers who looked fake. The faker the better. I know others who love back fat. Others who like 40 something year old women.
There is diversity in turn ons and I think there will continue to be diversity in porn – perhaps not Vivid porn but in independent Net productions and the like. The interesting thing is if you are not young and nubile, your fans tend to be more loyal. That does pay off.
I agree with you, Seska – there is definitely a market for EVERYTHING out there. Hell, to use your example, I’m not particularly into the “21, busty, thin and wrinkle-free” type (although a 21 year-old with wrinkles would be a whole different tragedy)… I like girls that look healthy (i.e. not anorexic/cracked/meth’d/coked out, that look as if they like a burger more often than not), with a natural bust, a nice ass and looks as if they’re enjoying what they’re doing – obviously, that’s not exactly what the big companies (Vivid, Digital Playground, Wicked) put out there, so there’s a lot of variety out there (thankfully). My point was that, hopefully, HD will kick the more drugged-out looking ones out – I can more than live with wrinkles (I’d so hit Nina Hartley) or “flaws” that only perfectionists (and women, heh) have problems as long as the pornsters involved are really into what they’re doing and [crassness alert]don’t have “butterfaces”[/crassness alert].
Seska – I agree. the funny thing with HD is the magnifying glass effect. It’s not that HD’s real, it’s exaggerated. We never see people with our own eyes looking how they do when their crotch is crystal clear and five feet across.
HD used that way’s not reality, it’s an effect. I’m just unsure how it’ll be received when enough people are watching it on equipment that makes it look as raw as it is.
That is why I have stuck to web content – 5 feet across of my ass? No, thank you. I cannot look at any porn like that much less my own. I think I like my porn in small doses or live on a webcam.
Seska – I’m sure your ass only gets better with decreasing distance… Having used one myself though, webcams are so kind.
It’s been a while since I read your blog, but I think I’m catching up: Michelle Manhart is ugly, Angelina Jolie’s tits are saggy, and HD will finally rid porn of any non-teenage females.
You’ve truly arrived in this milieu, Sam. Excellent work.
T.A.H – I’m glad you have such accurate comprehension of my views. Let me know what else I think and I’ll write it up immediately. (NB. You got one thing right, Michelle Manhart’s a swamp donkey).
Watched a Barely Legal flick on my boyfriend’s new high def tv. Really don’t need to see people’s hair follicles or the coverup on their ass pimples.
Could the industry please start holding men to same standards of youth and beauty? It grosses me out to see some old fart with saggy arms and neck skin going down a pretty young thing. I like em buff, tight, chisled, and well-endowed. Please. And good skin. No more ass pimples.
Start doin those sit ups, boys.
Lady – Seconded. I agree completely.
Until Viagra porn men were chosen from the ranks of those who could. It’s still not changed far enough from that to make a huge difference though. A very small community of producers, old friendships, female performers with a clear preference for a few guys, and gonzo producers who won’t fire themselves add up to a good few years of flabby asses ahead of us all though.
Sam, You got this right. Especially when you consider that the higher class sites photochop the hell out of their models. They look like angels in the cover photos, but the videos look terrible. HD will simply make this worse.
That’s why I just shoot my girls with a 4-year old cam and convert to MPG. It’s not about quality, it’s about content. My readers love my material because its true reality. Case in point:
http://thesexpat.net/?p=74
Keep up the great posts! AsianRain
AsianRain – You’re essentially using failings in your formats to automatically blur imperfections. It’s a lot cheaper than a high-end conversion and touch-up. Deceiving to flatter can be great business.