Jump to content
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

female Cinematic vs. Broadcast style production | Which do you like better?


Recommended Posts

I'm curious what people prefer when it comes to wetting videos, a cinematic production style or a broadcast style production.  For a while now we have primarily focused on doing cinematic style videos.  However, at our most recent shoot, we tried out a more broadcast style approach.  Each style is aesthetically unique, and has its own pros and cons when it comes to production.

Here is an example of a cinematic style video:

 

And here is a video with similar content, only done in a broadcast style-

 

There are several key differences.  The biggest being that when engaging in a cinema style production we shoot everything on a single high-end cinema camera, shooting first a master shot, then insert shorts.  The models have to play out the scene multiple times to get these different shots, and when edited together, it gives the impression of multi-camera coverage.

In broadcast style production, we actually use multiple cameras to film everything as it happens.  The entire scene is played out in one go, filmed simultaneously from multiple angles, then edited together later.

Cinematic style pros-

  • Single camera production offers greater flexibility in where the camera can be placed, giving a greater  possible variety of views and angles.
  • Wider dynamic range means better color reproduction, more pleasing skin tones, and more details in shows and highlights.
  • Frame rate of 24fps matches the look of high end cinema production, which audiences have been conditioned for over a hundred years to suspend disbelief and accept the story presented.
  • Shallower depth of field allows for more selective focus, creative use of focus, and creates a look associated with high-end productions.

Cinematic style cons-

  • Production takes longer,  meaning less content can be produced.
  • Repeating scenes to get various shots means fewer opportunities for spontaneity and unplanned interactions.
  • Possibility for continuity errors in editing.
  • Requires greater attention to details, making production more laborious.

Broadcast style pros-

  • Multiple cameras makes the production go faster and allows scenes to be improvised with more spontaneity and without continuity errors.
  • Higher frame rate gives the look of live television, subconsciously communicating "reality" and feels more like amateur home video, creating a caught-on-camera kind of feel.  Can also make the content feel more immediate and real.

Broadcast style cons-

  • Less dynamic range means less detail in shows and highlights, with shadows clipping to black and highlights clipping to white.
  • Less color range captures means limited options for color grading.
  • Deeper depth of field makes it more difficult to visually isolate foreground and background, creating a flatter looking image with less depth.
  • Limits camera positioning, so cameras don't get in the way of other cameras.

So, what looks best to you?  Do you have a preference?  Does any of this matter?

Link to comment

Usually for me I prefer the broadcast style as I like the home video feel, however it depends on the setting.

For the videos above I actually prefer the cinematic as it's telling a bit more of a story so the home video look doesn't fit as well (still a great video though).

Whereas for the videos you do where a model talks to the camera and wets herself the broadcast style works best.

Just my opinion, glad to see you take all of these things into account though 👍

 

Link to comment

Why don't you just move on to making short films instead of dealing with porn? It's pretty obvious you want to be a filmmaker so head that direction. Personally the more camera fluff that gets put in porn video the less interesting the actual content is. Lens flares and fake rain and 6 camera angles don't help a lousy wetting or poor acting. I certainly dont watch omorashi porn hoping to see the next Cannes award nominee.

Link to comment
26 minutes ago, amaron32 said:

Why don't you just move on to making short films instead of dealing with porn? It's pretty obvious you want to be a filmmaker so head that direction. Personally the more camera fluff that gets put in porn video the less interesting the actual content is. Lens flares and fake rain and 6 camera angles don't help a lousy wetting or poor acting. I certainly dont watch omorashi porn hoping to see the next Cannes award nominee.

Probably more direct than I was going to put it, but absolutely agree. 

 

I used to work in video production so massively respect the work and creative input in these cinematic videos, but unfortunately I detest them as a consumer in this context. I'd rather just go on C4S and get a more amateur one there - it's less faff needing to manage all the various individual publisher stores, and the videos are more authentic. Multiple takes for the same scene is a massive turn-off, and probably explains why I never really engaged with your videos as much as the others out there. Also some of the video overlays/effects reduce the quality of the wettings - the raw footage with light-touch colour balance and unagressive trimming (so we have time to enjoy the crotch spread rather than a close up of the actress' face overemphasising the pleasure) is honestly enough.

 

Kudos for asking for feedback from the community though, and respect for always striving for quality. I think it's possible to respect the art form, but to not feel endeared to bang one out to. ☺️

Link to comment

Agree with the above comments. 

