Rogets Lingerie 'The Battle'

[andy250]

Candie, our gorgeous new model, challenges stunning India to a round of our famous word association game. One slip of the tongue and they'll be gunged. Do it again and the only thing that'll be slipping is their clothes, onto the floor. Will Candie's competitive streak get the better of her or will India's experience see her through? We just don't know. One thing we do know; it's gonna be very wet and very messy. Let battle commence!

Full version available at.

http://www.wamtastic.com

http://www.clips4sale.com/studio/20196

Trailer.
http://www.wamtastic.com/media/RogetsBattlepromo.wmv

regards

Andy and the Wamtastic team.

[Devo77]

Wonderful pics of Candie and India, Andy250!

[muckypup]

That looks good and messy! Are they video stills or from a camera?

[andy250]

I have to admit they are not. These are grabs from the HD Cam, as Pete the camera is away on a hippy fest until mid july.
Jammed will hate me, I quite like them...... (Dids grabs the nearest camera and takes some messy stills!!)

regards

Andy

[orangey]

Very nice, always good to see India covered! Not bad quality stills off the HD cam even better for abit of Photoshop tweaking..

[andy250]

Nice bit of tweaking from Orangey. Good man.

regards

Andy and the Wamtastic team.

[muckypup]

I have to admit they are not. These are grabs from the HD Cam, as Pete the camera is away on a hippy fest until mid july.
Jammed will hate me, I quite like them...... (Dids grabs the nearest camera and takes some messy stills!!)

regards

Andy

Just curious, the content is terrific but I think the camera is struggling with the light a bit. Looks like you guys are having loads of good fun lately.

[andy250]

Its the system I use for editing pup, it lowers the light slightly when creating grabs thats all.

regards

Andy

[BillShipton]

Mine does that too so it's worth putting them through Photoshop to brighten them up.

[muckypup]

Its the system I use for editing pup, it lowers the light slightly when creating grabs thats all.

regards

Andy

I just meant that they were slightly blurry like the pictures were taken in low light and the camera couldnt quite focus properly. Probably just my eyes

[Invicta]

Great stuff Andy- always nice to see India getting messy, and Candie's a real cracker as well! Hope we see much more of her in the future

[andy250]

Its the system I use for editing pup, it lowers the light slightly when creating grabs thats all.

regards

Andy

I just meant that they were slightly blurry like the pictures were taken in low light and the camera couldnt quite focus properly. Probably just my eyes

No your right about the blurriness, as its a grab and not a true photo. Its one of things Jammed is really keen on as his main aspect is photography. The darkness is the definition as its the camera doing its job. Though it only ever really appears on the grabs not on the video. Its the aspect of the camera picking up all the definition. Though your best asking Jammed about the technical side he was here about an hour explaining it all. Then he shot off to see C, as Pete is away on our next shoot, lazy sods gone on holiday!!!!boo hiss Pete the camera......

regards

Andy

[fuzzywuzzy]

Mine does that too so it's worth putting them through Photoshop to brighten them up.

How can a video grab that is processed in photoshop be a true representation of the HD footage quality?


Ive just downloaded this video its cracking, and would recommend it to anyone who hasnt seen the wonderful Candie in action shes a hottie! India's as lovely as ever!

[BillShipton]

Mine does that too so it's worth putting them through Photoshop to brighten them up.

How can a video grab that is processed in photoshop be a true representation of the HD footage quality?
D

Because we only restore the picture to how it was. It is a more accurate representation than the darker version. We don't use any fancy effects to smarter it up or anything.

[Lizzie_Claymore]

The issue of lightness could be due to the fact that we need to remember that video is shot and perceptually encoded with gamma correction as all the standards assume viewing on CRT (even though many people are not, especially for HD, of course). As we are all watching on LCD which doesn't have the inherent gamma effect, the apparent lightness and contrast range are not being represented appropriately and will need to be corrected, hence the need to photoshop.

A 'proper video' monitor will usually at least take into account the normal values for broadcast video in terms of gamma but also in terms of black and white levels (being 16 and 235 rather than 0 and 255 as they would be for a PC's output), allowing for undershoot and overshoot of the video waveform. However, the situation is further complicated by the fact that the colourimetry of PC monitors and non-CRT-video monitors often vary wildly and it's only recently that a non-CRT 'grade one' broadcast monitor has become available (if you can afford the several thousand pounds that it costs!!). Even more confusingly, standard definition video uses tristimulus values defined in ITU 601 whereas HD video uses values defined in ITU 709 and - you've guessed it - they're different! So, if you want correct representation of HD, you can't expect to get it through simple downconversion to SD, unless the colourimetry values are taken into account too (which most downconverters don't).

