Thank you to the folks who have made meaningful comments on this thread. It took time to do that and I appreciate that.

When I made my first reply, the sample images were not visible. There were place markers there instead - which simply added to the bizarre nature of the original statements. I didn't call anybody names. But somebody managed to get my comment deleted anyways. Good job. [Post undeleted and noted -MM]

I *think* what is going on is that the OP has Club MPV Subscriber Area clips mixed in with premium content, and his viewer is not re-sizing down to the clip resolution (which is a very modest 320x240). The render template I use for clips has never been tweaked for 16:9 content, so there are some top and bottom bars, but again, we're talking about clips that are not sold individually (you can download literally hundreds of them for $19.95).

If this is not the case, then I challenge to OP to specify where the objectionable content came from. There is no "DVD Section" at Club MPV btw.

Regarding the re-visiting of older content, I think it's entirely valid to do so. We started shooting in 1998 and went from Hi-8mm to Digital 8mm to Mini-DV to HDV to AVCHD and finally to 4k. My editing skills went from amateur to fairly good. So I am pretty stoked to be able to go back and apply updated technology and skills to material that was hard won in the first place.

At Quicksandfans, my home forum, I offer comparison snippets so customers can see the improvements. For content that was shot while we transitioning from Mini-DV to HDV, this often means content being seen in 16:9 and at 1080p for the first time in 15 years. It's very satisfying. There's an example of one of these posts here (registration required) - https://www.quicksandfans.com/bb/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=23936

Duncan had been encouraging me to post here at UMD on a regular basis. I think that I am properly motivated to do so now. So, I am thankful for that as well.

Dave

I can explain that one, it was because the OP isn't a verified user, they've not uploaded ID. All images from unverified users now need to be pre-approved by the mod team before they appear, and nudity, sexual touching, etc, are not allowed. Becoming verified (as you and I as store owners already are) makes these restrictions, which come from the billing companies, go away. If you ever see images with what looks like a clockface, it means they are images from unverified users pending moderation, and will appear (or vanish, if beyond what's allowed for nude / sexual) when one of the mods next checks the admin page.

Thank you for letting us know. I'll make sure to avoid Club MPV in the future.

holy.. did you even read Dave's reply?

@mdma As for myself I've never had quality issues with Club MPV. Always amazed by the quality of it. As Dave said, I bet you've downloaded the low resolution clips from the subscriber area.

I'll drink to that

I can think of a few places to put that nosey nose...

PM me!

Hey all. Thanks for all of the replies, I would like to explain a little more.

The DVD section I was talking about was not from the Club MPV home but from the original websites quicksandvisuals.com etc etc. I was really happy with the one I purchased, just was disappointed with the border added to the video which meant I could never get it to go full screen (with video touching at least 2 edges)

Also I was not getting confused with Club MPVS members and token/paid section. In fact I can elaborate more, I have 3 types of clips, ones from the rotating members section, DV quality from the paid area, and HD quality from the paid area.

The videos I used to get from the rotating section used to be that of the DV quality and had no black border around them, this is what annoyed me.

It appears they went from a 2 tier quality system to a 3 tier.

Not sure if i accept the black bar explanation, because it has nothing to do with the aspect ratio. For example in a 4:3 video I get black bars down the right and left side (top and bottom touch edge). But in other resolutions in the newer videos I get a big black border on all 4 sides even when full screened. If it was not tweaked there would always be at least 2 sides touching a border.

If I had never had the old subscription and had the comparison I probably would of not said anything. But it feel dubious, like when food manufacturers reduce the size of packets of food over time, and yet the price stays the same or inflates like normal.

Sorry for causing a stir

This is an example of what really confused me, this black edge. I understand it could be on 2 sides, but not all 4. Perhaps there is something I really do not understand, but in all my years of watching clips, I have never had a video that when in full screen had black on all 4 sides.

Could you please indicate where these images are taken from? Posting them is a waste of time without context information.

There were a couple of DVD titles that were mastered as DV (4:3) but had HDV (16:9) content imbedded in them. (But this in not where your latest image came from). I probably should have cropped that stuff, but I didn't. Or, conversely, I should have forced myself to learn to master in 16:9 (and ended up with bars on the sides of the 4:3 stuff). Either way, I eventually started doing titles that were all HDV sourced and learned how to master DVDs in 16:9.

This was during the 2006-2007 time period. Yet another reason to 'fix' older content, including how DVDs are constructed. The sample image above is from a scene shot in 2014. So again, please describe the source and what player you are using. I will be happy to supply a screen shot from that same source played on a properly configured media player.

Quality tiers are inevitable when selling across multiple platforms and/or media. The only multiple tiers that exist in one place are the choices between DV and HD quality in the pay-per-scene section at Club MPV. That distinction lasted longer than I anticipated because the DV stuff is a good match for portable devices. I do not consider the Subscriber Area clips to be a tier, since they are not complete scenes.

To my knowledge, I have never produced content with bars on all four sides. I did use some minimal black borders on some of the earliest content (to mask tracking deficiencies), but none of that era of content has not been mentioned here.

