| Type |
Site - Score |
Feedback / Review |
Date |
Reply
226
|
Zenra.net
(0)
|
Reply of
jd1961's Reply
You mean "affiliated" as they share content or that they just have the same owners or something? Thanks in advance.
|
09-17-08 05:54am
|
Reply
227
|
Zenra.net
(0)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Reply
Well, you need to weigh pros and cons to decide :-). Personally I think it was a pretty good deal for me, but YMMV.
|
09-16-08 12:53pm
|
Reply
228
|
Zenra.net
(0)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Reply
As I've said, it's love or hate. You seem to be on "hate" side :-). Right, it is downloader's nightmare, but for some people (like me) looking for original content it can be worth it.
|
09-16-08 12:38pm
|
Reply
229
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Duante Amorculo's Poll
First I voted "To some extent yes", but then changed to "Not usually", because IMHO there is a BIG difference between "showing unrealistic sex" (about which there are no doubts) and "creating unrealistic expectations". Come on, are there that many people who believe into everything which is shown on TV, leave alone the Internet?
|
09-14-08 08:05am
|
Reply
230
|
Incredible Pass
(0)
|
Reply of
Gray's Reply
Have you tried to call your bank and say that you tried to contact merchant to cancel and weren't able to? Usually it helps.
|
09-13-08 09:20am
|
Reply
231
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Reply
Well, at least it is consistent with this one :-).
|
09-13-08 09:19am
|
Reply
232
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Khan's Poll
Wow! I think 37% of users never using MSIE calls for another poll "Which browser do you use as a primary one?"
|
07-29-08 05:11pm
|
Reply
233
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
> It saves bandwidth (aha! my "compression" guess was in the ballpark),
> but too much to the detriment of visual satisfaction.
Right, but there is also another side of it: it seems that most of web porn is shoot with amateur camcorders these days :-(, and progressive scan is usually not an option there :-((. Or from a bit different angle: 720p is usually about the same class/price/amount of information as 1080i, but see how much better "we have 1980x1080" looks on site web page (either camera manufacturer site or content web site) than measly "we have 1280x720" :-(.
|
07-22-08 01:03pm
|
Reply
234
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Reply
Not only that, but also to make decent 1980x1080, it's necessary to make it at 10+MBit/s, otherwise it's pointless. And those who have 1980x1080 (to say "we have HD") encoded @ 1MBit/s are just playing good old number game implying "the bigger - the better" (like those played with CRT monitor inch sizes or with CPU GHz in the past).
|
07-18-08 06:28am
|
Reply
235
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Drooler's Reply
This thing is quite complicated, see detailed explanation here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interlace
In short - some (actually most) HD cameras now use modes like 1080i (where 'i' stands for 'interlace'), opposed to 1080p (where 'p' stands for 'progressive'). When you shoot with 1080i (or any other 'i') camera, it makes every frame out of 2 half-frames: first one consists from even 1-pixel rows, second one - from odd 1-pixel rows. But as they're made with some delay between them, fast movement can easily lead to considerable shifts between odd and even rows, and at least to my eye it looks REALLY UGLY and annoying. Obviously, the effect is the most easily seen when camera is panning (because it means that the whole picture moves quite fast).
Editing software can try to deal with it, making "deinterlace", but it has it's drawbacks (loss of detail and so on). But to make things worse, sometimes encoding process seems to re-introduce interlacing back; this I'm not really sure of, but it certainly looks sometimes, even on big non-adult company DVDs :-(.
So I'm not sure what really contributes to this unpleasant effect of interlacing (camera or encoding), but what I know for sure that I really HATE it and it spoils all the fun for me.
|
07-18-08 06:13am
|
Reply
236
|
N/A
|
Reply of
moshic's Poll
At this point I still prefer REALLY GOOD DVD quality (720x480 or similar) to poor "HD" 1280x720 (and please please PLEASE no interlace - it looks HORRIBLE on any panning).
|
07-16-08 10:57am
|
Reply
237
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Denner's Poll
I've found that PU reviews as MUCH more relevant than TBP ones, and only if there are no PU reviews or if they're inconclusive, then I go to TBP.
|
06-16-08 08:06am
|
Reply
238
|
Strip Game Central
(0)
|
Reply of
ace of aces's Reply
> everything is rubbish i have seen until now :(
Exactly my point :-(.
|
06-16-08 06:41am
|
Reply
239
|
Strip Game Central
(0)
|
Reply of
ace of aces's Reply
> are the games playable
No.