Your videography is clearly impressive and looks nice, but I prefer the homemade, amateur production style that makes the scenarios seem more "real". I genuinely believe that a top tier video can be shot on an iphone camera if the model is good. Some of my favourite clips are the most simple and unedited.

Just my opinion though - appreciate your efforts. 

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, amaron32 said:

Why don't you just move on to making short films instead of dealing with porn? It's pretty obvious you want to be a filmmaker so head that direction. Personally the more camera fluff that gets put in porn video the less interesting the actual content is. Lens flares and fake rain and 6 camera angles don't help a lousy wetting or poor acting. I certainly dont watch omorashi porn hoping to see the next Cannes award nominee.

What makes you think I'm not a film maker who happens to make omo content on the side?

I do get your point though.  However, it has been my experience that even though most people will say production quality doesn't matter to them when it comes to this kind of content, they do tend to notice if its lacking.  It is easy to say you don't care about things like lighting, or audio capture, but if the audio levels are blown out and distorted, or the lighting is so awful you can't tell what is happening, you're probably going to wish that it was a bit better.

But, I do understand at a certain point it probably doesn't matter to most people.  As long as it is good enough, most people probably don't care past that point.

22 minutes ago, The Waterworks said:

Multiple takes for the same scene is a massive turn-off, and probably explains why I never really engaged with your videos as much as the others out there. Also some of the video overlays/effects reduce the quality of the wettings - the raw footage with light-touch colour balance and unagressive trimming (so we have time to enjoy the crotch spread rather than a close up of the actress' face overemphasising the pleasure) is honestly enough.

Your feedback is noted.  So, I am assuming then you prefer a live broadcast style, where a scene is allowed to happen in full, uninterrupted, once.

The main reason I did a cinematic approach in the first place is that no one else was doing it.  As I'm sure you well know, there are countless videos places like C4S, shot on a cell phone, with a single model standing in their shower and peeing their pants.  This might feel more authentic because of its amateur qualities, but there are so many people doing that.  It would be impossible to stand out.  If I tried that, I don't know what I could offer people that they aren't already getting from countless others.  At least by taking a cinematic approach to production, I'm able to offer something that people can't get elsewhere.

Link to comment
5 hours ago, amaron32 said:

Why don't you just move on to making short films instead of dealing with porn? It's pretty obvious you want to be a filmmaker so head that direction. Personally the more camera fluff that gets put in porn video the less interesting the actual content is. Lens flares and fake rain and 6 camera angles don't help a lousy wetting or poor acting. I certainly dont watch omorashi porn hoping to see the next Cannes award nominee.

Well said amaron32, I agree with you here 100%

Link to comment

I feel like you are getting some harsh feed back here. I for one enjoy the content that you produce (though I am discerning on what I will purchase)  I have to be honest, I enjoy both styles. It's the quality of the content that counts for me. I will admit there are countless video's of standing and wetting jeans, whether amateur or professional (in fact everywhere you look which gets a bit boring for me - prefer skirts & dress wetting).  Keep enjoying what you do so that we can enjoy the the fruits of your work.

 

Link to comment

I like both really.  The cinematic seems slightly better overall but I understand it's challenges.  Now I like the post above, a series or longer, more drawn out plot line with maybe multiple scenes (as in the game show theme) where there are recurring characters and issues or events.  Would love to subscribe to a series!!!??

Link to comment

I agree with a lot of what others have said.  There are lots of poor quality clips out there and yours are clearly a cut above, I love the effort you put in.  But I would say use your skills to make sure scenes are framed and lit well, don't try to get too fancy because it ends up detracting from the final product for me.  And I don't like the idea of scenes being re-shot, we accept that cinema films are acted but this sort of content should ideally be as genuine as possible.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, amaron32 said:

Why don't you just move on to making short films instead of dealing with porn? It's pretty obvious you want to be a filmmaker so head that direction. Personally the more camera fluff that gets put in porn video the less interesting the actual content is. Lens flares and fake rain and 6 camera angles don't help a lousy wetting or poor acting. I certainly dont watch omorashi porn hoping to see the next Cannes award nominee.

This sort of sums up my idea too. When I'm watching porn to get off, what it is basically for, I don't care about cinematic or artistic value. I care about getting aroused. Because of that I prefer amateur content more than this kind of production.
I want to find the girl/girls attractive and see the wetting from a good camera angle. A good story line goes a long way too, but all the rest is sort of superfluous to me. That is also why I don't watch your content often.

