Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Media Build Entertainment Hardware

Porn Industry Tiptoes Into 3D Video 292

Posted by timothy
from the been-there-seen-that dept.
itwbennett writes "The 3D porn experience is coming (eventually) to a home theater near you. Most adult filmmakers are moving slowly toward 3D video because of higher production cost, the small number of 3D TVs in the home, and, of course, the glasses. Rob Smith, director of operations at Hustler Video Group says he hopes that market penetration of 3D TVs in the home is high enough that 'by the fourth quarter of this year it will be at the point where we can justify doing a 3D product.' The average adult movie costs around $25,000 to $40,000 to make, and 3D movies cost about 30% more, says Ali Joone, founder of Digital Playground. But Joone thinks the biggest hurdle for 3D isn't so much the cost as the glasses: people don't want to be encumbered by eyewear when viewing a film, says Joone."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Porn Industry Tiptoes Into 3D Video

Comments Filter:
  • Penetration (Score:5, Funny)

    by telchine (719345) * on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @05:43PM (#30756710)

    hehe, he said "penetration"!

  • Oh God (Score:4, Funny)

    by svendsen (1029716) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @05:46PM (#30756740)
    Think of the "money" shot...shudder.
    • by Shakrai (717556)

      I prefer creampies you insensitive clod!

    • by spun (1352)

      Think of the "money" shot...shudder.

      It's coming right at me!

      • by Shakrai (717556)

        It's coming right at me!

        *bang*, *bang*, *bang*, *bang*, *bang*

        Sorry, been watching too much South Park lately ;)

    • by Hatta (162192)

      I always skip that anyway. Really, why would I want to see that?

    • by JWSmythe (446288)

      I had a projection TV in my house (and kickass sound system to match). The screen was 10 feet wide, and 6 feet tall (more or less). I simply couldn't bring myself to watch porn on it though. Huge breasts would be entertaining, but it may make me feel insecure about my 8 inches, when I see a 6 foot penis on the screen.

      I was on the phone with it on HBO one day, and was totally distracted when the Dukes of Hazard movie was on, and they panned up Jessica Simpson's legs. I was simply s

    • by maillemaker (924053) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @06:15PM (#30757132)

      Speaking of money shots, why is it currently in vogue to finish all sex scenes by having the man ejaculate in the mouth and all over the face of the woman?

      Does anyone find this a turn-on? To me, it's gross and degrading. I love looking at nekkid women, but I'll pass on the blowjob and cum-on-the-face scenes. Lack of empathy, I guess.

      • by Rogerborg (306625) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @06:29PM (#30757298) Homepage

        Does anyone find this a turn-on?

        No, absolutely nobody at all finds it hot. There's simply no explanation for it.

        To me, it's gross and degrading.

        Darn skippy it is. All right thinking people prefer their porn to be clean, hygienic and a respectful paean to the mortal incarnation of the Earth Goddess. In fact, I'll only watch procreative missionary sex between a husband and wife. Fully clothed. Shot in the dark.

      • Speaking of money shots, why is it currently in vogue to finish all sex scenes by having the man ejaculate in the mouth and all over the face of the woman?

        Does anyone find this a turn-on? To me, it's gross and degrading. I love looking at nekkid women, but I'll pass on the blowjob and cum-on-the-face scenes. Lack of empathy, I guess.

        Not to mention that it would kinda put me off the "kiss and cuddle" part they seem to like after...

      • Re: (Score:2, Redundant)

        by icebraining (1313345)

        Same here, it's definitively a turn-off. But it's not because it's degrading; I simply only enjoy scenes where the woman is getting pleasure. Men are a necessary annoyance in porn.

      • by Knara (9377)

        "currently in vogue"?

        I think you mean "been standard since the beginning of the modern age of porn." It's so standard that internal cum shots ("cream pies") are a fetish area in adult videos

        And while you may find it gross and degrading, not a small number of people, men and women, think its hot.

        So, um... enjoy your softcore porn, I guess.

    • by Tiger4 (840741)

      Some technology, man was not meant to play with.

      and if you do play with it, you'll go blind.

    • Yeah, yeah, I've seen it coming...

      (just to get that joke out of the way)

  • Huh? (Score:5, Funny)

    by megamerican (1073936) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @05:47PM (#30756764)

    But Joone thinks the biggest hurdle for 3D isn't so much the cost as the glasses: people don't want to be encumbered by eyewear when viewing a film, says Joone

    That's certainly what people fear most: getting caught wearing glasses while watching porn.