I suspect there are several issues here that are being conflated. Fuzzywuzzy refers to 'quality'. Without any further clarification of the term, many people often use this as a synonym for resolution, although it really encompasses a range of different technical specifications and subjective assessment to boot.

From the technical point of view, FW's implication is that you can't 'add quality' i.e. 'add resolution', which is true. HD is still lower resolution than good quality stills, and the compression method if taken from a final encoded output (especially if taken from B or P frames) is also far more severe than Jpeg for stills, though not necessarily so when taken from uncompressed (or moderately compressed e.g. HDV) source material.

The other major problem is that of interlacing, which doesn't affect stills photography either. When shot at 1080i, the theoretical frame of 1920x1080 (in practice usually 1440x1080 for HDV ... for those of us that can't afford Sony's HDCAM SR at about £100k per camera!) will suffer from motion artefacts introduced by the interlacing. When viewing on anything other than CRT, your monitor will de-interlace using an algorithm that is beyond your control (and with variable quality depending on the whim and budget of the monitor manufacturer) and then scaled to fit -horrible! (This is talking about a 'proper' TV video monitor here, not a PC monitor, which further mangles the signal first!) The result of the interlacing is that anything that is moving will be captured at different points over the two fields which make up the full frame. Hence, when your LCD (or screen-grab software) takes the two fields, de-interlaces and makes a single frame to view, you will either get horribly obvious horizontal 'jaggies' on alternate lines (particularly noticeable during a screen grab) or, with interpolation, you'll get two images of the moving object instead of one (e.g. a moving hand appears to have four edges instead of two). This becomes even more problematic when the operator leaves the camera on auto and it chooses a high 'shutter speed'. This means that, instead of objects undergoing temporal integration prior to capture, the result is perfectly sharply defined multiple images captured per frame. This can be both highly distracting on moving images and downright bizarre on screen grabs (where it's possible to make someone appear to have eight fingers, for example)! To avoid the problem of spatial aliasing resulting in 'interline twitter' and the severe effects this would have on the compression and transmission system, it's necessary to throttle the effective resolution of interlaced cameras anyway, in much the same way that the kell factor did for conventional tube cameras years ago. Thus the effective useable resolution for a 1080i camera is, in fact, about 1080x0.7= 756 effective lines resolution. (You can see why everyone in the engineering departments of broadcasters are dismayed that the marketing people and (so called) 'creatives' are pushing 1080i, as they understand why we should be moving away from interlacing.)

The best way round the problem of interlaced scan is to shoot progressively, but (short of the £100k HDCAM SR solution and a fat, fat, fat, pipe for the >3Gbps uncompressed datarate that such cameras generate!), the nearest you'll get is 720p (which is over 95% of the effective resolution of 1080i anyway, but without the horrible interlace problem to deal with). Interestingly, the European Broadcast Union has always recommended using 720p for emission standards and BBC R&D White Paper WHP092 proved that, for the average UK home, transmitting more than 720 lines is pointless since the size of screen required to be able to see a significant difference (assuming the usual 1 degree subtended at the eye for resolution purposes) is so large that most people could not accommodate the receiver in an average sized room. It can also allow for a more mild compression prior to transmission too.

Of course, you then need to consider which frame rate to use as well. For USA/Japan TV, you would pick 30fps (29.97 drop frame timecode) while for the rest of the world's TV, you'd choose 25fps. However, if you wanted all world TV standards and cinema release, you would choose 24fps so long as you had a method of 4% speeding up playout for 25fps TV playout like conventional telecine transfer, assuming that you wouldn't just go for omitting a frame per second, which some systems do (and is completely mad as it's hideously obvious and jerky). For US playout from 24fps, you would run through a 2:3 pulldown which allows for generation of 60i psf output. Cinema output remains at 24fps. Once again, temporal aliasing may take place with your monitor, which may well have an inherent refresh rate of 60Hz (most do) rather than 50Hz so can (and often does) produce odd temporal beat frequencies while playing back material correctly shot for the European market. Once you know what you're looking at, it's impossible not to notice these effects. Most people can't say what the difference is but they can tell that "there's something wrong". When you see these different systems side by side, the differences between them are quite staggeringly obvious and it makes you realise how many people are watching appallingly set-up equipment and just how much the images (and quite possibly their enjoyment) are being impaired.

As you can see, there's rather more to this than meets the eye (if you'll pardon the pun)!