I sometimes feel you're missing the point a little, but that may be personal taste. Both of the example videos are quite good, but instead of lifting themselves up to pee on the partner I would have found it much more arousing to see them pee while grinding into her. More realistic in the heat of the moment of lovemaking than this artificially positioning themselves above. But that is beside your question of course.

Link to comment
Guest readingissexy

Personally I prefer the broadcast style as it feels more natural. As soon as things feel fake or staged I’m immediately turned off by it (although obviously I know most videos ARE staged it’s easier to suspend disbelief when they look more home made). 
 

One interesting point to note though - I never buy porn, and I suspect most people who prefer the broadcast style also like to download stuff for free. So I guess a better question for you as a creator is what style do those who actually buy your material prefer? In that case the higher perceived production value of the cinematic style may tip the balance into a purchase. 
 

Either way, please continue to produce content and to engage with the community - it clearly sets you apart from most other producers out there. 

Link to comment
4 hours ago, readingissexy said:

One interesting point to note though - I never buy porn, and I suspect most people who prefer the broadcast style also like to download stuff for free. So I guess a better question for you as a creator is what style do those who actually buy your material prefer? In that case the higher perceived production value of the cinematic style may tip the balance into a purchase. 

That too indeed. I never pay for porn. It's just not something I'm willing to spend money on. Life is expensive enough as it is.

Link to comment

I’m in film, I’m going into my 4th year in college and I’ve worked with a bike company for an internship over the summer. I’m not mainly in the cinematography area, more in editing and color grading, but I have gaffed and griped for some projects before, and I did work with a cannon dslr at the bike company. I got this to say.

 

Broadcast looks way better in my opinion. I don’t know how much control you have over your scene,I’m guessing you’re sort of going off the time of the day with like 3 led lights, but to me, the lighting doesn’t distract me from what’s happening in the broadcast setting. The shadows get a little too dark at times though, you could throw in some fill and diffuse your led, but overall, the broadcast looks pretty good. 
 

The shadows on the cinema style one are very sharp. Right next to the dresser specifically, the light you have on the c stand next to the model is causing a lot of harsh shadows and I think it needs to be moved somewhere else. Plus you can see it in the shot. It’s tough because you have white walls, so light bounces very easily. What you can do is take the light and point it to the wall behind the camera and let the bounce be a fill light. There also might be a window to the left of the actor, so I would test and see if blocking that light would do anything, because the warm and cool clashing together looks off to me. I think you also added a white light as well when they’re making out? I’m not sure. I prefer the two camera set up, because it’s quicker and you have more flexibility in post, but that’s sort of a personal preference. If you have more camera lenses, I would try a 50 mm prime lens with a lower f stop, like 1.4, if you’re trying to go for a shallow focus range. I think it would drastically improve the shot.  

 

You have a unique situation, because not a lot of creators in omo have a film background. Though above all, the most important things about these videos is having a good direction and having a good model. I think you could really benefit from a kinda tv show like series that’s more narrative based and complex. Out of anybody, you could accomplish something like that. Sure some of the critiques here are harsh, but I think if you want to be a better creator, it’s necessary to listen to them. It’s better than just saying that both are equally good, because objectively they aren’t. They have their upsides and downsides, the cinema one is more experimental, while the broadcast is a safer option. I think if you continue to experiment and look at references to go by, then you can make something that can visually look cinematic. One good place that I like to go to is a website called film grab, and you can look at various snapshots from movies and see what you like. Another really cool thing as well, is that you can actually take that snapshot and put it in premier, put the photo in the timeline and then actually take the color grading from the picture and use it in your shot. It’s a very quick way to grade things, but it’s just something cool to do. I also agree that having too much cuts can take the fun out of the video, especially right before the wetting.  I like the lead up a lot, so take what you will from this but in short, the broadcast is a better look for me. 

 

 

Link to comment
7 hours ago, readingissexy said:

One interesting point to note though - I never buy porn, and I suspect most people who prefer the broadcast style also like to download stuff for free. So I guess a better question for you as a creator is what style do those who actually buy your material prefer? In that case the higher perceived production value of the cinematic style may tip the balance into a purchase.

Very good point, and something I definitely do keep in mind.  In asking for feedback, the danger is always that I'll get tons of feedback from people who will never spend money on the content I create.  That is fine, but I'm not going to change things to appease  someone who is never  going to contribute a single cent to what I'm doing.