So, ok. If you look closely at you image post, it is the Subscriber Area clip that you are viewing. It's likely that your viewer won't even size itself down to 320x240.


Did you even read this?

Edit Ok, I was able to replicate your screen grab by opening a recent clip and letting VLC try to size itself. The first image is default. The second image is after I dragged the window to an optimum viewing size.

You obviously have some differences in your desktop configuration and text sizes and so on. But the principle is the same. A tempest in a teapot of clips.

I suggest looking at all of your MPV stuff and putting everything that ends in 'clip' in a separate folder. Meanwhile, I will consider re-rendering all of the 16:9 clips to uh, 16:9.

OK I would like to apologise as I have never seen this before, and I assumed because the quality dropped slightly that they were 2 things being done to force me into buying more clips. I do agree that value for money it is a great site, just slightly disappointed because the quality now in the members clips area so low that I cant even read the legal information of the video at the start anymore.

And THIS is why we should post producer names from the get-go. Kudos to all involved for acting rationally and working out the problem, and even bigger kudos for an apology.

It's certainly fine to feel sleighted over a bad product and to stew about it...some might say, "Why does it matter to you if they share names or not?" It matters when it goes from private sentiment to a public post on a public forum. And to be clear, we shouldn't just put producer names out there to SHAME a producer but also to say "here's a problem--have others had this problem?" Sometimes the result is "BUYER BEWARE." Other times it's as simple as publicly solving a problem for one person that a dozen or more others might be struggling with.

Anyway, [/2 cents]

Wow, we just had a serious discussion with some ideas and possible resolutions. Everyone was able to be respectful, responsive and decent to each other!

Proud of us!

Also, Dave you stuff is f-in amazing! I haven't been on any of the sites in a long time to compare on this stuff, as I usually just pick up individual scenes here. Thanks for all the years of great work.

Are there any exceptions to that? Such as, if Messygirl starts another "post your favorite Messygirl pictures" thread, are we not allowed to post any, even though they're from a known producer and obviously legal?

Most people are not going to want to share their identity. The whole point of sexual Internet forums in the first place was that people could discuss personal things frankly, and post sexual pictures, because they're anonymous. If only verified people are allowed to post sexual pictures, then it becomes largely just an advertising venue for professional producers rather than a peer-to-peer venue.

Personally I'd rather just have an open forum without the clip store. There are already other clip stores available such as clips4sale and Vidown, but there's only one UMD. Although I can see that selling clips makes the site much more profitable. Is there any way the forum could be separated from the clip store so this restriction wouldn't have to apply? Such as moving it to a different website, or handing it to a different person?

This whole thing is very depressing, how the whole Internet is being censored in a variety of different ways (such as the ever-increasing censorship on social media, Youtube's videos and search engine, and such) and being transformed from a democratic communications medium between individuals, into a medium only for commercial activity and for propaganda from corporations and governments.

If everybody just followed the rules then we wouldnt be in this position. But we have people in our society who violate copyright laws as well as pedophilia. Thats the problem that this verification is hoping to block. Its unfortunate and it sucks but this site is unique in the regard that it DOES bring the community and the production aspects together under 1 platform. Its nice to just have everything in one place.

Unfortunately not, because it's about the content, not the source. The rules (which aren't from MM, they come from the billing providers) are intended to prevent anyone uploading adult material without the site they upload to knowing who they are. The reason for this is because of the horrific abuse that was perpetrated via the big tube sites - in one particularly harrowing case, a teenage girl was raped, and a video of it uploaded and shared, and every time she got the tube site to take it down, more copies would be immediatelty uploaded. The sites could have stopped this, by insisting on verification, or by video-fingerprinting to prevent further uploads of a taken-down video, or numerous other methods. They chose to do nothing until eventually the clamour reached the credit card associations, who finally pulled the plug. There was also the rampant piracy that anonymous uploads enabled, but the under-age rape videos were the showstopper.


It's not a case of "more profitable", but "possible at all". To run a forum like this, with image uploads, you need to pay for servers (even if virtual, have to be paid for), storage, bandwidth, and power. None of that is free, and while the likes of Facebook can cover their costs with advertising and deep datamining of their users, that's not going to be feasible (or ethical) for a niche fetish like WAM. Basically no download store, no UMD.


Blame the arseholes and idiots who couldn't respect what they had. I first went online in 1995, it was all geeks and freaks and totally the wild west, you could say anything, do anything, and there was nothing and no-one to stop you, most law enforcement didn't even know the the Internet existed. But then along came the people who wanted only to exploit, scammers, spammers, and people who thought rape videos of kids were a good idea. The world has changed, and we all need to be a lot more responsible now. It's depressing that some people act like that, it's like the yobs who smash up old folks' gardens or burn down community facilities for kicks. The rest of us have to pay the price.

as a producer and a "umd girl" from the beginning of me producing? I can tell you that the forums and the stores go HAND IN HAND. i sell more here on the umd than anywhere else. it has nothing to do with not doing enough promo for other places or anything like that. THESE FORUMS ARE CRUCIAL FOR US.
also? we have become a society of lazy people. Me included. Having your download RIGHT HERE on the forum to click on, purchase adn watch immediately is a win win. Not only that? some of us producers actually enjoy talking with you all about our releases and others releases too! We are real people just like the forum poster, the lurker, everyone. most of us have the fetish as well.
all of this? goes hand in hand. you separate it? you are taking money from the site. the bandwidth, the work mm puts into it? literally he doesnt STOP. this site now having (i cant say the word) but p.p. as an option? even I dont use p.p.! but you all can! and thatt ttakes money! we NEED these forums!

