Jump to content
Karo Margaryan (1)

BEST CAMERA FOR PORN?

Recommended Posts

this thread is weirdly synchronistic...

 

for years i've had this notion in the back of my mind that after i finish the first personal project i am working on, i was going to tackle the genre of 'erotic art'...in the last week or so, i've really been thinking about this a lot

 

not porn per se, granted it shares some of the same elements, but the intent is somewhat different. while i like the anthropological arguments, i think they are too black and white. society has gotten to the point where gender roles aren't so starkly polarized. it's okay for men to appreciate beauty simply for the sake of beauty and for women to enjoy visceral pleasure.

 

So, if you are looking to make porn with a high aesthetic/ and high production value. I think you should be more worried about set design and lighting than a camera, with a thought or three given to what you want to do with the footage in post. My personal philosophy in this particular case is shoot for sharpness, and then diffuse it in post. you can take detail out, but you can't put it in. if you don't want to spend that much time or effort on post, than pick a camera with a setting for skin tone detail handling, like the panasonic HPX/HVX's or the Sony EX-1. This will help mitigate the pimples that come from shaving parts of the body that, well...you know...

 

also, i'll offer advice and ask a question. you should probably do some research into erotic art to get an idea of how to use the lighting and composition to really accentuate the beauty in each scene.

 

does anyone know any erotic art director's or erotic art films? i've only seen books of photography on this subject...but then i've never had time to research this further, as thought provoking as it would be....

 

as far as the morality/ religious issues go... please, let's leave politics and religion at the door...*we all* have a tendency to offend someone with our views...there are forums for that all over the place...

 

I've had some of the same ideas. I found my time in figure drawing class to be a sublime participation in beauty. Maybe, the art environment made it a more dignified experience for the models. They only had to pose there and be amazing; to be recorded in human, artistic expression. So, I thought to myself, "Can I capture the shear, artistic beauty of these moments in a film story and alter viewer's prior assumptions of right and wrong, good and bad or any sense of smut and help them simply see beauty?" I'd still like to try that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because we're both serious about cinematography, and you obviously aren't?

 

Obviously I'm serious. Why would I have spent two years on this forum with nearly 2100 posts if cinematography wasn't my whole life's focus? Answer me that. Look at my photostream, they're not great, but I think it takes a certain degree of passion for the job to take those pictures. Or are they unclean because they were taken with a digital camera? Also, I think David's alright. A bit eccentric, but alright. You're just pond life.

 

Sorry everyone. I'm just tying up a few details with Karl Knob.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are not the result of Time + Matter + Chance...

 

Yes, there's one more piece missing: Survival of the fittest. The things that work get replicated. This results in designs that are viable but not necessarily optimized.

 

The intelligent design idea fails in another way, at least if I'm understanding the claim correctly: "If the design of something is intelligent, it must have been designed by an intelligent designer".

 

This fails because there are examples in which the design is not intelligent. We have a great one right inside our own eyes. Look at a clear blue sky, or a heavy overcast sky. What we need to do is fill your field of view with completely featureless brightness. In a little while, you'll see little blobs swimming around, chasing each other on well defined paths. These are white blood cells in the capillaries that run on the surface of your retina, between the rods and cones and the incoming light from the lens. Your brain processes these out when there's more important detail to deal with. There are also nerves on the light side of the retina, and a big blank spot where all this stuff goes thru to the outside of the eyeball in back. It's a design that works, but is clearly far from smart.

 

So, intelligent design fails to prove anything, because the design is not intelligent. But failure to prove something doesn't disprove that thing. The existence of dynamic link libraries doesn't disprove the existence of Microsoft. ;-)

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The intelligent design idea fails in another way, at least if I'm understanding the claim correctly: "If the design of something is intelligent, it must have been designed by an intelligent designer".

 

This fails because there are examples in which the design is not intelligent. We have a great one right inside our own eyes. Look at a clear blue sky, or a heavy overcast sky. What we need to do is fill your field of view with completely featureless brightness. In a little while, you'll see little blobs swimming around, chasing each other on well defined paths. These are white blood cells in the capillaries that run on the surface of your retina, between the rods and cones and the incoming light from the lens. Your brain processes these out when there's more important detail to deal with. There are also nerves on the light side of the retina, and a big blank spot where all this stuff goes thru to the outside of the eyeball in back. It's a design that works, but is clearly far from smart.