It is clear from some of the more critical comments that those making them have never been a member of HD Wetting and are not familiar with the large variety of videos there.  There is well over a thousand videos in the members area which include a variety of styles, everything from scripted cinematic videos, to completely improvised broadcast style, to amateur content shot on phones, to public videos recorded on consumer camcorders, to hidden camera voyeur videos.

members.jpg

8 hours ago, Chas said:

I agree with a lot of what others have said.  There are lots of poor quality clips out there and yours are clearly a cut above, I love the effort you put in.  But I would say use your skills to make sure scenes are framed and lit well, don't try to get too fancy because it ends up detracting from the final product for me.  And I don't like the idea of scenes being re-shot, we accept that cinema films are acted but this sort of content should ideally be as genuine as possible.

I think, in the future, I'm going to try to do more content that plays out naturally, captured with multiple cameras to make sure we get good coverage, but focus more on unscripted and authentic experiences, like our Public Wetting Challenge series.  Occasionally, we'll still do scripted scenes, and for those I'll utilize a cinematic approach, but those kind of scenes won't be the focus.

Link to comment

I definitely prefer broadcast style. As others have said, multiple takes are a massive turn-off.
It's hard to pinpoint exactly what makes them a turn-off, but it's the same as when a model fakes having an accident even though she didn't really have to pee, or when she tells the viewer how embarassed she is in the most neutral, unbothered voice.

I guess the most accurate description would be "a combination of consistency and authenticity"? I will accept a wide range of "rules" that apply to whatever fictional realm your story takes place in - but those rules must then be followed. I will accept tons of scenarios with wildly implausible premises, but sometimes the difference between that and it feeling "fake" is very nuanced. For example, if a model claims to be having an accident but only pees very little and that is accepted in-universe, then that's lame. But if another character calls her out on it, or if it's apparent from her behaviour that she's just using that as an excuse to wet herself, then that can be very hot.

I also like a lot of different variants of omo and other factors that can tie into it (desperation, embarrassment, taboo, nonchalance, ...), and for me some of those require a story/context, while others do not. Nonchalant wetting and raw desperation I feel like can stand perfectly by themselves, without a single word said. By contrast, a model just standing in a dark corner and leaking into her jeans without any visible desperation or context is pretty meh. But if she whispers to the camera "I'm out at a bar and these are the only pants I have", then that's a game changer.
And almost any scene will benefit from being embedded in a good story, but I'd rather have no story than one that "feels fake". Or I'd rather have one that leaves things to the imagination rather than try and fill in more details that end up contradicting each other.

So the videos I tend to like most are single camera, single cut, "show, don't tell", with stories that establish some key aspects but leave a lot to the imagination. I haven't seen a lot from HDWetting, but I think the "Language Development" video is a perfect example of this. We can see her squirm, leak, and eventually soack her pants all while trying to maintain composure. Simple and solid. A bit of shivering and losing her place add to the authenticity. As for the context, how she got into this situation, why she couldn't pee beforehand, what's preventing her to go now, whether she asked someone and was denied - all that is missing, but we're free to fill in whatever we deem most plausible and/or hot. We're not even told whether this is supposed to take place in front of a live audience or whether she's actually recording this in her own apartment, in-universe. The video doesn't tell us a whole lot, but what it tells us is consistent, and really damn hot.

Link to comment
On 8/25/2022 at 4:15 PM, TVGuy said:

I'm curious what people prefer when it comes to wetting videos, a cinematic production style or a broadcast style production.  For a while now we have primarily focused on doing cinematic style videos.  However, at our most recent shoot, we tried out a more broadcast style approach.  Each style is aesthetically unique, and has its own pros and cons when it comes to production.

Here is an example of a cinematic style video:

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
04:11
 
 
 
 
 
x2
x1.5
x1
x0.5
 
 
04:29 / 05:14
  • Pause
  • Unmute
  • Fullscreen
  • Fluid Player 3.2.1
 

 

 

And here is a video with similar content, only done in a broadcast style-

 

 
 
 
 
 
 
00:14
 
 
 
 
 
x2
x1.5
x1
x0.5
 
 
02:48 / 03:57
  • Pause
  • Unmute
  • Fullscreen
  • Fluid Player 3.2.1
 

 

 

There are several key differences.  The biggest being that when engaging in a cinema style production we shoot everything on a single high-end cinema camera, shooting first a master shot, then insert shorts.  The models have to play out the scene multiple times to get these different shots, and when edited together, it gives the impression of multi-camera coverage.

