Welcome GUEST!      CREATE ACCOUNT - Forgot Password?

Create an account to share your experiences and more!

E-MAIL   PASS  

Auto Log-in Future Sessions (on this computer).
Feedback History A detailed history of activity from this user in all different categories.
User : host2626 (0)  

Feedback:   All (40)  |   Reviews (0)  |   Comments (4)  |   Replies (36)

Other:   Replies Received (23)  |   Trust Ratings (3)

All Activity A summary of all the feedback from this user.
Shown : 26-40 of 40 Page :    < Previous Page

Type Site - Score Feedback / Review Date
Reply
26
Visit Pink Visual Pass

Pink Visual Pass
(0)
Reply of TheSquirrel's Reply

Thank you TheSquirrel. I've e-mail the PVP owners about the difference, we'll see if they respond.

Also, I've tried using the link from TBP, I am seeing the "25% Off" popup or whatever, but the join page still wants me to pay 39.95 as a European. Not exactly a 25% rebate, more like a 30% extra charge at the current exchange rate. I've asked them about that too.


01-01-09  01:09pm

Comment
27
Visit Pink Visual Pass

Pink Visual Pass
(0)

Difference between PinkVisualPass and MILFSeeker?

Hi,

Does anyone know the difference between the PinkVisualPass network and the one available when joining MILFSeeker (sorry don't know the exact network name)? The MILFSeeker site speaks about 30 sites but does not give a full list, and is a bit more expensive, while PinkVisualPass lists 25 sites.

Some time ago I was subscribed to movieaccess and they were giving access to MILFSeeker and its network of sites. Some of these site are not listed at PinkVisualPass (like MILFSeeker itself). Is MILFSeeker itself called "Hottest MILFs Ever" within PinkVisualPass? But the updates don't seem to correspond, I even seem to remember some of the updates on MILFSeeker from when I was subscribed to MovieAccess.

01-01-09  06:28am

Replies (5)
Reply
28
Visit Pink Visual Pass

Pink Visual Pass
(0)
Reply of Khan's Reply

I too am seeing a higher price from Europe: 35.95 for pinlvisualpass.com and 39.95 for MILFSeeker, while both are advertised as $29.95 after the TBP rebate, that's almost twice the price.

01-01-09  06:13am

Reply
29
Visit Pornstar Network

Pornstar Network
(1)
Reply of standard's Review

+1 for starting with Ryan Conner :)

02-10-15  10:22am

Reply
30
Visit POVD

POVD
(1)
Reply of skippy's Review

IIRC, all their videos have this fish lens distorted effect, like the ones in Spizoo's PornGoesPro. 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.


05-22-14  09:40pm

Reply
31
Visit Pure Mature

Pure Mature
(0)
Reply of host2626's Comment

[3000 characters limit]

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.

Re: orgasms.xxx
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.


10-18-12  12:44am

Reply
32
Visit Pure Mature

Pure Mature
(0)
Reply of host2626's Comment

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.

[3000 characters limit]


10-18-12  12:42am

Comment
33
Visit Pure Mature

Pure Mature
(0)

Not much different from the rest

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 :).

10-15-12  11:00pm

Replies (4)
Reply
34
Visit Reality Kings

Reality Kings
(2)
Reply of Vegas Ken's Comment

Nice promo, thanks for this.

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?


03-31-12  01:08am

Comment
35
Visit Reality Kings

Reality Kings
(2)

Finally some HD content?

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.

10-05-09  12:03pm

Replies (2)
Reply
36
Visit Reality Kings

Reality Kings
(2)
Reply of morgentau's Comment

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.

09-08-09  09:02am

Reply
37
Visit Sex Art

Sex Art
(2)
Reply of Parsnip's Reply

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.


12-06-14  03:10am

Reply
38
Visit Sex Art

Sex Art
(2)
Reply of Parsnip's Comment

I hope that there was an exit form and that you made it clear that it was because of it, not because there wasn't *as much* crapper sex as in almost every other site.

12-01-14  10:22pm

Reply
39
Visit The Sandfly

The Sandfly
(0)
Reply of TheMoreYouKnow's Review

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.


05-22-14  10:05pm

Reply
40
Visit Try Teens

Try Teens
(0)
Reply of joekramer08's Review

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.


12-07-11  01:34am


Shown : 26-40 of 40 Page :    < Previous Page

Home - Sites - Users - Reviews - Comments - Categories - Forum

Contact Us - Announcements - FAQ's - Terms & Rules - Porn Review - Webmasters

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.

Copyright © 2007 Ranks.com, Inc. and its licensors. All Rights Reserved.


Loaded in 0.49 seconds.