Does Special Effects Enhance Your Enjoyment of Videos?

[Bluestone]

It may seem obvious, but I'm curious as to whether all members feel the same about this topic. Does special effects always enhance your enjoyment of a genre video, and why? Is it because it makes your fantasy seem more real? Can it ever be distracting, or be used as a substitute for good plot, acting, and the other factors that you find enjoyable in a video? Do you feel it's overdone, or underdone in our genre? Just some thoughts, and requests for feedback, not just about Bluestone productions, but about f/x in all videos produced for our community.

Blue

[smudger]

Most definitely, Blue. I would not buy a shooting vid at all if there were no effects. Hence I do not buy any of the Gun Fun type things.

I think the level of effects put in by yourself, KHP, and Don is just about right for me. I don't like the over bloody ones or blood pouring out the mouth.

Keep doing exactly what your doing is my personal take.

[Peter]

I'm curious Smudger, but does it absolutely have to be digital effects or squibs, or can it be simply workable editing that doesn't break the suspension of disbelief? As a for instance, I offer this 30 second sample of gunshot effects: A Hail of Gunfire: Delphine - Demo (0.5 meg only)

No special effects per say, just judicious editing and attention to good continuity and timing.

[smudger]

Well, that's about as good as it gets without digital/physical effects, Peter, but I prefer the "real-time" effects where there is a continuous shot of the victim and the wound appears without cutting the picture away then coming back.

I don't know how the professionals do it, obviously got better equipment than me (Digital equipment, that is ) but I used to dabble a bit using a video paint program to put them on a film clip- for example to take a mainstream shooting and add the effects to it. Main problem was always keeping the wound in the same place as the subject moved!

If I had had access to live models, I would have painted the wound(s) on from the beginning but painted them over in the early frames, until the time came to reveal them. You could do that, surely?

[tOkie]

I like that style re: Delphine with the editing/timing array. Special and digital effects often leave me wanting. It's not about how much blood, it's about how it is utilized to produce the needed effect.

IMO: there is no substitute for continuity. I made note, long ago, how the mainstream film makers relegated that job into history. I feel that there are times when a rush to get product out takes precedence over the the product itself.

[Peter]

If I had had access to live models, I would have painted the wound(s) on from the beginning but painted them over in the early frames, until the time came to reveal them. You could do that, surely?

Yes. And that is in fact how much of the wound special effects are done in this community, such as: 'Machinegun Carrie - Demo'. It is however quite a bit of work. My experience in the past back when I did on occasion do such effects was that the additional work did not increase sales one iota. And so I pretty much stopped doing them.

[smudger]

That is more like it, Peter! However I would guess that because your stuff is so idiosyncratic, you have a regular customer base who will buy it regardless of effect systems because they like the style its done in; whilst others to whom that style does not appeal, will not buy it even if the effects are digital. So its not surprising you don't put in all that additional time.

[Peter]

That is more like it, Peter! However I would guess that because your stuff is so idiosyncratic, you have a regular customer base who will buy it regardless of effect systems because they like the style its done in; whilst others to whom that style does not appeal, will not buy it even if the effects are digital. So its not surprising you don't put in all that additional time.

Yes, you are probably bang on in your interpretation of my experience. Those who like my style, like it a lot. Those who do not like my style, tend to not like it, a lot.

[JohnM]

I would not buy a shooting vid at all if there were no effects. Hence I do not buy any of the Gun Fun type things.

I am curious. "Gun Fun" is the term I used back in early 2008 to describe my version of the "Toy Gun" videos. Typically, a toy gun video is done in a fun way with orange-tipped guns and no effect what-so-ever.

I decided to make a hybrid of that by enhancing some of the best of the 30-100 sequences I include in each video with digital blood and shooting and squib-hit effects.

In the most recent releases, all the sequences contain muzzle and hit effects. And, interestingly enough, because on these "gun fun", there is no actual live effects on the actress, they tend to react a lot more intensely to each hit as they are not worrying about destroying the makeup effect or getting blood on props.

I think this might have a few sequences with effects (including a painted on one)
"Gun Fun Promo" 104MB
http://www.filedropper.com/gunfunpromo

As far as your comments about paint on....it is very difficult to paint on a wound to a moving target. Typically, a wound is applied and removed using rotoscoping. However, using a program capable of match moving could allow you to do this if the actress position did not change to much so that you would not have to constantly distort the size and shape of the wound. I did that on a couple and it worked out well for quick sequences.

Now, my personal favorite type of effect his is this:
http://pkfstudios.com/videos/s_robbery_efx.mpg

I like the appearance of little entry holes...ripped fabric of the shirt. this was shot years ago. Now that I look at it I realised I forgot to add the exit would spray. Oops. On my newer ones, I created dust and particle effect that I can add with, when it matched to the shirt fabric, adds a little flash spark and tosses out find shirt fibers. Sometime I add skin and shirt ripple, but her her size it was not needed. :-)

Thanks,
JohnM

[Max5s]

I like some special effects, but tend to look at videos as a package deal. I want a good plot, continuity in movements, SFX that convince me that the victim has be shot/stabbed/strangled and actresses that I enjoy watching. Some attempts to do digital effects ruin a video if done poorly. Sometimes, less is more.

