Quote:
Originally Posted by Doug of Montreal
Now we're talking! And that's not bad. You could probably add a few more in there, too. Quality models, maybe, judged by performance. Effective storyline. Effects. That could easily be a site worth putting together. Would it take a trained eye in production? Yep. It would. But no matter how inclusive you made it, along those lines, though, there would be a bunch of people looking for a technical dissection. There is room for different sites with different ways of calculating value. Nobody speaks for everyone. We just try and do a good job from the viewpoint we represent. 
|
Quality models has nothing to do with the technical quality of the video. I was showing you all the more important factors concerning quality that you want to ignore out of laziness or ignorance.
Of course companies want the quick sales point "HD" High RES, 8000 + blah blah blah
Do you represent the punter and you are going to tell him that really this means little, and the hotter better video does not have to be encoded at 8000 bits ?
No you are going along with the companies that want to con the punter with the cheap sales gimmick. Having them make the real effort and investment that making better quality would involve.
Tell me , what speck computer does the punter need to play these 8000 bit rate movies?
A far better solution would be to supply the files on DVD images so that they can play the files with hardware doing the encoding. ( we do this on our site
www.erotiquedvd.com )