 

So, intelligent design fails to prove anything, because the design is not intelligent.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

Come now John.. each individual is an amazing creation.. not perfect.. because of our fallen nature and diluted dna we certainly don't represent the first man. But to snub your nose at the Creator because of dots in your vision under unusual circumstances... tsk tsk. That is like complaining that you have to wipe your ass.. which is a small price to pay for living... and it humbles us.

 

Nathan.. notice once again I am just responding..

Edited by David Rakoczy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have no control over this.. nor do I want any.

Well I do, and I agree with Nathan. The original poster asked a question directly related to cinematography.

I just feel compelled to speak up for all those shaking their heads in disbelief while reading the same things I am .

Has it occurred to you that you might be the only one that is bothered by this thread? If the topic being discussed bothers you so much, why do you keep posting and contributing to it?

You are most certainly welcome to express your perspective(s)... as I am mine.

You can, but please step out of the pulpit and stop preaching while you do it. The only posts offending me in this thread are your assertions that "intelligent" design is anything but fantasy.

Me: "How did we get here?"

You: "MAGIC!"

 

I'm sure there are plenty of places to preach on the internet. This is not one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well I do, and I agree with Nathan. The original poster asked a question directly related to cinematography.

 

Has it occurred to you that you might be the only one that is bothered by this thread? If the topic being discussed bothers you so much, why do you keep posting and contributing to it?

 

You can, but please step out of the pulpit and stop preaching while you do it. The only posts offending me in this thread are your assertions that "intelligent" design is anything but fantasy.

Me: "How did we get here?"

You: "MAGIC!"

 

I'm sure there are plenty of places to preach on the internet. This is not one of them.

 

Brad.. it doesn't bother me.. I am only offering my opinion as every one else is. I have received numerous IMs from people who agree with the moral implications of porn I have discussed but for some reason are afraid to post. Maybe it is your response demonstrated here they are afraid. Look, I certainly respect each person to hold their own opinion and I gave the conversation up when Nathan tried to redirect the conversation, however, people have ignored his effort and I have simply responded to their posts. Seems pretty harmless, don't you think?

 

It seems odd that by your words as long as I pooh pooh ID great.. defend the idea and "hey, you are out of line". Your criticism seems a bit uneven. Why not take John Sprung, Tenoliam Bell, Mathew Buick, Ira Ratner and a host of others to task for their opinion? Look, you just offered your opinion that ID is a fantasy... so?

Edited by David Rakoczy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brad.. it doesn't bother me.. I am only offering my opinion as every one else is. I have received numerous IMs from people who agree with the moral implications of porn I have discussed but for some reason are afraid to post. Maybe it is your response demonstrated here they are afraid. Look, I certainly respect each person to hold their own opinion and I gave the conversation up when Nathan tried to redirect the conversation, however, people have ignored his effort and I have simply responded to their posts. Seems pretty harmless, don't you think?

 

It seems odd that by your words as long as I pooh pooh ID great.. defend the idea and "hey, you are out of line". Your criticism seems a bit uneven. Why not take John Sprung, Tenoliam Bell, Mathew Buick, Ira Ratner and a host of others to task for their opinion? Look, you just offered your opinion that ID is a fantasy... so?

 

I have no interest or care one way or the other who shoots porn with what or why, given that, stick to your guns David. It seems perfectly fine for some to go into anthropological discussions about erotica, but when you give yours, spiritual though it is, you are attacked. Either keep the whole thing confined to cinematography or not, but don't pick the non cinematography posts that offend you and say they should be banned.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Come now John.. each individual is an amazing creation.. not perfect.. because of our fallen nature and diluted dna we certainly don't represent the first man. But to snub your nose at the Creator because of dots in your vision under unusual circumstances... tsk tsk. That is like complaining that you have to wipe your ass.. which is a small price to pay for living... and it humbles us...