In broadcast style production, we actually use multiple cameras to film everything as it happens.  The entire scene is played out in one go, filmed simultaneously from multiple angles, then edited together later.

Cinematic style pros-

  • Single camera production offers greater flexibility in where the camera can be placed, giving a greater  possible variety of views and angles.
  • Wider dynamic range means better color reproduction, more pleasing skin tones, and more details in shows and highlights.
  • Frame rate of 24fps matches the look of high end cinema production, which audiences have been conditioned for over a hundred years to suspend disbelief and accept the story presented.
  • Shallower depth of field allows for more selective focus, creative use of focus, and creates a look associated with high-end productions.

Cinematic style cons-

  • Production takes longer,  meaning less content can be produced.
  • Repeating scenes to get various shots means fewer opportunities for spontaneity and unplanned interactions.
  • Possibility for continuity errors in editing.
  • Requires greater attention to details, making production more laborious.

Broadcast style pros-

  • Multiple cameras makes the production go faster and allows scenes to be improvised with more spontaneity and without continuity errors.
  • Higher frame rate gives the look of live television, subconsciously communicating "reality" and feels more like amateur home video, creating a caught-on-camera kind of feel.  Can also make the content feel more immediate and real.

Broadcast style cons-

  • Less dynamic range means less detail in shows and highlights, with shadows clipping to black and highlights clipping to white.
  • Less color range captures means limited options for color grading.
  • Deeper depth of field makes it more difficult to visually isolate foreground and background, creating a flatter looking image with less depth.
  • Limits camera positioning, so cameras don't get in the way of other cameras.

So, what looks best to you?  Do you have a preference?  Does any of this matter?

I wish the Cinematic one were in 60fps. If you could change that then I would pick it. Of the 2 clips you posted, I pick broadcast just because framerate is that big of a deal to me. Btw, who is the new girl with Alicia in the 2nd clip?

Edited by wilbob76 (see edit history)
Link to comment
3 hours ago, shadowflake said:

 

I guess the most accurate description would be "a combination of consistency and authenticity"? I will accept a wide range of "rules" that apply to whatever fictional realm your story takes place in - but those rules must then be followed. I will accept tons of scenarios with wildly implausible premises, but sometimes the difference between that and it feeling "fake" is very nuanced. For example, if a model claims to be having an accident but only pees very little and that is accepted in-universe, then that's lame. But if another character calls her out on it, or if it's apparent from her behaviour that she's just using that as an excuse to wet herself, then that can be very hot.

I think the key concept here is that of authenticity.  That is why people think they prefer true amateur content, as they feel it is more authentic.  I don't think most people actually like shaky cameras and poor lighting so you can't even see what is going on, or audio levels that are all over the place and distorted.  But, they don't want to watch something that they are aware is produced or engineered in some way.

What exactly authenticity is when it comes to wetting videos, and what makes something feel authentic vs. inauthentic, is a matter that could be discussed in great detail.  A while back I did a few videos with Alisha that were in a classroom setting.  These videos were among the most produced and planned videos we have ever done, as the classroom setting was entirely CGI and Alisha was filmed on a green screen.  Everything had to be story boarded in advance.  However, I have a handful of people who want me to do more of those videos.  Even though they are clearly produced, and what I think the majority here would clearly consider inauthentic, to these few people who keep asking for more it seems that these scenes are extremely authentic to their fantasies.

Everything from filming technique, to acting, to lighting, to location, to audio, to viewer expectations are all important elements when it comes to building a sense of authenticity.  But, that sense of authenticity is fragile, and if anything is a little bit off that authenticity is destroyed.

43 minutes ago, wilbob76 said:

I wish the Cinematic one were in 60fps. If you could change that then I would pick it. Of the 2 clips you posted, I pick broadcast just because framerate is that big of a deal to me. Btw, who is the new girl with Alicia in the 2nd clip?

Well, if it were 60fps it wouldn't be cinematic.  For more than 100 years the motion cadence created by 24fps has been associated with cinema and high-end production.  Audiences automatically associate the look of 24fps with cinema, it feels like a movie, or a high-budget dramatic television show.

Higher frame rates, like 60 and 50fps have been associated with the look of live television and video for more than 70 years now.  It is the look of news, sports, and consumer video.  Viewers subconsciously associate it with reality.

