Body Parts.biz (2)
|
|
| Status: |
Current Member for less than 1 month (at the time of review).
|
| Pros: |
+ Lower than usual cost - $19.95/month
+ Frequent Updates
+ Streaming on newer content
+ Alphabetical model list
+ 164 Models (as of this date)
+ Longer videos have been added (compared to comments in earlier reviews)
+ Pictures available in 2 sizes - 1200 and 2400 long side
+ Video available in HD wmv, Mobile m4v and Hi-res mp4
+ Easy join/ cancel through CCBill
+ $9.95 discount offered at cancellation |
| Cons: |
- A high of ~350-400 kb/s downloads (usually lower, in the 100's) - slow page to page
- Streaming video buffers almost constantly due to slow server speed
- Poor navigation
- Only latest updates are dated
- Camerawork issues - movement & focus
- One small thumbnail preview for video
- Several instances of different clips with the same file name
- Some models' files download under different names
- Mislabeled files
- A good many washed out looking pictures
- Very repetitive picture sets
- Inconsistent image quality
- Not download manager compatible (FDM)
- Hidden bandwidth cap |
| Bottom Line: |
Layout:
Like a lot of sites, the main page presents you with tabs.
>Home - Goes to the home page (duh)
>Updates - Latest stuff (more duh)
>Photos - Broken into Softcore, Hardcore and amateur sections, each further broken into sets of 20 pictures taken from a scattering of models. Sets have zips available.
>Videos - Also broken into Softcore, Hardcore and amateur sections, also random models. Five videos each on the first page, then 35 per page. From here, they're labeled with time and length. On the model page, they aren't.
>Models - Alphabetical list with "click on letter bar"
>DVD/Books - Upsells
>Frannie Adam's Red Bush Blog - link to free blog site
>Best Friends - trade link sites
>Frannie's Reviews - Quick reviews (advertisements?) of several (mostly) well-known sites
>Support - HELP ME!!!
Updates:
Once a week: Hardcore Photos
Two times a week - Softcore Video Clips, Hardcore Video Clips, Softcore Photos and Blog/Reviews
Three times a week - Amateur Photos, Body Parts Photos and Amateur Video.
Things that make you go Hmmm:
Since nothing beyond the first page of updates includes the date, it's hard to tell when they started to go beyond the 1-2 minutes clips mentioned by mbaya. But there ARE some longer scenes up. Most of what I've seen are in the neighborhood of 5-6 minutes, with some running around 15. As I'm still the big amateur video fan, that was the first section I hit. I took me a while to figure it out, but it seems a lot of the shorter clips in that section are taken from longer scenes found when you use the model list. All I get out of that is wasted bandwidth on the clips and a site with an inflated video count.
The picture sets and videos are labeled with categories but they aren't clickable links. You have to manually type a listed category into the search box to get to them.
In the photo sections, it would be nice to be able to move from set to set without having to go back in the browser. Multiple page hops in the browser are made difficult as every page is labeled "Body Parts Members area - the closest close-ups on the web!"
You can't set picture viewing preference. To see the large size, you have to click a link on each picture. Not too fun on a slow server.
If you're browsing the update section, videos list file size and time. In the models section, some thumbnails are marked 'streaming', with a link to a page where the file sizes are listed. Where there is no streaming label, there's no way to know whether the file you're looking at is a short clip or something longer.
I noticed quite a few instances where the files used a different name than the model name - in one case, two model names between two videos of one girl.
Videos listed as hardcore have the same categories listed as those in softcore. One cumshot is hardcore and another one is softcore?
The pictures, in general, seem to be of inconsistent quality, even within one set. There are frequent pics that are the digital equivalent of film photograpy's overexposure. As I didn't see any sets worth keeping in their entirety, I downloaded one zip file to see what's what. They're the larger file size, but the files had a different model name. (I saw the different name thing with some videos, too.)
Things that make you go WTF!:
While the overall quality is somewhat better than sites with user contributed material, I expect something more when it's studio generated. The frequent shaking camerawork is annoying, as are the lighting shifts. It appears that there's only one cameraman here - and it literally looks like he's either nervous as hell or in the early stages of Parkinson's disease. When you've set up a site dedicated to closeups, I would figure you'd at least take the time to get cameras that can be steadied. Image stabilization technology isn't expensive. Worse yet, there are times when the camera is moving around, back and forth, up and down, like the cameraman lost his center and couldn't find it. On top of that, there's the lighting issue. Some clips appear to have been shot under totally different lights. One section natural looking, goes to an orange tint, then back to natural.
EDIT: Just downloaded a video with no picture! Tried twice to make sure. Nope - no picture!
The bandwidth cap is now a curiosity. It kicked in when I'd downloaded 9 gigs the first day. But, even though I'd gone over 9 gigs on a later date, it didn't pop up again.
The wrap up:
I really wanted to like this site because it looked like a new source for amateur content for me. The girls look like everyday people, not the "dolled up" models types found on InTheCrack. For that, I'd have given this site much higher marks. Unfortunately, the execution leaves a lot to be desired. But, if you like closeups, and can overlook the shortcomings I've outlined here, it might be worth the $20 cost of admission. Me? I don't know that I'll go back until I see a review that says things have changed. |
Reply To Review |
