Ella and Suki’s final ordeal together in the stocks (FF/FF)

[The Last Laugh]

PERSONAL REQUEST: IF YOU HAVE EXPERIENCE WITH HIGH DEFINITION VIDEO EDITING, PLEASE READ THE SECOND POST IN THIS THREAD. I COULD REALLY USE SOME ADVICE FOR FUTURE RELEASES. THANK YOU!

Hello everyone! Here is a preview for clip #5 of the Last Laugh Kenaz series. Josie and Candice are a team again. They make Ella and Suki pay for everything they’ve done. It’s one of my longest clips, so it’s a little more expensive than most, but at $9.99 for over 14 minutes, I’d say it’s a fair deal.

Ella: 21, 5'5", size 8
Suki: 22, 5'10", size 10
Josie: 21, 5'8", size 8.5
Candice: 21, 5'6", size 8

“Ella and Suki are in deep trouble now. As if it wasn’t enough that they started as Josie and Candice’s adversaries, they had to make things even worse by temporarily allying first with Josie, and then with Candice, only to betray each of them. So now Josie and Candice are really cheesed and are screaming for revenge. The setup in this new 2-on-2 scene is both simple and complex. Ella leans against my massage table’s backrest, her wrists cuffed over her head and her ankles locked in my stocks’ side holes. Her big toes are also tied with leather cuffs. Suki is on all four over Ella, her ankles locked in the middle holes of the stocks. Legwarmers can be seen sticking out of the holes. As Ella, her big toes are cuffed to restrict the movements of her feet. Her wrists are tied to the sides of the table so she can’t kneel upright and must hold herself up to avoid falling on top of Ella. To prevent discomfort, a sofa cushion is wedged between her behind and the stocks. In retrospect we could have used something smaller, but the cushion doesn’t hide much, aside from Suki’s butt. So anyway, at stocks level the “foot pattern” is rather intriguing. Ella’s feet are on the sides, toes pointing up and slightly outwards, while Suki’s feet are close together between Ella’s, toes down in an inverted “V” position. Toe bondage makes the feet even more helpless. Ticklish as they are, this scene is quite an ordeal for Ella and Suki. Fortunately, they both have very good stamina, and they’re really good sports about it. I get the feeling that they don’t entirely hate the tickling, to tell the truth. After all, they did come back for more after a pretty intense first shoot. Unlike their first video (Last laugh Ansuz), in this shoot Ella seems to be the most ticklish of the duo, although Suki’s feet are still pretty sensitive. Anyway, Ella is the first to get tickled by Josie and Candice, but Suki soon feels their fingernails on her soles as well. Surprisingly enough, the tickling isn’t limited to the foot side of the stocks, nor are Josie and Candice the only ones who apply it. Ella is quite incapable of doing anything, but Suki does have some level of freedom, and despite what’s happening to her feet she decides to have some fun with her partner by blowing raspberries on her exposed belly. They make very little noise, but they’re quite effective nonetheless. Additionally, Suki realizes that while her wrists are tied to the table, they have just enough slack to reach Ella’s ribs and armpits. Even worse, Josie decides to move up to help Suki tickle Ella’s upper body. Ella can be heard begging “No more!” As was the case in the previous scene, we have once again a situation that’s both 2-on-2 and 3-on-1, with Ella getting the worst of it (though things aren’t going that well for Suki either). Going back to the stocks, we see that Candice is now sitting on the floor so she can use both feet to tickle Suki’s soles. She later gives Ella a taste of her toes, and Josie comes back to help her out. They tickle those poor mistreated feet for the rest of the scene, and Suki adds her own upper body contribution from time to time. It appears that the Ella-Suki team spirit is finally crumbling. At the end, when I ask the girls about their experience, Ella weakly answers, “I think the good girls won”, referring to Josie and Candice.(Language: English)”

Full-length clips can be purchased from The Last Laugh's tickling clip store

If you missed the previews for the other clips in this series, you can get them here:
Last Laugh Kenaz preview 1
Last Laugh Kenaz preview 2
Last Laugh Kenaz preview 3
Last Laugh Kenaz preview 4

 

[The Last Laugh]

Help with High Definition video editing, please

I apologize for bringing up an issue that isn't directly related to the preview featured in this thread. I know most people will find this boring to tears, but I would be very grateful if someone could offer some advice regarding editing high definition video. I'm afraid I'll need to be a little technical to explain the situation, and it's going to be long. Sorry about that.

Until a few months ago the camcorder I've been using for the last 7 years is a Sony DCR-TRV900. A pretty good device, cost me a bundle back in 2002. Unfortunately, it recently let me down. Getting it fixed would cost over $800. I decided that I might as well buy a brand new camcorder, so I got a Canon Vixia HF20. It cost me a lot less than the Sony. In some ways it's not quite as good (the Sony was a 3-CCD camcorder, for example), but it is more modern, and it's high definition. I've already done a few shoots with it. It's not perfect, but it does the job.

