Porn Industry Tiptoes Into 3D Video 292
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."
Penetration (Score:5, Funny)
hehe, he said "penetration"!
Penetration height?! (Score:5, Funny)
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.
WTF kind of retard is Rob Smith?! Even your average Slashdot user knows that penetration is measured in terms of depth, not height. The irony of it is that Rob Smith has probably had more pussy than the entire Slashdot userbase put together. *sigh*
Fuck, let's slashdot Hustler [hustler.com]!
Re: (Score:2)
Are we back to the old joke about the mathematician and the physicist trying to measure a flagpole [jokelibrary.net] again?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Yeah, but there's more. He also said "the experience is COMING" and it's "moving SLOWLY". That suggests to me that the way it's envisioned, 3D will meet the prerequisites for the female of the species (an increasingly large demographic).
Re:Penetration (Score:5, Funny)
the female of the species (an increasingly large demographic)
They're not fat, they're just big boned.
Get it? Boned?
Re:Penetration (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Soon they may add the Digital Video, Digital Audio standard: DVDA for short.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Penetration (Score:4, Funny)
He could have at least given you a little warning
Oh God (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I prefer creampies you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2)
Think of the "money" shot...shudder.
It's coming right at me!
Re: (Score:2)
It's coming right at me!
*bang*, *bang*, *bang*, *bang*, *bang*
Sorry, been watching too much South Park lately ;)
Re: (Score:2)
I always skip that anyway. Really, why would I want to see that?
Re: (Score:2)
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
Speaking of money shots... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Speaking of money shots... (Score:5, Funny)
No, absolutely nobody at all finds it hot. There's simply no explanation for it.
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.
Satire? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
HTH
Re:Speaking of money shots... (Score:4, Funny)
Due to the advent of IR cameras this type of porn is getting more popular. ;)
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
"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.
Re: (Score:2)
Some technology, man was not meant to play with.
and if you do play with it, you'll go blind.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, yeah, I've seen it coming...
(just to get that joke out of the way)
Re: (Score:2)
Thats why you wear 3D glasses.. safety device.
Huh? (Score:5, Funny)
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)
I have never, ever done anything while watching porn that would have been encumbered by eyewear. I can't speak for everyone though.
Re: (Score:2)
If you watch a bukkake [wikipedia.org] scene in 3D you might instinctively want some eye protection.
Re: (Score:2)
*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, Funny)
Fuck the curtains!
Wouldn't that be a little difficult to clean up?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
Re: (Score:2)
Been done (Score:4, Interesting)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
So, are you going to change your .sig to include box office?
I see an Increase (Score:3, Interesting)
In POV porn.
Re: (Score:2)
is that "Pee on Viewer"? Sorry, I don't keep up with all the fetishes...
Re: (Score:2)
Point of View.
Triple D (Score:5, Funny)
And here I thought that Double D was more than enough.
Re: (Score:2)
What's the fourth dimension? Time? Are you suggesting that you have a time traveling boobie machine? Does it need to reach 88 MPH before you can see boobies from years past? Please tell us more ;)
Seriously? (Score:3, Interesting)
Who in their right mind would actually buy a 3D tv that required you to wear glasses while viewing. That's absurd.
Re:Seriously? (Score:5, Funny)
I already need glasses to see just a 2d tv, you insensitive clod!
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
+1 Insightful.
Nobody seems to make 3D goggles for people who already wear wear glasses. Or does anyone know a source for them?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
No glasses displays (Score:3, Informative)
These need 8 or more images to work, although it is quite possible to interpolate them from the 2 images of a normal stereo movie. This is currently nowhere near real time and sometimes some hints are needed for it to be done right. However I could imagine this becoming a standard: either the interpolation data is stored in the movie as it is far smaller than the images, or processing gets fast enough and the alogorithms good enough that it can be calculated from 2 pictures in real time.
The reason 8 images
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I think (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Hell yeah, I don't want to be distracted by looking for those glasses, it's already a showstopper that you have to grab those towels when it's about to... I mean, so I heard.
Re: (Score:2)
Goes off is more like it.
Encumbered by eyeware? (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Is this spin on the "touch yourself and go blind" myth?
If so its pretty clever.
Re: (Score:2)
It can lead to blindness...
if you are not wearing protective eye wear, have bad aim and poor reflexes.
Re: (Score:2)
Simply close your eyes when you're giving head, duh.
Re: (Score:2)
Have you tried aural?
Re: (Score:2)
You should get a good copy of the Purity Test, and see how many points you can lose. It may take a while, but it's worth it. Depending on the test, my score is down around 19%. No gay, children, necrophilia, piss/scat, or animals. Pretty much everything else is fair game. :)
When did they ask? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd have said the same thing before going to "Avatar" in 3d. The usual litany of anti-3d excuses would apply:
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
That was the aspect of the 3D presentation that I appreciated most about Cameron's use of the technology -- without the "See? This is 3-D!" throw-into-your-face schtick older 3D movies used, it made the movie feel as if I was looking through a window at Pandora.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
can't these guys do two screens, dump the glasses? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You have to separate the two screens for your eyes. Otherwise, you just see double.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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.
I have the title for the first big film! (Score:2)
Uh, why... (Score:4, Funny)
Does anyone really want Peter North cumming at them in 3D?
why would it cost 30% more to make porn in 3D? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:why would it cost 30% more to make porn in 3D? (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
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]
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
30,000-40,000???!!! (Score:3, Informative)
The porn that I've researched seems to have been made on a sub-$1,000 budget, how are they spending so much money!?
Re:30,000-40,000???!!! (Score:4, Funny)
The porn that I've researched seems to have been made on a sub-$1,000 budget, how are they spending so much money!?
Hookers and boo-- wait, no, that doesn't make sense.
The porn industry needs to stick to fundamentals (Score:5, Insightful)
Not for me. (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Re:Not for me. (Score:5, Funny)
Your average girl is more attractive than most porn stars.
True, but your average girl won't let the average /. reader watch her doing any of that stuff.
OK. The wife is finally gone ... (Score:5, Informative)
You seriously need to get yourself a better source for your porn.
"Viewing a film." (Score:2)
This is not a new thing (Score:2)
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.
Jack-off Glasses. (Score:2)
What are the chances that these glasses aren't going to be called "Jack-off Glasses"?
Why do you need a 3D? (Score:2)
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)
Thanks, Slashdot (Score:5, Funny)
Good job, Slashdot.
Re:Who cares about eyeglasses!? (Score:5, Informative)
I want 3D boobies!
We've had those for a while now. They're called "women".
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Only on slashdot
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I want 3D boobies!
We've had those for a while now. They're called "women".
How come nobody on this site understands Supply and Demand, even when certain examples hit so close to home?
Re: (Score:2)
I've seen a couple 3d movies in the past year at separate theaters. In neither case did I buy glasses. Just picked them up at the entrance, and dropped them off at the exit. The 3d movie was a little more expensive than its 2d counterpart though, maybe that's what you're complaining about.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Dare I Say (Score:5, Funny)
I think once the porn industry stops jerking us around and really starts playing hardball, then I can really get excited. I don't even mind that the porn industry kisses my ass or strokes my ego or throws the general audience a bone now and again, but this could be gigantic. I don't think I really could go either way; I've made up my mind -- I'm straight up ready and willing for this next big thing.
In fact, I'm just about ready to give the porn industry a helping hand.