 

I'm not complaining about the dots, that's not the point. What I was getting at is that a mistake of that kind is more consistent with the results of natural selection than the work of an intelligent designer. It's sort of like as if every movie theater had bits of plumbing and romex casting shadows on the screen. Sure, you could still watch movies. But it doesn't say much for the competence of the architect.

 

Let's try another analogy to try to grasp the natural selection thing. Suppose I give you a coin to flip, and you flip it over and over all day long, getting heads or tails. But if the coin happens to land on edge, you get to keep it, and I give you another one to continue flipping. Really boring way to spend our time, but in a few billion years, you'd be rich. The point is it's hard to wrap our heads around really big quantities, like the age of the universe or the speed of light. But a tiny fraction of really big can amount to something, which I'm sure is clear as mud. ;-)

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not complaining about the dots, that's not the point. What I was getting at is that a mistake of that kind is more consistent with the results of natural selection than the work of an intelligent designer. It's sort of like as if every movie theater had bits of plumbing and romex casting shadows on the screen. Sure, you could still watch movies. But it doesn't say much for the competence of the architect.

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

But it is.. you are saying that because of the dots... the Creator obviously screwed up.. or in your words "isn't smart' at all... and because of this design flaw, as (you) see it... there is no Id because the design was not intelligent (enough for you). Because of some silly dots, in unusual circumstances, (you) perceive yourself as not created well enough for (you).. hence, you must be a cosmic accident.

 

John, you seem to be overlooking the obvious. Clear the dots from your eyes...

 

But hey, my offer still stands to set you and your guests up at the club whenever you want :)

 

Your friend.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey fellas,

 

I'm probably going to shag some grief for this. But, I'll throw it out there anyway.

 

This is a thread jack of a particular type. There are churches that teach their evangelical missionaries how to spread the word on the internet. I'm okay with this except how they teach them to thread jack. Since the point of the jack is not to be right, intelligent or anything else other than owning the thread and repeating the message as much as possible, I suspect any efforts to appeal to his good sense will fall on deaf ears.

 

I'm not saying that no one should respond to him. I'm just saying he's playing us by the numbers. He can only win as long as people play in to his game. If you call their game they deny it all with certainty. Of course, I called that bit as well. I guess we can now see what they trained him to do next.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh Paul.. that was pathetic! I just lost a tremendous amount of respect for you... that was very sad.

 

John,

 

I agree with you regarding micro evolution. Dogs came from wolves and kitty cats came from the larger cats. But macro evolution? No way. Mankind from a haphazard single cell? Not a chance! Darwin and Einstein figured that one out.

 

Man, what Paul just wrote was extremely insulting!

 

Shame on you Paul!

 

Goodnight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi David,

 

I notice that this thread has drifted quite a bit off topic.

 

In hopes of bringing it back I'll offer a couple of ideas pertinent to making erotic films.

I agree that there is MUCH besides the camera to consider, as has been alluded to in previous posts.

 

It would be a good idea to use a camera that can easily handle the detail, contrast, and edges without "blocking up" or greating jagged aliases. One of the gorgeous aspects of filming smooth skin with soft modelling light is the long smooth progression of tones from not-quite-blown-out white to the deepest black. You don't want BANDING to mar the smoothness of the your tonal transition. Hence, it makes sense to TEST your camera under operational conditions and make sure it has the bit depth to capture and reproduce the quality of imagery you're seeking.

 

Secondly, there are some wonderful lenses and adapters to play with, from innovision, for example IF you have an interchangeable lens camera. So, that would be one of my desiderata.

Then there is the matter of deliverables: where and how do you want to show your finished work?

Cel phones, Theatrical Release, U-tube?, Cable TV, Home theater, What?

some combination of the above . . . your deliverables will determine a lot about your production and point toward one or another "classes" of camera and capture parameters.

 

IF you need/want assistance in the Digital Imaging Technician category, please consider giving me a call. A quick phone consult may be all you need; that would be fine . . . but I enjoy beauty as much as anyone and could be helpful on/near the set if you're in the market for DIT services and WYSIWYG monitoring.