Now, I've become quite used to handling the standard DV footage filmed with the Sony. The camcorder uses MiniDV tapes. I capture the footage and edit it using Premiere 6.5 (yeah, definitely not the latest version). The format I get is standard DV video, which is 720x480 AVI. The final screen size when encoded into a more convenient format is 640x480 (othewise it looks a bit stretched). Of course, This isn't news to anyone who's familiar with video editing that's not high definition.

The problem is that high definition involves an entirely different video format. I knew that HD had a higher resolution, but until I got the Canon I had no idea that the file extension wasn't AVI, but rather MTS. I find myself uncertain how to use it. I can play it, but editing it is another thing. I know that Premiere 6.5 doesn't support HD. Fortunately, I also have Premiere Elements 7, which does support it. It bothers me that I have to learn to use new software after 7 years, especially since I don't intend to produce videos for that much longer, but it seems I don't have a choice.

Even though I probably have the tools needed to use the MTS files, I'm not too sure how to approach the editing process. Aside from the different file format, the HD footage also differs from standard DV in that the resolution is 1920x1080. Impressive, but it seems that my computer might not be powerful enough to edit it. I might need to encode the files to a small resolution before I can edit them. Is this something that many people have to do? What would be a reasonable resolution for editing?

Also, the 16:9 proportions of HD are very different from the 3:2 proportions of the footage I'm used to editing (and from the 4:3 of the final product) This makes me wonder if I should keep the 16:9 proportions as is, or if I should use some kind of letterbox so that the proportions are the same as those for standard DV. Mind you, I have no idea how I would make the footage letterboxed. I've read that one can have the camcorder transfer the footage to a computer in letterbox format, but for the life of me I can't figure out how it's done. Even if I could do it, what file format would it be? Still MTS, or 720x480 AVI?

Frankly, I was kind of hoping that it would be possible to convert the 1920x1080 MTS footage to 720x480 S-DV, so that I can edit it in Premiere 6.5. It might seem like a waste to buy an HD camcorder only to use S-DV footage, but frankly, I didn't buy the Canon because I felt I had to update my work to HD. I'm reasonably happy with my clips as they are, and I'd take convenience and familiarity over HD.

Assuming that I stick to 16:9 and convert the original footage to MTS files of a smaller screen size. Does the editing software still recognizes the footage as HD when it's reduced in size? I mean, does it recognize HD by the file format (MTS) or by the resolution? Thing is, Premiere Elements 7 has an option for importing and working with HD, but I don't yet know if it can do so with 16:9 MTS files that have been reduced in size.

Let's suppose that I've managed to edit the material, ending up with final MTS files of some screen size (say 1280x720, for instance, although that might still be too big for my computer). It's now time to convert them to the commercial product format, which has always been WMV in my case. What screen size is best? Currently, my WMV clips are 640x480. Clearly, I can't do the same with the HD footage. I've seen clips from other producers that are the same size, but letterboxed. The actual picture seems to be about 640x360. I could live with that, but like I said, I don’t know how to create letterboxed video. I've also seen clips that were something like about 850x480 or so. Very close to 16:9. I guess it would be simple enough to make WMV clips of that size. But it does represent more information that 640x480. Would it make the file size and/or bitrate too high for most computers? I already find the size and bitrate of my 640x480 clips to be rather high (higher than some other producers; how do they do it?) How about even larger WMV clips? Is 1280x720 a viable screen size for downloadable clips? Are there any standards among producers when it comes to HD clips?

Aside from clips, I also make DVDs. I have software that supports HD. But I haven't tried it yet, not having figured out what to do with the original footage. If I resize the MTS videos so that they're smaller than 1920x1080, will they still be recognized as HD? Also, does one still need to convert the original footage to MPEG2 before burning a DVD, or is it once again completely different from non-HD video?

By the way, I was wondering, how useful are the CPI files that are created during the capture process. I know they contain information about the videos, but do I really need them? Or is it safe to delete them and just keep the MTS files?

As you can see, I still have a lot to learn about HD. I have to admit that I'm a bit discouraged that after 7 years I have to learn a new process, including new software. Frankly, I almost wish I had decided to have my old Sony fixed instead or buying the Canon, so as to avoid all this HD hassle. But I have an HD camcorder now, so I might as well learn how to use the material. I currently still have S-DV footage for three more videos, and then I won't have a choice but to figure out the HD thing, or else there won't be any more The Last Laugh videos.

Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what I'm asking for here. But if there are people reading this who have experience with HD footage and who can help me in any way, I would be most grateful. Thank you.

Oh, and my apologies to those who don't find all this technical stuff interesting in the slightest. To tell the truth, I wish I could do without it myself.

 

[turtleboy]

Hi mate,
Your best bet is just to use some alternative software like Sony Vegas or Final Cut, that'll handle the process of resizing easily - Sony Vegas Platinum supports rendering in full HD (up to 1920x1080) file sizes, but even the basic movie studio version will read full HD files and render them to a smaller file size (which is what you're looking to do anyway).