    • Re:Huh? (Score:5, Funny)

      by NoPantsJim (1149003) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @06:18PM (#30757160) Homepage
      "encumbered by eyewear"

      I have never, ever done anything while watching porn that would have been encumbered by eyewear. I can't speak for everyone though.
    • *pre-self-whooshes-himself*

      This tells more about you than about the topic,that your thoughts revolved around “getting caught“.

      Your problem is expressed by this:

      My sister caught me jacking off the other week and calls me a pervert
      just the other day i walked into my room and caught my sister masturbating
      So she calls me a pervert again?!?
      there is no justice in the world...

      And the real problem below, is that you buy into their reality. A reality with on top of it all is also a double standard.

      When I am in my home, am naked, watch porn, or do other...stuff..., the rule is: If you see me, I first get to decide if I like it or not. If not, you are the wrongdoer, and if you do not stop, you’re the pervert

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by bughunter (10093)

      That's certainly what people fear most: getting caught wearing glasses while watching porn.

      It's more like getting caught because one is wearing glasses.

      Some of us must remain as vigilant as possible while "watching porn," and find it essential that "watching porn" require the minimum amount of potentially incriminating paraphernalia as possible.

      Yeah, it sucks, but wattayagonnado?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by FauxReal (653820)
      The thing is, while wearing the glasses you might not know you've been caught until after you take them off.
  • Been done (Score:4, Interesting)

    by slim (1652) <john@hartn u p .net> on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @05:48PM (#30756774) Homepage

    1969's The Stewardesses [thestewardesses.com] ("See the lusty stewardesses leap from the screen to your lap") "is the most profitable 3-D film in history" (Avatar may now have beaten it).

    • by afidel (530433)
      Box office mojo and other site's don't break it down by version of the film but both UP and Avater totally dominate that at $293M and $440M and there are 9 total 3D movies with revenues over $100M.
  • I see an Increase (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Monkeedude1212 (1560403) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @05:49PM (#30756788) Journal

    In POV porn.

  • Triple D (Score:5, Funny)

    by Nadaka (224565) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @05:50PM (#30756792)

    And here I thought that Double D was more than enough.

  • Seriously? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Evets (629327) * on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @05:53PM (#30756830) Homepage Journal

    Who in their right mind would actually buy a 3D tv that required you to wear glasses while viewing. That's absurd.

    • by Zerth (26112) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @05:56PM (#30756864)

      I already need glasses to see just a 2d tv, you insensitive clod!

      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by laron (102608)

        +1 Insightful.
        Nobody seems to make 3D goggles for people who already wear wear glasses. Or does anyone know a source for them?

    • Who in their right mind would go see a movie that required you to wear glasses while viewing? That's absurd.

      Wait - how many people went to go see Avatar? I lost count.

      • by MBGMorden (803437)

        I went and saw Avatar. Twice. Neither time did I wear glasses. Though on the second viewing I did discover that my local theater adds subtitles to the movies on Monday nights. A courteous thing for the hearing impaired to be sure, but if I'd have known ahead of time I'd have probably skipped that showing. It gets distracting because if there's text there my instinct is to read it rather than watch the picture.

    • Watching a Blu-Ray movie is already the only time I put on my glasses in my living room. It doesn't really sound like a stretch.

    • by slim (1652)

      I think the intention is that 3D TVs are not significantly more expensive than ordinary TVs -- all the display needs is to be able to update at 60FPS (for a 30FPS 3D movie).

      The glasses synchronise with the image source, to flicker in sync.

      A story about PS3 3D games recently said that some existing retail TVs can display at 120FPS, such that 60FPS 3D games are possible.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Andy Dodd (701)

        30FPS with shutter glasses was too much flicker for some people.

        Pretty much all of the upcoming 3D TVs are in one of two categories:
        1) Alternating polarization of each line, so half resolution in 3D mode
        2) 120 Hz TVs with shutters. Right now this is the approach NVidia is backing. Problem is that apparently a lot of the 120 Hz TVs out there only do internal "mocomp" processing of 60 Hz inputs, and don't allow for native 120 Hz input.

        • by Abcd1234 (188840)

          You forgot option 3), RealD tech on regular TVs. Uses an alternating circularly polarizing overlay (aka, ZScreen) and regular circularly polarized glasses, with the whole rig running at some high framerate (RealD normally runs at 144hz). Samsung has licenced the tech.