> and is ther a video strip poker content?
Not sure what exactly you mean, but I think site doesn't have videos at all.
> do you know a good site withe strip poker content?
Finding attractive girls strip-dancing on video is a challenge these days :-(. Finding it in "strip poker" setting is even bigger challenge :-((. Please let me know if you know/find some.
|
06-16-08 06:17am
|
Reply
240
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Reply
> Besides, I am preparing for when the evil people take porn away from
> us, this way I should have enough to last me a very long time! Kinda
> like people stocking up on food and ammo just in case the shit hits the
> fan.
:-) :-).
|
05-21-08 04:13pm
|
Reply
241
|
N/A
|
Reply of
kkman112's Reply
> I've never joined any trial. To pay a few bucks for any trial for a few
> days and have to remember to cancel if I do not like the site or be
> charged full price automatically is just too much of an issue. I
> research a site a lot and then make my decision to join or not to join.
Ditto.
|
05-21-08 05:03am
|
Reply
242
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Reply
As I've said, they should allow you to download your 105 movies, but I'm just curious - what are you going to do with all that stuff? 105 movies even if they're 20min each is an awful lot of movies which will take 30-something hours to watch :-).
|
05-21-08 04:50am
|
Reply
243
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Wittyguy's Poll
> meeting directors and reps of production companies that I've pissed off with my reviews
For me it would be an upside :-).
|
05-20-08 08:07am
|
Reply
244
|
4 Real Swingers
(0)
|
Reply of
nygiants03's Review
> -No DP on Anna
There is one, posted on April 20th 2008. The guys should be listening :-).
|
05-19-08 01:26pm
|
Reply
245
|
Reality Kings
(0)
|
Reply of
badandy400's Comment
> it is not my fault if their servers stop the download at 87%!!!
It could be your fault, or your ISP fault, or their servers, or their ISP, or any ISP in between. IMHO it doesn't matter: as they can't be 100% sure it's not their fault, they should allow to resume stopped download not counting it as "full" download.
|
05-17-08 08:20am
|
Reply
246
|
Mature Toilet Sluts
(0)
|
Reply of
Toadsith's Reply
> Sometimes it requires as little acknowledgment as taking the document
> into your possession.
As far as I've heard, usually in such cases courts are VERY reluctant to upheld these conditions :-), so it's mostly a weapon of frightening customers who're going to complain. Still, whenever I notice such conditions, I feel that such guys are trying to cheat me, so why I should do business with them, especially if there is a choice?
|
05-16-08 04:10pm
|
Reply
247
|
Society SM
(0)
|
Reply of
apoctom's Reply
Well, let's hope they will hear you :-).
|
05-16-08 10:48am
|
Reply
248
|
Society SM
(0)
|
Reply of
apoctom's Reply
> even 2 scenes per week would be a great improvement
Sure it would be, but (taking into account that NOBODY does it for this niche) is it realistic to expect it? Among other things, it would increase their cost 2-fold but will it bring them 2x more customers? I doubt so.
|
05-16-08 10:34am
|
Reply
249
|
Society SM
(0)
|
Reply of
apoctom's Review
> it really bombed out on update frequency
IMHO once per week is definitely not bad for this kind of content. Same SexAndSumbission and FuckedAndBound you're referring to have 1 update per week too (SexAndSumbission sometimes gives "BONUS UPDATES" out of schedule but they're as they sound - irregular bonus updates once in a while). Or "Society SM" has it less frequent than once a week?
|
05-16-08 08:59am
|
Reply
250
|
N/A
|
Reply of
Davit's Reply
> This is because (and this is FACT) 83.6% of such analyses are not
> accurate. That's with a margin of error of 4.
Sure. But my analysis doesn't fall within these 83.6%. Undoubtedly. :-)
|
05-16-08 05:01am
|
