Wait, so the videos are at 720x576, and it is touted as a huge step up from 640x480? I don't disagree, it would have been a revolution if we were having this conversation 15 years ago. At least it is more honest than what beachhunters do: take these low res videos, re-encode them at a higher screen size and a slightly higher bitrate and label them as "HD". But you can't violate the "Turd in, Turd Out" principle so you end up with a low definition clip at a much higher file size.
None of this is acceptable in 2014, it hasn't been for a few years already. Maybe the site should pay its contributors more so they can afford better equipment? ;) It's not like its impossible in principle to make nice HD beach voyeur videos. Check out jackassfiles.com or ilovethebeach.com.
IIRC, all their videos have this fish lens distorted effect, like the ones in Spizoo'sPornGoesPro. This "House of Mirrors" effect doesn't do it for me, zero excitement.
I understand that making proper POV is difficult. Even more so when you are a cheapass wanting to do it alone.
So either you do it with a normal lens, and convince your viewers who never had sex that it's exactly how it goes, you either see the closeup of her face or a closeup of your dick as if your eyes were popping out of your navel. The sad thing is that they believe it.
Or you use a fish eye lens to widen the field of view, thus completely distorting her body. Neither of this is exciting for me, and the proper way to do it, by having someone else hold the camera a bit higher that the guy's head, is almost never used.
It seems that mostly it's some guy wanting to get laid, have us pay for it, and make a living out of it. Understandable, I'd do the same :). Why pay a second guy to hold the camera, customers will swallow any crap. Some even think that it's normal to have camera shake, your pelvis is in motion after all and all that. No it's not, IRL your eyes are not fixed in their orbits, they move by themselves so your image is stable. There is no excuse for shaky cam, as there is none for any Hall of Mirror porn.
Anyway, /rant off, sorry. I wish my search for a proper POV site was over. Tired of having to content myself with 5 seconds of non-crappy footage in one video out of 10.
Are you sure they have High Definition videos? As in HD, 16:9, high bitrate? If I take the AllInternal site for instance, all their trailers are 960x540. The few latest ones are 16:9, but starting from the middle on the very first page out of 12 they are at 4:3 at 1500 kbps, just like their old videos were, and I find it hard to believe that they wouldn't show a trailer in the best possible quality for their new stuff if they had real HD quality videos to show. When someone claims to have an HD movie at 1080p with a 5 GB size, which is much bigger than what Brazzers/RK/etc. have on their sites with bitrates up to 12000 Kpbs, but then they show a trailer at 960x540 at 1500 kbps to entice me to become a paying member, I feel that someone is trying to cheat me.
And your mention of "High Definition on every scene" makes me wonder what you mean by "High Definition" since, on AllInternal again, the movies on pages 6+ out of 12 don't even have the HD logo.
I don't like seeing fat, and I like strong legs and big labia and clits. Only female bodybuilders have all that.
I don't like that most female bodybuilders sites are about dominating males though. I am definitely not willing to be dominated nor seeing other guys be dominated. But seeing a strong female having sex and having an orgasm is what excites me the most, e.g. dominating her or seeing her be dominated instead. There isn't much of that unfortunately.
It's like this image that tonightsgirlfriend is often using to promote their site. Another "wow it has everything" moment: the whole body, the face, a good angle showing the curves, the legs, the ass, a good dick sticking out, nothing is obstructed by his ass, legs nor hands. This at least is a real screenshot, but guess what, in the actual movie it lasts like 1.5 seconds while the camera is traveling from his ass to her face. These guys DO know what images and angles to use to entice people, yet they always fail to use them in their movies.
The day I went to see the site they had just released the Zuzana Z. hardcore video. I couldn't believe my eyes, I am a huge fan and instantly joined the site. It was well worth the money just for this video. The rest is generic stuff of the joymii and x-art kind. Half of it is girl-girl which I do not care about. The rest is mostly generic young east-euro actresses, shaved pubic hair, no tanlines, no curves, generic faces, I couldn't tell one from the other if I saw 10 movies of each. And concerning orgasms, Zuzana Z. seems to have had a real one, but the rest that I have watched hadn't even bothered to fake. And the camera work is a bit better in that the guy can stay a bit longer on the same angle without moving, but still most of it is unrevealing filler. Even for the Zuzana B/G movie, I cut and kept only about a couple of minutes of the video.
But hey, don't mind me, the world doesn't mind these things apparently, *I* am the weirdo here. Sorry for the rant.
Don't get me wrong, the action on puremature.com site is definitely "softer". I mean it's hardcore action, but not for the Brazzers/Bangbros/etc lowest common denominator demographic, the kind that leaves comments like "Take the cock and shut up!" or "Teach them to cum on their cocks" :). It's more like the Pornpros "white room" scenes, in fact it is exactly like that, since they all come from passion-hd.com, which seems to be by the same guys who made puremature.com. The action is definitely of the same type as in joymii and x-art.