 

Fred 877-866-3456

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But it is.. you are saying that because of the dots... the Creator obviously screwed up.. or in your words "isn't smart' at all... and because of this design flaw, as (you) see it... there is no Id because the design was not intelligent (enough for you). Because of some silly dots, in unusual circumstances, (you) perceive yourself as not created well enough for (you).. hence, you must be a cosmic accident.

 

John, you seem to be overlooking the obvious. Clear the dots from your eyes...

 

But hey, my offer still stands to set you and your guests up at the club whenever you want :)

 

Your friend.

 

I'm sorry that the "dots" seem to have got us going in the wrong direction. I used them because they're evidence we can easily and harmlessly detect in the living eye of the fact that the blood vessels are on the wrong side of the retina. The same thing is clear if you look at a cadaver retina under a microscope, but I really like simple easy do it yourself stuff.

 

The important thing is that we can agree to disagree about theology -- and even cinematography -- and still be friends.

 

Thanks again for the invitation. We're excessively busy now with selling the old house and the holidays, but I do intend to get there after things settle down.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Brad.. it doesn't bother me..

Then why have you repeatedly said that is does?

I am only offering my opinion as every one else is.

If you were simply posting that you thought porn was wrong, that would be one thing, but you're not. You keep going on and on about "the creator" and Intelligent Design. Those things have nothing to do with the topic of the thread.

I have received numerous IMs from people who agree with the moral implications of porn I have discussed but for some reason are afraid to post.

They probably haven't posted because they know this isn't the place for it. Whether you like it or not, porn is legal. The "moral implications" are irrelevant here.

Maybe it is your response demonstrated here they are afraid.

If my comments have dissuaded someone else from posting similar things as you, then they've done their job.

Look, I certainly respect each person to hold their own opinion

It's obvious that you don't. You've "tsk tsk"ed people and said "shame on you" to people you disagreed with. You also called someones post "pathetic" and "sad". Not only are those comments childish, but they're judgmental. I thought religious people weren't supposed to judge other people. Have I been misinformed? "Judge not lest ye be judged" right?

and I gave the conversation up when Nathan tried to redirect the conversation, however, people have ignored his effort and I have simply responded to their posts. Seems pretty harmless, don't you think?

No, you've kept this thread going more than anyone else. I'm sure YOU think it's harmless since it's your beliefs you're trying to shove down everyone else's throats.

It seems odd that by your words as long as I pooh pooh ID great.. defend the idea and "hey, you are out of line". Your criticism seems a bit uneven. Why not take John Sprung, Tenoliam Bell, Mathew Buick, Ira Ratner and a host of others to task for their opinion?

Because they haven't been pushing their beliefs like you have. It seems that every other thread you post in you manage to slip in something about god or your beliefs. Again, this isn't the place for that. If someone constantly went on and on about Atheism I would respond to them in the same way I've responded to you.

Look, you just offered your opinion that ID is a fantasy... so?

I did, to make a point. I'm sure you don't like reading that, just as I don't like reading about your personal beliefs that have nothing to do with cinematography.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually Brad, you have been misinformed concerning "judge not, let ye be judged." It's a verse often taken out of context and bleeds into what many call "christianese." You're actually talking about Matthew 7. You need to read the entire chapter to understand the situation that is being set up in, what I believe to be, Decapolis. In matter of fact there are a multitude of scriptures urging righteous judgement. Before you get lost, let me define. The judging is suppose to be a judgement of RIGHTEOUS JUDGEMENT itself, not appearance, be it visceral or contextual (John 7:24).

Just to get it right, David's comments were leaning a little more towards slanderous speech than judgement.

I do agree that this is not what this thread is about.

The disregard of belief is, in itself a belief, and if you (plural-everyone) believe in Agenda Setting (simple communication model) you would also understand that the disregard of a belief in fact demonstrates a bias as persuasion because you are not polling any particular argument but, instead, setting ground work for an "opposing party."

Oh. And I ask no one to speak on Darwinism if you haven't even read Origin of Species. Shall I qoute Darwin himself? "There is grandeur in this view of life with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or one, ...from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved."

Pitting Darwin against Creationism (or Intelligent Design for that matter) is like debating whether the sky is blue or if oranges can fly.