Using the right frame rate for the content can be really important.  When Peter Jackson's The Hobbit came out, there was an HFR option where audiences could watch it in theaters at 48fps.  The resulting motion rendering was closer to what you get with live television.  As a result, many in the audience remained hyper aware through the film that they were watching something that was constructed and shot on stages, with actors wearing costumes.  It made it more difficult for them to suspend their disbelief and get lost in the narrative. 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, TVGuy said:

I think the key concept here is that of authenticity.  That is why people think they prefer true amateur content, as they feel it is more authentic.  I don't think most people actually like shaky cameras and poor lighting so you can't even see what is going on, or audio levels that are all over the place and distorted.  But, they don't want to watch something that they are aware is produced or engineered in some way.

What exactly authenticity is when it comes to wetting videos, and what makes something feel authentic vs. inauthentic, is a matter that could be discussed in great detail.  A while back I did a few videos with Alisha that were in a classroom setting.  These videos were among the most produced and planned videos we have ever done, as the classroom setting was entirely CGI and Alisha was filmed on a green screen.  Everything had to be story boarded in advance.  However, I have a handful of people who want me to do more of those videos.  Even though they are clearly produced, and what I think the majority here would clearly consider inauthentic, to these few people who keep asking for more it seems that these scenes are extremely authentic to their fantasies.

Everything from filming technique, to acting, to lighting, to location, to audio, to viewer expectations are all important elements when it comes to building a sense of authenticity.  But, that sense of authenticity is fragile, and if anything is a little bit off that authenticity is destroyed.

Well, if it were 60fps it wouldn't be cinematic.  For more than 100 years the motion cadence created by 24fps has been associated with cinema and high-end production.  Audiences automatically associate the look of 24fps with cinema, it feels like a movie, or a high-budget dramatic television show.

Higher frame rates, like 60 and 50fps have been associated with the look of live television and video for more than 70 years now.  It is the look of news, sports, and consumer video.  Viewers subconsciously associate it with reality.

Using the right frame rate for the content can be really important.  When Peter Jackson's The Hobbit came out, there was an HFR option where audiences could watch it in theaters at 48fps.  The resulting motion rendering was closer to what you get with live television.  As a result, many in the audience remained hyper aware through the film that they were watching something that was constructed and shot on stages, with actors wearing costumes.  It made it more difficult for them to suspend their disbelief and get lost in the narrative. 

I like all the extra effects of the cinematic video, but I prefer the 60fps. That's just my view as a layman. Maybe I am in the minority on that.

Link to comment

I feel I should also say that my 'thing' is pee desperation, and that's what I'm thinking of when I talk about clips feeling genuine.  I know you do more than just that on HDW though.  Maybe getting that feeling of authenticity isn't such a challenge for clips that aren't focussed on desperation?

I'm also not a big scenario person.  I'm happy with the idea that a model is holding her pee on camera because she's being paid to, but I can see why others might like a scenario and a 'reason' why she can't go.  I've been an HDW member a few times before and my favourite clip remains one from years ago.  Alisha was stood naked in the lounge desperate to go, and held on as long as she could.  Nothing more to it than that.

I guess you can't keep everyone happy!

Link to comment

From what I've read I think you're focusing a bit too much on the bits you can control.

Having a perfectly accurate set isn't what makes a video feel authentic. Having a completely plausible and reasonable story isn't either. Almost all of it is whether the model seems like she's on the edge of peeing herself. If that's not there, it doesn't feel authentic and none of the rest can change that.

The other part is this idea that there's a direct relationship between the technical skill and how popular the porn is. That's really, really not true. With fetish porn in particular there's a kind of bare minimum, where content below it is low enough quality that it takes away from the enjoyment, but once you're over that bar it's more about what I mentioned above. Everything else equal, most people would prefer the better lit and shot video, but that's not usually the choice. If it's a choice between a video someone took on an iphone when they were genuinely bursting and one shot with a professional setup, over the course of a day where the model was trying to fill up just enough to go multiple times in pretty quick succession, I think a lot of people will choose the first.

Plus since the first is a hell of a lot cheaper to make it'll be more popular to make and to buy.

Link to comment

I prefer broadcast, as it gives a more "being there" kind of feel to me and has a higher likelihood to capture what is going on. To me authenticity has a lot to do with actual believable emotion: I don't even care which emotion as long as it is legit (I get very high scores on the Reading The Mind In The Eyes test) and that is frequently missing from very clear highly produced stories. I may be in a minority on the last point, but I definitely prefer broadcast.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...