Forum Suggestion

[Emahevul]

I'm probably jumping on the bandwagon extremely late with this suggestion, but here goes. Would it be possible to create a "tech oriented" sub-forum on this site? More or less a tech primer for the less knowledgeable.

The reason I ask is that I read some (ok, a lot) of the reviews and they talk about all kinds of stuff that will appeal to the techies. However, I'm not one of those guys. As long as a movie looks/sounds good and the sex is good, that is the main criteria for me. I don't know squat from anamorphic wide screen, to 1.33/1 full screen, etc.

Just a thought.

[Stoya]

I'm probably jumping on the bandwagon extremely late with this suggestion, but here goes. Would it be possible to create a "tech oriented" sub-forum on this site? More or less a tech primer for the less knowledgeable.

The reason I ask is that I read some (ok, a lot) of the reviews and they talk about all kinds of stuff that will appeal to the techies. However, I'm not one of those guys. As long as a movie looks/sounds good and the sex is good, that is the main criteria for me. I don't know squat from anamorphic wide screen, to 1.33/1 full screen, etc.

Just a thought.

Maybe Don should post a blog as a primer... like dvd terminology 101 or something.

[Emahevul]

That would work for me.

Oh, and a follow up suggestion to the above suggestion. Make it "sticky", so that it doesn't get buried under various posts as time passes.

Just a thought.

[Houstondon]

Hmmm, maybe I could write one with Stoya in my lap. That would definitely cover the "sticky" part. ;)

It might be best to import one of my tech-head pals from DVD Talk for more comprehensive coverage of this one but I could probably help with the basics. The quick version:
full frame=the picture you get on a typical squarish TV set with no black bars on top & bottom.

widescreen=the picture is more like the movies where the shape is rectangular.

anamorphic widescreen: substantially more detail provided in the widescreen, hard to explain easily.

One of the problems some of the tech-oriented readers have with reviews, especially older reviews, is the lack of any substantial coverage of these matters. When one of us says a movie "looks great!", there is no frame of reference for someone to go on; the same can be said about audio. In 2008, I'm hoping to encourage my associates to continue providing better detail in the audio/video section of the reviews to address this since what looks and sounds great varies so much between individuals.

Example: In most gonzo titles, the audio is captured from the built in microphone on the camera. There is little or no post production done to the sound to clean it up; such efforts get a 2.5 (average for the genre) in most cases; less if the background noises are heard (like the cameraman telling the gal to put more moaning in, change positions, etc.).

Video: Wal-Mart lighting has long been my favorite for being able to see everything in a gonzo effort but director's like Robby D., B. Skow, Jordan Septo, and others have pointed out how visually boring that could be; suggesting the addition of texture or camera angles that leave a little something to the imagination can add appeal. I still hate abrupt edits (where the action is just getting good and then changes; something excellent editor Nick P. at Digital Playground hates too), camera shots of huge blemishes (making me wonder if the gal turned down the cameraman for some POV action so he was getting back at her), or fleshtones that look like the production was shot on Krypton (heavy reds) so this is an area that while subjective, is completely under served by reviewers all over the place.

[Emahevul]

Hmmm, maybe I could write one with Stoya in my lap. That would definitely cover the "sticky" part. ;)

That is so disturbing on SO many levels.