Amen!

I was going to leave it at that but after being insulted by private message by Duncan I wish to ask, why was the quality reduction (to the point where you cant even read the disclaimer at the start of the video) never addressed?

Because it never happened? Because nobody else has a problem with it? Because the issue is how you are viewing it? Because nothing "unethical" happened? Because you just wanted an opportunity to slander one of the most upright guys in the business? Maybe that's why.

The videos can not be watched in full screen without black border and the quality is so bad now you can not even read the disclaimer at the start of the video. Did you see the screenshot comparison?

As you stated in your private message to me that I am slandering and should go work for a Tabloid, my response to you is, you should go work for the Government as you deflect every question.

I do admit the site has great videos and is worth the money, I just felt betrayed as a customer who has been around since the start.

Like I will still keep buying Cadbury chocolate even though they reduce the size of the packet, but people will hear about it

Of course there is a difference. One file name has 'clip' at the end of it, and one does not (the latter being a normal, stand-alone scene).

Please do as I suggested and move all of your MPV files that end in 'clip' to a separate folder. Otherwise, you will continue to waste everybody's time with your apples and oranges comparisons.

Again, sorry, but if you continue to bash MPV in order to expose yourself here in this forum (which seems to please you), I will continue to rebut you.

2021 vs 2017

So, I did some digging around earlier today and realized that from the 8/15/2018 update to the 8/23/2018 update, I inadvertently reverted to an older template for rendering clips, which brings us back to ...


So, perhaps you should wait and see what happens.

By not contacting me privately in the first place, and doing your dog and pony show here, you have managed to make everybody involved look bad.

And since you're a 'last word' kind of guy, I turn this back over to you. Have at it.

Perhaps I over reacted and perhaps I do always need the last word, but every reply I have got from you and Duncan have all had personal insults towards me. At the end of the day the quality is worse and that was my only complaint. I am sorry for assuming it was intentional.

Once again I will say the site is great value for money regardless

It seems like this explanation of a mismatched template could explain the 360 degree black border if the 230x240 clip was placed in the center of the larger workspace. That's different from stretching it until 2 sides hit an edge and filling the rest with black. Then the composite image would have to be re-rendered and compressed again which could could look pretty bad if the compression settings were not increased a bit for the larger video with the borders (don't know if this is the case).

So if the new vid is a new size like 640x480 or whatever with the black borders, the player is not going to crop it, but rather shrink the whole thing down even more if you resize it in the player. That might make the actual video in the middle be like 160x120!

I think a fix would be to provide thumbnail samples from every corresponding resolution the customer can choose to download or subscribe to, but the way that everybody has been talking things out I'm sure everything will get figured out. That said, I do wish the OP had tried to contact the owner at least once before throwing shade on the forum because it might been resolved more easily. And not mentioning the name just promotes undirected cynicism to all producers in general, but it's all good now and everybody has acknowledged that.

I'm here if the invested parties need help in mediating the issue. Dave, if you want to work out a way to use UMD's compressor to make correctly-sized and compressed videos in bulk, hit me up.


Yep! That's why I didn't lock the thread earlier like you said This community has long ago earned MY trust that they can argue stuff like adults without hand-holding or locking every heated debate. Thanks to everyone for once again proving that humans can talk stuff out.


No exceptions right now. And yes, it blows. The pressing issue isn't really whether the content checks out, because I don't think they're really checking for that unless there's a report or something. Instead, they're concerned with the process. When they test, they actually sign up to a UMD account and see what we are allowing unverified users to do. If they can so much as upload a user icon with no verification, I am personally in trouble.


Anonymity was apparently the issue because people do stuff they otherwise wouldn't do. When combined with the taboos of fetishes and kinks, it can get pretty extreme. That stuff can end up on a site whose owner who might not even be able to defend himself when contacted by the authorities because the person wouldn't supply an ID. You're not even supposed to recoup your bandwidth costs or your 15-hour workdays by running a store that nobody is forced to use but supports the producers.


It really is sorta unfair that this is affecting areas of this site just because they share the same domain as the stores. But actually this is a very integrated site and all the boundaries are deliberately blurred. Separating them wouldn't help much because the non-store site would still have to be paid for and run by somebody. The stores are here to work synergistically with the whole rest of the site. Plus, affiliates and advertising credits account for a tiny portion of the revenue here, and we don't do pop-ups or sell your information. These forums and the rest of UMD only exist because of the store system.... and vice versa!

Peace,
Messmaster

Speaking of rules ...

...so here I am, over here still with a profile photo of girls in the mud with miners in the background.