        • by JWSmythe (446288)

              I get a headache with a CRT monitor at 60hz (60 refreshes per second, for the oblivious), I can imagine what 30fps flickering glasses would do.

        • by afidel (530433)
          Only HDMI 1.4 allows for enough bandwidth to do 1080p120 and that spec wasn't finalized till May 2009 so I can see why most sets on the market today don't support it.
  • I think (Score:4, Funny)

    by popeye44 (929152) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @05:54PM (#30756842)

    The need for glasses with straps holding them to your head would be a requirement.
    You know.. with all that shaking going on the glasses will come right off.

  • by gnutrino (1720394) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @05:55PM (#30756858)
    Surely people who watch porn regularly will already need glasses
    • Is this spin on the "touch yourself and go blind" myth?

      If so its pretty clever.

      • by Nadaka (224565)

        It can lead to blindness...
        if you are not wearing protective eye wear, have bad aim and poor reflexes.

        • Simply close your eyes when you're giving head, duh.

  • When did they ask? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by EriktheGreen (660160) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @05:56PM (#30756876) Journal

    I'd have said the same thing before going to "Avatar" in 3d. The usual litany of anti-3d excuses would apply:

    • The glasses give me headaches
    • The colors aren't right
    • They'll rub on my nose/ears and hurt
    • They'll distort the screen

    I think this is mostly due to hollywood/tech companies chasing the holy grail of 3d for a long time. Many, many vendors have sold products based on claims of "true 3d images" including some spectacularly bad products like the virtual boy or NVidia's attempt at 3d with LCD shutter glasses.

    But with the current crop of tech, they've finally made it useable. The glasses I used actually improved the colors, and the film was bright enough not to notice the slight darkening due to the glasses.

    After the first 15 minutes of viewing Avatar with the dark glasses (RealD 3D) on, I wouldn't want to watch it any other way.

    If you haven't seen Avatar in 3D, do so. Very worth it, and I hope other films are made that way soon. I actually made a joke about wanting to see a 3D porn film on the way out of the theater ("we'd be ducking every time the male lead stood up facing the screen").

    Erik

    • by tygt (792974)
      I saw Avatar 3D - and it was interesting..... but really:
      • I got a headache - most definitely eyestrain
      • Colors were fine, I'll grant you this
      • Glasses were uncomfortable and definitely limiting (this is apart from the eyestrain headache)
      • The screen's not distorted but 3D seems to reduces the resolution of the film

      I still intend to see it in 2D; I expect that it'll be better than the 3D, at least for my visual aparatus.

      Personally I didn't see that much 3D about the film. Yes, there were seed pods floating

      • by Abcd1234 (188840)

        All valid points save for this:

        The screen's not distorted but 3D seems to reduces the resolution of the film

        That it most certainly does not. You were seeing a regular 23.976 framerate (maybe 24, not sure what the precise RealD rate is... ostensibly it's 144hz, which means a 24 fps playback rate) film at normal digital film resolution.

        The tech does, however, significantly impact brightness (since each eye is only seeing half the photons, give or take).

    • by Dan667 (564390)
      Avatar gave me a headache, the 3D felt gimicky, and was distracting. I would never watch another 3D film after that experience.
    • After the first 15 minutes of viewing Avatar with the dark glasses (RealD 3D) on, I wouldn't want to watch it any other way. If you haven't seen Avatar in 3D, do so.

      I first saw Avatar in 3D and the effect was very good, but it really didn't add *that* much to the experience. I saw again today in 2D and it was better. The visuals were brighter, clearer and there was much more apparent color and detail.

      I will resist seeing movies in 3D from now on in favor of the 2D version.

  • porn stars don't like guys wearing silly 3D glasses. project onto one back screen and one semitransparent front screen, and put the 3D in the theater, not the cranium.

    • You have to separate the two screens for your eyes. Otherwise, you just see double.

      • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

        by dzfoo (772245)

        Then plug the active flicking thingy directly into your skull and make your eyes blink alternately, in sync with the screen--no glasses needed!

        You read it here first. My patent is pending.

                -dZ.

  • Avatard: Sarah Palin on Pandora!
  • Uh, why... (Score:4, Funny)

    by cptnapalm (120276) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @06:07PM (#30757012)

    Does anyone really want Peter North cumming at them in 3D?

  • by JustNiz (692889) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @06:11PM (#30757072)

    why would it cost a massive 30% more to make porn in 3D?
    Apart from the initial investment in a stereoscopic camera, isn't every other production cost the same? Especially if you're using digital not film. I mean its not like you need to cut/splice the left and right eye-tracks differently.