I was upset because of two things. As I said the video quality is low, from the blueish-reddish tint on many videos, to the lack of definition and artifacts. Way below what we find on NA/ZZ/RK.
But more importantly it is the camera work. The site and thumbnails give an aura of passion and intimacy, but in reality movies are not shot differently from other sites (and I cannot name a site whose camera work I do like). I shouldn't have had this reaction by now, but the thumbnails built my expectations too high.
What I want to see in my porn is female bodies being fucked. I don't want to see a long closeup on her face, and certainly not of HIS face nor ass . She has a nice body, if you must have a long introduction, why not use that time to build our excitement by showing said body? Not a closeup of the face again, nor waist-up for minutes; stop trying to do art-schmart, you can't even shoot straightforward porn. Then when the action starts, keep showing the girl's body, let us decide what we want to focus our eyes on.
I don't know what angles you want to see in a movie, or even if you care. For instance, here is the thumbnail for the Jewels Jade movie. Wow, it has everything. Whole body shot, legs spread, pussy being fucked, it is like being there. (And her having this landing strip instead of her usual pedo-shave doesn't hurt either).
But then, see the screenshot wall (I used "moviethumbnailer" from sourceforge.net). The screens are taken at 10 second-ish intervals. That angle from the thumbnail is nowhere to be seen. No, it didn't slip in the 10 secs between two screenshots, and even if it did, that'd still be no way to advertise a movie, and again, we have much longer face shots that serve no purpose in a porn movie. The rest of the movie is pretty standard, like everywhere else. Lots of bla at the beginning, long BJ, and 7 minutes in out of 22, the intercourse begins. Non-revealing angles, closeups... I personally care a bit about the doggy around 13:40, 15:00 and 16:00, but the rest is just filler. Same school of camera work (or lack thereof) as in every other site.
I don't care much, as long as the camera work is done well. As littlejoe said, cars are a bad location, as no matter what you try to do with a camera there, the action is always "in your face" and the positions are awkward, unless you have a huge limo. It's not a place to watch it being done in.
Also I don't like it when it's shot outside, but not because of "bad lighting", but because *natural* light requires a higher bitrate than artificial lighting. No problem with studio equipment encoding stuff for DVDs and Bluerays, but quite visible when there is a need to limit bandwidth when encoding movies for a website. Just compare for instance a standard HD shoot, the first outdoors "hello poolboy" part, to when it moves indoors for the "my husband is never home" part. Many more artifacts and less sharpness in the former.
Looking at the preview area, I got the impression that the site was exceptional. Yes, I am familiar with the major players like Brazzers, RealityKings, Bangbros, DDF, 21Sextury, etc. PureMature had this aura of sensuality and passion in stark contrast with the fake cries of "yeah fuck me with that huge cock" and anal piledriving that seems to fill said major players' sites.
Most of the movies' large thumbnails showed what I would call "true POV". Not that commonly referred to "POV" where a single guy does everything including holding the camera, that would be the POV of your eyes if they were coming out of the navel - that is just some dick and face closeups. No, these movies thumbnails show the whole of the girl's body, legs spread, taken at the level of the head or higher, which gives an impression of intimacy. This, and the beautiful sweet lighting.
Unfortunately the actual movies are a letdown. First the quality. The HD formats include:
* MPG 1280x720 2600Kbps, yes, actual MPEG (MPEG-PS) video streams
* MPG 1920x1080 10Mbps MPEG
* WMV 1920x1080 9Mbps VC-1
The industry has moved to AVC in .MP4 container, MPEG is way too inefficient. The MPGs at a higher bitrate and and 15% larger size show more artifacts and less definition than the WMVs. But since the movies seem to use a lot of white natural light, even the latter at 9 Mbps don't show enough definition. Video quality is definitely much worse than that on the major sites listed earlier.
Now the contents. Well, the thumbnails were misleading. The camera work is the same as everywhere else. Positioned somewhere randomly on the side, or long face and boobs closeups, or the navel POV (dick and face closeups). The "true POV" shown in thumbnails is of the accidental kind that lasts a couple of seconds when the camera is moving, like everywhere else. The thumbnails are way more exciting than the movies themselves. So they know which shooting angles to use to entice people, yet fail to use said angles in the movies? (They even photoshopped out Tanya Tate's ugly belly tramp stamp on the thumbnail, I thought she finally did something to look like the classy woman she would have looked like without.)