[Dalila di Capri]

That is more like it, Peter! However I would guess that because your stuff is so idiosyncratic, you have a regular customer base who will buy it regardless of effect systems because they like the style its done in; whilst others to whom that style does not appeal, will not buy it even if the effects are digital. So its not surprising you don't put in all that additional time.

That is also true of my material

I have been expanding what I do and trying to touch a variety of tastes:

Less Blood
More Breast Wounds
Some Bloodless Strangulations

And so forth. I find nevertheless that my most supportive customers are the ones who enjoy what I have been doing all along. (Lots of blood and guts, solid if not dazzling special effects.)

In my case I think it comes down to whether you like the way I die, or my basic physical type or not.

Those who do buy my films. Those who do not don't.

As for special effects themselves we try not to get ourselves in too much trouble by doing more than we know how to do well.
We are working on making them better, but we are not trying to do a head to head competition with the top FX producers.

My take on it is that if a fan watches a film of mine, reviews it with an 8 or above rating, and says nothing about the special effects then they didn't stink, but they didn't blow him away either.

I have received compliments such as "wow that was almost as good as KHP" for some individual special effects. (none of which of course can I personally take credit for) But the fact is that KHP automatically guarantees great special effects by the nature of his reputation.

If he does 39 stabs he will do 39 great looking stabs. That is his trademark.

I will do one reasonably convincing stab (say Madama Butterfly or my recent Christmas Doll) and sell the rest of it with very convincing acting.

That is my trademark.

On the whole I agree with Max. Effects are important. (and that can include editing effects over digital trickery so I include Peter's method as valid.)

I am sure however that Paul would be one of the first to say that effects alone don't make the movie. There has to be a good plot, good looking sets, effective lighting...and above all else an actress who makes an erotic impact of some sort.

Baci

[smudger]

Thanks, John, I think I saw your promo before. Its good in many ways, some sexy acting, but the lack of any permanent wounds on the body means no sale for me just now

What is rotoscoping? For me the most difficult part as you say was keeping the wound in a consistent place as the actress moved. I tried to look for a button, or a mole, or something that would serve as a marker.

What I suggested was putting the effects on before filming started; then when finished, taking the film and, frame by frame, covering over the wounds digitally so they were invisible; then, at the right moment, not covering them one by one so the wound "appeared". Obviously the cover had to match the surrounding colour closesly enough for them not to be visible. It looks to me like Annabelles did it that way, and maybe that was the reason they always used white blouses, they would be easy to colour match!

However I gave up my efforts as soon as I discovered there was an industry doing the job for me!

BTW I prefer it without exit wounds anyway (robbery clip) and for my tastes its all too quick! I know you will say that's more realistic, but, this is entertainment, not a documentary! Just because most men come in two minutes, you won't get far making a porn film featuring that sort of realism!

[Peter]

What is rotoscoping?

Rotoscoping is the technique of painting directly on the frame of the film/video using traditional 2D painting techniques. There are a few bits of software about that make this easier than simply exporting individual frames into photoshop. But they are hard to find and often pricey. I do not know of any producer in this community that does digital effects that does them using any technique 'other' than rotoscoping. It really is the only way to do it.

In theory a 3D animation program could be used to overlay 3D effects onto the 2D video frame. But this really is much the same technology as rotoscoping except that it uses a 3D paint program instead of a 2D paint program. If combined with 'green screen' techniques however, it does open up a much larger range of possibilities. But it is also a whole new world of skills and a lot more work still.

[smudger]

So doesn't anyone use the method I described then Peter? it solves problems associated with placing and perspective and the "rotoscoping" would be done in reverse, so to speak.
If no one uses it maybe I better patent it, lol

[elsullo]

I'd like to address the special effects used to simulate hangings, my particular fetish. Generally, the special effects done to simulate full suspension hangings are utterly awful and completely distract from the drama and eroticism. It is really much more appropriate to just do quick cuts between the "hanging" actress who's neck is actually being slightly stretched, and her dangling feet, rather than a poor attempt to make her look suspended. Most of these suspension efforts are cheap, lazy, quick and crappy. This is especially bad whe cheap producers use cheap, skinny clothesline rather than investing in actual rope, as if they were sincere about the hanging fetish!

I won't name all of the offenders (EWP is the worst), but harness hangings are just awful and blatantly obvious. The poor actress is obviously supported by her crotch and her posture and center of gravity are just all wrong and completely distracting. Her spine and neck are clearly compressed and arched, rather than stretched. She has to end up with her head bent BACKWARD, which in reality could only happen if the noose was in front of her chin. This is like a beacon flashing, "FAKE FAKE FAKE." Sadly, producers look at the lousy EWP fakery and think that this must be the way to do it---WRONG!

Since the suspension rope and the neck rope are separate in these faulty simulations, the neck rope that is supposedly hanging her usually is drooping down nearer her collarbones rather than tight up under her chin as if it were a real hanging. Again, a drooping rope around the neck of a supposedly hanged actress is just blatantly fake, and robs all realism from the fantasy. Need I mention that actually SEEING the harness under her clothing is a complete waste of a good fantasy? Do the producers even wonder why that product does not sell?

Obviously, no actress wants to really hang for her art, so untill a producer wants to really invest in the metal work that a realistic hanging harness would entail, it has got to be represented by quick cuts between the actress with her beautiful neck slightly stretched and her dangling legs. A BAD fake suspension is worse than not even attempting it..................elsullo