SweetheartVideo.com

This is something I have to agree with and it isn't hard to do and you don't need to change the way you cover the scene. All you need to do is do a "pick-up" shot after the scene is done. you can do this because this can be shot as a cut away for editing coverage. I also can be shot MOS and in editing you simply insert the shot into the action.

Oh, man, am I going to throw a wrench into this one. I'm not sure what porn you've been viewing, or perhaps we have a different definition of close-up; but if you mean that the shot is only inches away, then I've got to disagree with your observations. In my experience, the close-up is the most overused shot in the industry; any person that's filmed more than one sex scene can't seem to resist repeating these shots, often every 10-20 seconds. I mean, we've all seen Nica's vagina, but do any viewers have a memory of the video that gives us a good shot of her shapely body or legs? The close-up conveys very little of the real action and eroticism of a scene. The more and lengthy the close-ups, the less we viewers actually see.

Now I know this may be counter intuitive, but here's my take; by definition any close-up view focuses on the single aspect of an event, which is fine if only one thing is going on at a given moment, or if whatever going on around said event has no importance; however, I would maintain that realistic, hot, exuberant sex (be it masturbation, or partnerships), has a multitude of things happening at any given moment, a half dozen or more; by singling out one part of the encounter, a viewer is missing the other five+ aspects; hence the more/lengthy close-ups, the more other parts of the same event being missed.

What is also ignored in this equation is the fact that any shot preceding or following a close-up is occurring before or after the fact, not in real time; consequently these shots are only giving us nuggets that our minds have to piece together to create some semblance of a whole picture, even though for example, the shot following a close-up may be happening 2, 3, or 10+ minutes later. What a viewer winds up with is a representation of the sexual encounter, not the real encounter.

Added to this is that the truth of our visual experiences of the world are determined as much by reference points to single events than close inspection of these events; example, a close-up of the vagina isn't necessarily very erotic unless one gets to see who it belongs to, the points of reference (face, hips, legs, hair, etc., etc.).
To be sure, a periodic close inspection can be valuable in adding something to an event, but it does not give one the real true honest experience of that event. While close-ups (genitalia, breasts, derriere, feet, etc.) may be erotic, they are aspects reflecting personal taste, not objectivity.

If the truth of a scene is to be experienced by the viewer, the wide shot is best for showing it; example, watch a Fred Astaire or Gene Kelly dance scene, the shots purposely kept wide, and say they would be better, more honest, if the director had focused on their feet, or upper torso, or kept cutting between the two body parts.
Wide shots are not only more truthful/objective of the sexual encounter, but allow each viewers to experience their own personal erotic tastes.

Last edited by th3rdpwr (2010-07-12 15:31:48)