Some small single-model sites like vivianadoldano.com, clubshayfox.com, janetexposed.com, etc., have a similar model. A few videos for the monthly fee, but for the good stuff please go to clips4sale or similar. What you end up paying for is a clip catalog. It can make sense on a single-model site, if you are fan enough to join then maybe you can be milked for a bit more. It doesn't sit well with me when a larger site does it.
If it was made clear from the preview or the model pages what I would have to access to for the monthly fee and what would be a pay-for catalog, I may consider it. As luck would have it, the few scenes that are not too disgusting and that I would be interested in will require an extra fee :). There is way too much porn out there so I can afford to stick to some principles in this matter.
Thanks for the review. I was considering joining this site. Not because I enjoy crapper sex, but mostly because I am a big fan of Zuzana Z and they have some exclusive scenes, and some other models may have a few seconds of nice angles between two swims in disgusting piss and shit and whatnot. Anyway, with this pricing model, no way. It's not like it is even preventing their stuff from appearing on the Net either.
WTF do they even mean by "closed mind". Do we go there to discuss some opinion pieces about society, economics, etc., or do we go there to get sexually aroused and relieve ourselves? If I am not excited by things being thrust into crappers and maybe even being turned off by it, no exhorting will make me get excited. What next, introduce TS stuff with guys sucking dicks and ask people to open their minds even wider?
And having a fake model interview is even funnier. Sure, she doesn't want to come to work, do something quick and harmless and go home. She definitely wants to have her asshole pounded "at the office", because of course, these guys are all about her pleasure, they do everything to have each model orgasm ten times per shoot. Sure.
And it's not like they are getting into an empty niche. The vast majority of sites is at least half anal nowadays.
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.
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.