SO, let us ALL talk about something that at least ALL of us know a little about, eh?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
But macro evolution? No way. Mankind from a haphazard single cell? Not a chance! Darwin and Einstein figured that one out.

 

Well, God may have been a LITTLE haphazard, because at one time a there were 3 distinct species of man on Earth living at the same time, Cro-Magnon , Neanderthal and Homo erectus, Now Homo erectus was Human but had a brain about half the size of modern man, Neanderthals were also Human but were completely adapted to ice age life and were MUCH stronger than modern humans. Their brains were a bit larger than modern man's but were built differently so creativity and problem solving never developed. In the 250 thousand years they lived on Earth, far LONGER than modern humans have existed, their tools and weapons remained virtually unchanged for eons.

 

These other species of humans died out leaving only the Cro-Magnon or us with less social refinement. Now unless God was experimenting with prototypes, or just didn't like Neanderthals and Homo erectus because they looked funny, I would guess man followed a similar evolutionary track to other animals. Man's brain has enabled him to progress much more rapidly because he was able through creative thought to adapts very rapidly to changing conditions and different environments. Perhaps if God has given us anything, it's the ability to question. Man's greatest power is the ability to ask himself "What If" It's possible God DID plan all this but I sincerely doubt if it's in the the way you think of it. If God is omnipotent, then the first atom that burst out of the big bang may have been in the exact right place to let the Universe develop EXACTLY the way it did and there was no need for God to change or influence a thing.

 

Maybe YOUR idea of God is simply not grand enough to consider how vast his mind might be. As Einstein said, God does not play dice with the universe just take that one step further and you'll begin to see that there is no way you can interpret the mind of God so you can never be certain about anything. Look at the unimaginable vastness of the Universe and tell me that this little speck of blue adrift in the black abyss is the only thing. I doubt God made all this space for just us. There's are billions of trillions of worlds out there and we are but one part of a grand design if there is one. Don't be so arrogant to think the design if it exists is nothing but us. B)

Edited by James Steven Beverly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pitting Darwin against Creationism (or Intelligent Design for that matter) is like debating whether the sky is blue or if oranges can fly.

Actually, I can debate whether the sky is blue or oranges can fly, care to try? :) See, I've actually SEEN red skys, orange skys, Yellow skys. black skys, grey skys and white skys. I've also seen hurled oranges fly across a room and taken one on a plane AND the wind blow one up in the air. ANYTHING can be debated and often SHOULD be. B)

Edited by James Steven Beverly

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's an appropriate thread in Off-Topic suitable for this, now. I warmly welcome all posters working on the eternal issue of our origin and manifestation, there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the risk of expressing my own opinion I've made a thread for you two to war in so that others can use this one again.

 

It's in the off topic section, or here.

 

Please use it.

Edited by Matthew Buick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The important thing is that we can agree to disagree about theology -- and even cinematography -- and still be friends.

 

Thanks again for the invitation. We're excessively busy now with selling the old house and the holidays, but I do intend to get there after things settle down.

 

 

 

 

-- J.S.

 

Absolutely John! You are a stand up guy.

 

It probably won't happen, but I wish I could be there when you go so we could hoist a few cold ones, enjoy a great show... talking about our careers, mutual friends (which no doubt we have), family.. whatever.

 

Unfortunately, there are those 'intellectually weak' individual(s) who inevitably and predictably resort to their last ditch effort..."when you don't like the message... attack the messenger". No doubt most see through their feeble minded ruse.

 

Have a great Thanksgiving Day John!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good call Matthew.

 

Take it to the Off-topic forum.

 

I was really hoping we could move beyond moral and philosophical abstractions and talk about porn's relevancy to our industry and tools (and vica versa).

 

Next mention of morality or god gets this thread shut down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.


  • Wooden Camera



    G-Force Grips



    Gamma Ray Digital Inc



    FJS International



    CineLab



    Metropolis Post



    Paralinx LLC



    Glidecam



    Tai Audio



    Rig Wheels Passport



    Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS



    Serious Gear



    Visual Products



    Broadcast Solutions Inc



    Ritter Battery



    New Pro Video - New and Used Equipment



    Abel Cine



    Just Cinema Gear


×
×
  • Create New...