    • by robot256 (1635039) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @06:25PM (#30757242)
      If you had RTFA you would know that in addition to the equipment cost, filming takes longer because of the set up/tear down of twice as many cameras, and the post-processing does actually take more work to make sure both tracks are synced up properly. Also until people get used to filming in 3d there will need to be extra redos to get the actors' limbs in the picture instead of being cut off at the side of the 3d picture, which TFA says and I can imagine would be disconcerting.
      • by dgatwood (11270)

        Wasn't there just a story on Slashdot a couple of days ago about Panasonic releasing a new all-in-one 3D camcorder with dual lenses? Using two separate cameras is so 1985.

        http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/panasonic-unveils-worlds-first-integrated-full-hd-3d-camcorder-at-ces-2010-80854027.html [prnewswire.com]

        • by dgatwood (11270)

          Oh, and regarding post production, unless you're doing special effects, that should pretty much be a non-issue. Your time code should be in sync between the multiple cameras, so you should be able to just edit one eye, export an EDL, sed the reel numbers if necessary, import it into a new project using the video from the other eye, batch recapture if you haven't already captured it, and render. Not counting the extra capture time, it should be something like five minutes flat, and if you capture in parall

      • There are other factors as well - such as using double the disk storage.

        Also, 3D editing software is in its infancy - and is typically only available on the high end professional editing packages, not on the low end. So software costs (both initial and maintenance contract) will be significantly higher.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Also these are LOW (think sub 100k) budget. So an additional 10k in hw/setup/time/etc on a 40k movie is 30% more.

      They do low low low budget as they only press maybe 5k-10k total units. With a 'high budget of 50k movie they only need to sell 3500 or so to ROI. Everything else is gravy. If they get a 'hit' with one they can just press more. It is an oversaturated market. As any dope with a video camera can make one.

    • by afidel (530433)
      I assume reshoots and editing in 3D are more expensive.
  • 30,000-40,000???!!! (Score:3, Informative)

    by Loomismeister (1589505) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @06:31PM (#30757320)

    The porn that I've researched seems to have been made on a sub-$1,000 budget, how are they spending so much money!?

  • by GodfatherofSoul (174979) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @06:39PM (#30757452)
    You know, like keeping the camera in focus and not moving around and getting the camera guy to shut up?
  • Not for me. (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MaWeiTao (908546) on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @06:47PM (#30757530)

    Many, if not most women in porn look pretty horrid what with the bruises, embarrassing tattoos and plastic surgery. They'll look great in one photoshoot and everywhere else they look like a drug-addled 2 dollar whore. On top of that we have to endure guys getting in the way of the action with closeups of their scrotums flopping around like a fish out of water. HD is already a problem for porn, 3D will only make things worse although at this point in the game it's more a gimmick than anything.

    Maybe all this technology will have the unintended consequence of turning people away from porn. Your average girl is more attractive than most porn stars. And with a real girl you're not usually exposed to someone who's been pounded into oblivion, viewing everything in extreme closeup.

  • Kids these days and their slang. :|
  • When I was barely 21, or so, around 30 years ago, the porn flick "Stewardesses" was released in 3D.

    I have no idea if it was a "big hit" or not, but watching ankles in peripheral vision was an interesting experience.

  • So if you get 'caught', not only do you have to zip up, switch to some innocuous application, but now you also have to rip off and hide 3D glasses?

    What are the chances that these glasses aren't going to be called "Jack-off Glasses"?
  • why the need for a 3D tv if you already have to wear glasses? can't a normal tv show a picture that can be filtered by 2 different lenses, like regular film projectors do for 3d movies?

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Locke2005 (849178)
      Yes and no. The old style 3D with a blue filter for one stereo channel and red filter for the other can be watched on standard TVs or projectors. The new digital TV uses vertically polarized light for one channel and horizontally polarized light for the other, meaning that yes, it requires 2 projection sources. There is also a scheme I saw used at IMAX that used active LCD glasses synced to the movie via infrared transmitters above the screen so that they alternately shuttered the left and right eye as the
  • by halcyon1234 (834388) <halcyon1234@hotmail.com> on Wednesday January 13, 2010 @07:28PM (#30758062) Journal
    In a thread about porn, over half the posts are quibbles about Avatar.

    Good job, Slashdot.

APL is a write-only language. I can write programs in APL, but I can't read any of them. -- Roy Keir

Working...