So the only thing that sets the movie contents apart from that on the other sites is the lack of "fuck me!" cries. Only the guy from cougarsinheat.com had enough patience to stay for more than 5 seconds on the same spot (too bad the site is dead), the rest are just ADD afflicted guys randomly moving the camera, and puremature.com is no exception.
I felt the same way when I subscribed to orgasms.xxx expecting to see... wait for it... don't laugh... female orgasms :).
As you may have seen we advertise HD video downloads and streams on the tour of anabolic.com At the moment they aren't quite ready, we're working extremely hard to get this feature fully functional as soon as possible and we expect to have this feature ready for you in the next few weeks! Please understand that these files are big and handling the huge library from Anabolic.com is a mo... "
They've been advertising this for months, with a tour page showing what looked like their "what's new" page from Nov 3rd 2011 (according to the actual release date of their 'Jessica Lynn + Elena Heiress' video),
with fake "HD" logos on each movie thumbnail. I'm sure they've been "working extremely hard" the whole year.
Too bad they are dead. I am not a fan of any studio, but more of them means more occasions to see the actresses we like.
I voted "other", since the question is too vague. To me "online porn" means watching stuff online. Personally I wouldn't pay a cent for the latter. I download stuff that I like, and it stops being "online porn".
Now, when I was subscribing (through Epoch) it also said that after this first month I will be automatically rebilled at the same reduced rate of $9.95/mo (or today's equivalent of €7.83). Do you think they will honor that?
Half the review is about the 25 fps thingy. You are surprised that noone else mentioned it? Here is why: 25 fps is the standard frame rate for the PAL and SECAM standards, used almost everywhere outside of the Americas. It is far from "unacceptable" and is totally smooth, otherwise the rest of the world wouldn't be watching digital videos, TV, DVD, BRs, etc., at 25 fps. Heck, the NTSC-movie standard is 23.97 fps, and nobody ever complained about choppiness.
It can play choppy for many reasons, a problem with your system or codecs, processing speed, encoding issues, whatever. However, TryTeen movies at 25 fps play smoothly on my system.
Not that fine a poll AFAIC. What is it that we are trying to find out here, what is meant by "mixing it up"?
Going from a Teens video site to a Teens pictures site? Going from a Russian teens site (with girls who do look like teens) to a western teens site (with "teens" in their late 20's or 30's)?
Or alternating between Teen/MILF/Granny sites? Or between straight/lesbian/TS/gay sites? Getting off one day on a furry and on a crushed testicle the next?
Currently all we can see is that 21% of the respondents think that they are "mixing it up", which, for all we know, may mean that they believe that moving between Brazzers' kitsch and Bangbros' more reality-like approach is "mixing it up", probably a lot. Now we need another poll to figure out what they actually meant :).
I was attracted by the prospect of seeing these beautiful East European girls while they were younger. And in a more exciting, "intimate" setting than a 21st Sextury set with hard anal piledriving and more dick than pussy. The girls ARE there, and the quality of most sets is good, almost HD, but there is way too much POV for me. The bad kind of POV, the shaky camera that goes from a face closeup to a dick closeup (as if our eyes popped out of our navel). I need to see the whole body, but the shoots are about 90% POV, and in the ones he used a tripod the angle could be better. So from the 150 or so models, some with more than one set, I'd keep about 5 movies with a solid 10 secs in each.
The other site, dshandjobs, is also foreign to me. With all the assets a beautiful girl has, you want her to use her freaking hand? Really? ;)
And there haven't been any updates since August 2009, so it's a quick "get in, download, unsub" kind of job. Overall I'm glad I did it, otherwise I'd still be wondering what great and exciting stuff they may have. Too bad POV and handjobs aren't my thing.
2. The camera work is pretty bad in 99% of regular couples scenes already, the camera guy having trouble focusing on the girl. More often than not we are only seeing her face and his dick instead of, well, the body of a girl having sex. Add a "cuckold" to the mix, and the genius behind the camera will want to do even more art-schmart, so even more closeups on him and his face :). No thanks!
I went to the site a few days ago, the preview area has quite a bit of videos with the HD logo. But there is no sample to download that I could find. There is a post in the "News" section saying that since mid-August they've been focusing on 720+ HD quality. Can any current member comment, did they start doing true HD quality, or, as it says in this comment, it's still up-converted SD clips?
I went to the site today and saw that they have started putting small "HD" logos on their movie screenshots on the updates pages, starting Sept. 1st 2009. Is it just for streamable content? Or do subscribers now have the option to actually download HD movies? If so, does anyone just sign up and get instantly access to downloadable HD movies, or is there a restriction like Brazzers' 6 months of uninterrupted membership?
