I can sure see why some actresses don't want HD porn. The younger and prettier ones are given even more of an advantage, though.
I like porn to be as real as possible, so I'm looking forward to HD.
The article says HD producers use "postproduction tools that let them digitally soften the actors’ skin tone. 'It takes away the blemishes and the pits and harshness and makes it look like they have baby skin,' said the director known as Joone." I'd rather he let the high definition alone. I don't like airbrushed porn.
If computer animations could look as real as real, then that would be fun. It's all fantasy anyway. Still, it is illegal to make animations of illegal porn; and the fundamentalists will always complain about any kind of nonmarital sex.
4:46 PM, January 23, 2007
I already wrote about how Sony doesn't want pornographers contaminating its new Blu-Ray DVD format. Now, continuing Internal Monologue's thorough coverage of the vitally important issue of HDTV porn, we have an article on the subject from the oh-so-respectable New York Times (including porn star pictures; alas they are not high-definition), so any prurient interest you or I might have in this matter can be covered up with a fig leaf of business section respectability: [Makers of porn] have discovered that the technology is sometimes not so sexy. The high-definition format is accentuating imperfections in the actors — from a little extra cellulite on a leg to wrinkles around the eyes. Hollywood is dealing with similar problems, but they are more pronounced for pornographers, who rely on close-ups and who, because of their quick adoption of the new format, are facing the issue more immediately than mainstream entertainment companies.(HT: Sullivan, who also discusses non-porn uses for HDTV) Oh dear, just what our culture needs: even more minute examination of perfectly normal "imperfections" on the female body in a sexual context. If I was a Hollywood plastic surgeon, I'd be doing everything within my power to accelerate the adoption of a new HDTV standard. Maybe I'd give away an HDTV set with every boob job or liposuction or something. The resulting level of insecurity created by the higher resolution of the new format would boost my business enormously. Here's an idea to solve the problems mentioned in the Times article: just replace the actors with computer models. Their skin can be as perfect as the texture artists want to make it, and numerous moral and social issues surrounding the creation of pornography could be avoided. And the acting might even improve a bit. By the way, I haven't acutally seen any HDTV , porn or otherwise, so I don't really know first-hand how it compares. Well, I probably have seen it walking by a new TV in a store, but I haven't really looked at it or done a comparison with regular NTSC TV. Sullivan thinks it's all great and stuff, and I think he watches more TV than I do so he should know.
posted by Zachary Drake at 11:12 PM on Jan 22, 2007
"Pimpled porn stars ambivalent about HDTV"
1 Comment -
I can sure see why some actresses don't want HD porn. The younger and prettier ones are given even more of an advantage, though.
I like porn to be as real as possible, so I'm looking forward to HD.
The article says HD producers use "postproduction tools that let them digitally soften the actors’ skin tone. 'It takes away the blemishes and the pits and harshness and makes it look like they have baby skin,' said the director known as Joone." I'd rather he let the high definition alone. I don't like airbrushed porn.
If computer animations could look as real as real, then that would be fun. It's all fantasy anyway. Still, it is illegal to make animations of illegal porn; and the fundamentalists will always complain about any kind of nonmarital sex.
4:46 PM, January 23, 2007