narcotizedmind

Date Joined: November 2002
Profile URL: https://www.adultdvdtalk.com/profile/narcotizedmind

How's the latest Andrew Blake bone-stiffener? 11/6/2002 6:27 AM
Blake fan here. It's time someone defended this guy, who is routinely lampooned by "raincoaters". Look, some of us are not quite so jaded that we don't find the sight of a beautiful naked woman highly arousing, by itself. Someone doesn't have to be sodomising her, or spraying cum in her face, for us to enjoy the spectacle (not that the vulgar does not have it's place, to quote a friend). What will you guys do when "double anal" is no longer enough? I hate to think! For me, Blake's hypnotic, luxurious dream world is erotic, not pornographic. My advice to MLyons: try "Wet" and "High Heels", but only if you appreciate a truly talented photographer. He really has more in common with Helmut Newton, or perh...

US vs Euro versions of US titles? 11/3/2002 9:06 PM
On second thoughts, the film to PAL conversion is probably a separate issue, and perhaps irrelevant to porn movies, mostly shot on video. I really don't know what I'm talking about, do I :)

US vs Euro versions of US titles? 11/3/2002 8:45 PM
Presumably you realize that any movie that was shot on film will be slightly speeded up in the PAL version, but not in the NTSC version. For instance, the PAL versions of Andrew Blake's films will be somewhat shorter, and in fact all Hollywood movies - hell, all movies, period - suffer from this defect of the PAL System (from memory it's due to film running at 24 fps, PAL being based on 25 fps, and NTSC at 30 fps. I would be surprised if the same thing does not happen with any NTSC video to PAL video conversion, but I have no idea how things shot on digital cameras are affected. Of course you might not be bothered by having films sped up 4%. (this is just from memory - I'm not an expert!).