Thanks for the heads-up. I'm not getting in until they give proper HD downloads and without Brazzers' "6 months of uninterrupted membership" crap, I don't care about streaming at all. Last time I checked RK, some time this summer, their SD content was of too low a quality even compared with non-HD sites. There are at least a dozen sites nowadays that provide HD downloads, some for more than a year now, and once you've been there there is no coming back.
I resubscribed recently and this is still the case 2 years later.
The site is called "exploitedMOMs". OK, technically, the term "MOM" goes from the age a woman is able to start procreating (and some porn studios don't mind casting the same girls in what they are calling "MILF" movies then in their next "Teen" release), up to the life expectancy, so technically the site name is not wrong.
Then, maybe I am mistaken, but for me the term "exploitedmoms" conveys a notion of "MILF". Usually this means a woman from 30 to about 50, and the "LF" part of "MILF" entails a certain degree of attractiveness. But for every Syren De Mer and Whitney Wonders there are 20 ugly, fat/obese and wrinkled grandmas that look way over 60. Not my cup of tea, some may like it, but then the site should be clearly targeted and called "exploitedgrandmas". I definitely cannot imagine myself having a running subscription to this site, as looking their update schedule I wouldn't have wanted to download anything from there for the last 6 months or so, and probably one scene every 2-3 months in the prior period.
- I like POV as long as it's properly done, I mean POV that shows the whole girl's body legs spread, allowing us to put our eyes on the body part we want and when we want it. Just like in reality. This guy's POV is the cheap and crappy kind of POV, which constantly goes from a closeup of the face to a closeup of the dick. Dick that definitely needs a lot of zooming in btw, considering the field of work he's in. I don't care about face closeups nor dicks, I watch porn to see beautiful female bodies being fucked - I am seeing enough faces in "regular" movies and could get plenty of dicks on gay porn sites were I attracted to these things. And I hate having a narrow field of view with the camera guy telling me on which body part I should focus and when. But doing the "full-body" type of POV would require hiring someone else to man the camera.
- The guy really talks too much crap. He is all about his own prowess while in fact he is, to remain polite, nothing special, and in porn terms, total rubbish. But repeating the same stuff over and over again may help convince a few viewers if not himself I suppose.
"See how hard you're getting me?" - no son, you are small *and* limp to boot. Hire someone with proper "talent".
When cumming, at the very first spurt (and sometimes even before) he goes "when is it gonna end?" - son, males do not stop at the first drop. It's physiological, there are always more than one, and to boot you don't deliver that much in total. A Peter North you're not, and no amount of repeating the same line will make you become him.
I mean I am not trying to make fun of the guy. He is what he is, has what he has, does what he does, seeing huge rock hard dicks is not the reason I am watching porn either, but I wish the guy stopped taking us for complete fools. I don't mind the guy tooting his own horn, some tongue-in-cheek humour could help a scene or two, but when this "joke" is repeated in every scene with nothing on-screen to support it, you know the guy is dead serious and this is getting really unnerving.
All in all, this site looks like the cunning plan of a rather average guy willing to fuck some stars and having us pay for it. I wouldn't mind this either if only I got some quality porn in return: no zoomed in POV and no ridiculous horn tooting. I haven't, so bye.
I haven't bought a DVD in quite some time. But if you go to a site like videosz.com or videobox.com you can download mainstream DVDs encoded with a pretty good quality (I don't have a subscription to any of these sites at the moment so I cannot verify whether they have anything from New Sensations or not). But they also have a great search system by movie, performer, studio, etc. And being the anally retentive guy that I am, I am keeping a text file with the titles of all the movies that I have already watched, because I hate to download something then go "oh shyte I've seen this one" :).
The comment about their scenes being non-exclusive to the site itself was meant as an FYI with no great meaning attached to it, it's not a deal breaker as far as I'm concerned, but the lack of a proper search feature and file naming are a bit of a shame in 2009.
FYI, just in case you hadn't already noticed: Dani Cole doesn't "come along to do a schoolgirl scene". This site has zero custom content, e.g. content shot specifically for this site like RealityKings or Brazzers do. Their content are scenes ripped from New Sensations DVDs. Check the filenames, when the webmaster was not too lazy we can see the DVD name in there, like WScarla_cox_dillon_FuckingBeautiful08_clip01.wmv or WSdevon_lee_CWT3_clip01.wmv (Cheating Wives Tales 3).
Protecting Minors We are strong supporters of RTA and ICRA, two of the most recognized self labeling organizations. Our site is properly labeled to assist in the protection of minors accessing inappopriate content. For information about filtering tools, check this site.
DISCLAIMER: ALL MODELS APPEARING ON THIS WEBSITE ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.
To report child pornography, go directly to ASACP! We're proud to be a corporate sponsor.
Have concerns or questions about porn addiction? We recommend this helpful resource.