The main problem is that torbe said that he doesnt see any difference between the camera angle/zoom with julia, kristy etc and nona lola milena
Whereas the difference is HUGE
robuk wrote:I'm so tired of people complaining and moaning all the time
JamesTT wrote:robuk wrote:I'm so tired of people complaining and moaning all the time
I'm complaining about a legitimate technical error that can be fixed, not about some opinion about the attractiveness of models etc.
I don't understand how people cannot see the difference between the video quality of the trailers and the video quality of the final scenes!
Like I said - it's false advertising.
robuk wrote:JamesTT wrote:robuk wrote:I'm so tired of people complaining and moaning all the time
I'm complaining about a legitimate technical error that can be fixed, not about some opinion about the attractiveness of models etc.
I don't understand how people cannot see the difference between the video quality of the trailers and the video quality of the final scenes!
Like I said - it's false advertising.
Take the anorak off mate its getting boring,and i'm fed up reading about.. some opinion.. about bitrate and fps when this shoot with Kristy is the best there has been for a long time,apart from telling people how they should think and act all I hear from you is complaining,christ if you watch a lot of the shoots from the great Ukrainian vids on PB the quality sometimes leaves a bit to be desired..still classics though
robuk wrote:It does James as that's how I feel about you telling me whether I can call a woman unattractive or not..so that's everything nicely cleared up between us
On a serious note though I don't see why you think the video quality is so poor,i've downloaded it at the best quality from the site and it looks amazing and on a par with anything I've seen on PB,if I want to stream it then I can set the rate high and again it looks great,maybe I have an untrained eye but I don't see why you have such a problem with it..i get problems with angles and closeness of camera but not the quality of the film.
Skreed wrote:it's zoomed in that's why it looks like that. The camera guy before did a better job showing close but not zooming in.
thebowl wrote:Even your numbers are double what it actually is. It is actually 25 and 30.
The other thing that could be what you are seeing and referring to is interlaced scanning be progressive. With interlaced, which is 1080i rather than 1080p and mostly obsolete these days, you get two fields per frame. Look it up and you will see how this works. Old TV's would do this when showing the image before HD. The early HD cameras were like this as well.
You can still process videos like this if you set the wrong settings when creating your editing sequence or when you export it, but most likely you did not shoot it this way.
I have actually seen it in reverse to how JamesTt always butches about, with the trailer having this effect. I think it is a mistake in their post production procedures. However , I have downloaded the highest resolution or even the 720p versions and I do not see this in my downloaded files. I don't know what video player you are viewing your videos with and if for some reason you are seeing interlacing when you shouldn't.
I'm hoping also that you are a paying member, because your outrage is always a little delayed, and you ask us how the quality is when it comes out. Then a week later comes the outrage.
I've skipped a few things as it's the middle of the night and I'm just up for a drink of water, so if you want I can go into further details later on all the technical stuff.
Complicating things further is shutter speed,which is usually a similar number because typically in video the shutter speed is twice the frame rate. So for 30fps the shutter speed would be 60. If you want less motion blur you could increase the shutter speed, but the basic rule of thumb is to maintain the same ratio, so 120, 240 etc.
Return to PREMIUM BUKKAKE OFFICIAL
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 33 guests