|
|
This page is for posting personal ads looking to trade scenes. All transactions are the responsibility of the parties involved. Everyone dealing here should be aware that providing an adult tape to a minor is likely illegal, and could result in prosecution. Also, dealing copies of commercial tapes may be in violation of the copyright laws. The Moderator will make no attempt to police this board.
|
|
| Monday July 10 03:05:24 2006 Re: Youtube |
| Dannysuling wrote:
> Mark wrote: > > > Is it just ME that's stupid and doesn't get this Youtube > > nonsense? > > 99% of the stuff on utube is straight off of the > > mainstream sites - why don't you download directly from > > them ... duh? > > To make matters worse - this youutube crap is LESS than > > HALF the resolution of the original material from Anubis, > > Kerhop, Majorjohns, PantyDid - you name it > > Are you a glutton for punishment? > > YouTube is garbage - get used to it. > > Not sure whether this was addressed directly to me, but > if so, then here's my response: > > 1. I have no argument with your discomfort about the clip > quality. > 2. The "mainstream sites" (as you call them) do > not allow free access to archived clips. So if an > interested collector doesn't get a clip when it's > featured, then one must find it where one can. Yeah, that was basically why I started doing the YouTube thing as a tangent to my own site. It's not entirely a substitute for the "real deal," but then, some would argue that neither are the RealMedia/QuickTime/WMV clips that are the bread and butter of the sites Mark mentions (including mine). And while I've said it before, YouTube does not have to suck with respect to quality: it really does depend on the resolution and compression method of the source clip. Bear in mind that most of us who are making web clips these days are doing so at ~320x240 resolution, for the simple reason that we want our clips to (a) look good and (b) be streamable over a typical broadband connection. Higher resolutions at the requisite bit rate would look like crap, so we don't use them. (Five years from now, we'll have much better options, and I'll get to go recompress several thousand clips. Again. Joy!) YouTube, meanwhile, blows everything up to 480x360 by default. This is quite possibly a marketing mistake on their part, given that most of their source clips can't support that resolution effectively, and they're inevitably going to get the blame. Still, the "less than half the resolution" criticism misses the mark. I've seen some YouTube clips -- certainly not the majority, but more than a few -- that were clearly converted from high-resolution reference clips, and they look as good as anything on my site or any other that's been designed for streaming access. At some point, I may get around to putting together a demonstration of this, in which I put a DV->320x240/H.264 clip up against its DV->Motion JPEG A->YouTube->320x240/H.264 counterpart and challenge the community to tell the difference. It hasn't really seemed worth the trouble so far, given that YouTube doesn't exactly need my help to find an audience. But maybe someday when I'm bored... |
| Raffish |
| Monday July 10 13:03:33 2006 Re: Youtube |
| Raffish wrote:
> hasn't really seemed worth the trouble so far, given that YouTube doesn't exactly need my help to find an audience. But maybe someday when I'm bored... Interesting experiment. I volunteer to be a subject! My guess is, Raffish, that the audience will flow to whatever mix of technology and access gives them what they want. For now, Youtube makes available free downloads, establishes an easy network of likeminded users, and has at least a minimal search engine for getting close to what your target content is. The technology may not usually be acclaimable, but--as we apparently agree--most users aren't so choosy. And, as you say, as soon as the next spin on technology occurs, all of us are off to the races again. As for me, I can afford to be a discriminating collector only so far as access to the technology allows me.... Dannysuling |
| Dannysuling |
| dannysuling@yahoo.com |
| Monday July 10 13:15:40 2006 Re: Youtube |
| Dannysuling wrote:
> Raffish wrote: > > > hasn't really seemed worth the trouble so far, given > that YouTube doesn't exactly need my help to find an > audience. But maybe someday when I'm bored... > > Interesting experiment. I volunteer to be a subject! > > My guess is, Raffish, that the audience will flow to > whatever mix of technology and access gives them what > they want. For now, Youtube makes available free > downloads, establishes an easy network of likeminded > users, and has at least a minimal search engine for > getting close to what your target content is. The > technology may not usually be acclaimable, but--as we > apparently agree--most users aren't so choosy. > > And, as you say, as soon as the next spin on technology > occurs, all of us are off to the races again. > > As for me, I can afford to be a discriminating collector > only so far as access to the technology allows me.... Dannysuling YouTube is a great service to us all. There are literally thousands of clips on there, many of which I thought I would never see again (even those that aren't bondage related) and yes, the resolution may not be perfect, but then you can either just accept that as fact and enjoy the clip regardless, or not accept it as fact and spend your whole life moaning to the rest of us who do like it on how bad you think it (apparently) is. What would you rather have? An okay clip that you can't find anywhere else, or no clip at all? |
| Caritas |
| Monday July 10 15:37:58 2006 STEPHANIE GATSCHET |
| did anybody cap the STEPHANIE GATSCHET sceen from Augusts' Guiding Light? I dont remember seeing any caps posted on the board. Anyone have some at their site?
|
| Jay R |
| Monday July 10 19:55:21 2006 Re: STEPHANIE GATSCHET |
|
|
 |
| H |
| diddvd@yahoo.com |
| http://www.diddvd.com/15/dvd.html |
| Monday July 10 23:50:24 2006 Economics 101 |
| Dannysuling wrote:
And, as you say, as soon as the next spin on technology occurs, all of us are off to the races again. Well - let's see what we've got here. An internet operator (youtube) offering videos at no charge - which begs the question... how can they operate and stay in business ? It's the classic internet scam (THIS one should rival ENRON in creativity, but nowhere near the dollar amounts, fortunatly) They suck in INVESTORS (to finance their $1M monthly bandwidth charges, promising them BIG returns via advertising, etc ...) This is the classic formula. Whoops! - no advertising develops, but costs escalate rapidly. Whoops! - company goes bankrupt, leaving the investors (stupid) on the hook, while pocketing the start-up cash. Google youtube, and you'll see EXACTLY what they're up to. At the VERY least - they'd have to make it a pay service almost immediately to cover their tracks. BTW - my sister's an AMWAY distributor, could she stop by for just ONE moment this evening .... |
| James |
|
|