The HD part only refers to the resolution/screen size not to the file type. MTS files are a pain in the ass to playback (I know because my camera uses MTS too), but can be edited with the right software. I use Sony vegas for all of mine. I have full HD files which I scale down to 720x480. That maintains the 16:9 aspect ratio, and for me is a good compromise between file size, quality and playability - check my some of my preview clips for examples. I would advise against re-encoding the files before editing because you will end up with much reduced quality. With a program like vegas you can determing a suitable final resolution, bit-rate and file format after editing, and before rendering the final clip.

Most people will be happy with 720p (1280x720) file sizes but they won't suit everyone. I generally don't use them because the final clips tend to be quite large unless I reduce the bit-rate, which seems a bit pointless to me (why go with a larger screen size if you're going to reduce the quality anyway!). If I were producing shorter, 5 minute clips (rather than the usual 20 mins or so) I would probably render them in that size though!

I hope that helps a little - feel free to pm me if you need more info!

 

[Liu Kang]

Very creative bondage as usual.

 

[jmsdarke]

Big fun!

 

[primus38k]

super hot clips!

 

[ktickler]

... since I don't intend to produce videos for that much longer ...

Woot?!


You should take advantage of the HD material and maintain the 16:9 aspect ratio and as much resolution as possible. I know that not everyone is running a media monster PC to watch tickling material, but the general standard is moving towards widescreen HD monitors and all that it entitles.

I agree with the UKTickling producer that you should use 720x480 (480p) resolution for long clips and 1280x720 (720p) resolution for short clips to get the best resolution at a decent size.

See the clips from UKTicking and CzechTicklishGirls. The clips are not too large, the level of detail is beautiful, and the material scales nicely to larger monitors (23"+).

Always try to edit the original HD material (in raw format) and encode only when you downsize to a smaller resolution. That will give you the best quality.

Have fun and good luck. Looking forward to some HD clips from TLL.

 

[The Last Laugh]

Thank you for the technical advice, guys. I appreciate it. I will seriously consider your suggestions. I might get in touch with you later for a few more questions, if I may, but if I do so it will be through PM.

Also, if other people have more advice to offer, please don't hesitate to do so. I can certainly use several different points of view. Not every idea will be suitable in my case, but if I get enough information I should be able to piece it all together and come up with a process that works for me. Thank you in advance.

Woot?!

Well, you know, I've had a good run. I've been working on this project for the last 8 years. I don't intend to do it forever, especially since I have a full-time job now.

Also, the market is seriously saturated nowadays, and it's getting worse all the time, dominated by a number of popular, high-quality companies. The competition is quite ferocious (but friendly). I don't know how long I can go on before my sales drop enough that they can't keep up with the models' salaries anymore. Tickling is fun and all, and I don't want to sound greedy, but to be perfectly honest, for The Last Laugh to be viable for me it needs to make some profits. Not necessarily a lot, but the day my sales get so low that I don't make any profits anymore, or just barely so, I'll have to close shop. I might actually do so well before it gets to that point, if only to free more time to do something else. I mean, eventually I'll feel the need to move on.

Still, I should be releasing new videos for a while longer, probably at least a year. That is, if I manage to figure out a video production process that suits me.

 

[hivoltage]

Francois -

I for one would be seriously bummed if The Last Laugh closed down.

This video clip (Kenaz 5) is really gorgeous - /FF is the best in my opinion, and far too rare.

I've been working with HD for about 4 years now, and it makes beautiful (but huge) video files. I use Ulead Video Studio 11, and it is pretty good.

I would love to see some of your work in HD.

 

[jmsdarke]

Now, I've become quite used to handling the standard DV footage filmed with the Sony. The camcorder uses MiniDV tapes. I capture the footage and edit it using Premiere 6.5 (yeah, definitely not the latest version). The format I get is standard DV video, which is 720x480 AVI. The final screen size when encoded into a more convenient format is 640x480 (othewise it looks a bit stretched). Of course, This isn't news to anyone who's familiar with video editing that's not high definition.[/QUOTE]

The better solution for this issue is to set your output pixel aspect ratio to 1.000. The DV pixel aspect ratio is 0.909. That's what casues the stretching.

The problem is that high definition involves an entirely different video format. I knew that HD had a higher resolution, but until I got the Canon I had no idea that the file extension wasn't AVI, but rather MTS.

I have two JVC HD camcorders (and an HDV camcorder which is still off-line). One saves .MTS and the other .TOD. I use Sony Veags Pro for both. Vegas is muh faster during the edit and rendering processes. This is even more critical when editing HD.

Also, the 16:9 proportions of HD are very different from the 3:2 proportions of the footage I'm used to editing (and from the 4:3 of the final product) This makes me wonder if I should keep the 16:9 proportions as is, or if I should use some kind of letterbox so that the proportions are the same as those for standard DV.

I would definitely keep the footage 16:9 through the entire edit and output process. You will very quickly come to appreciate the value of this.

Frankly, I was kind of hoping that it would be possible to convert the 1920x1080 MTS footage to 720x480 S-DV, so that I can edit it in Premiere 6.5. It might seem like a waste to buy an HD camcorder only to use S-DV footage, but frankly, I didn't buy the Canon because I felt I had to update my work to HD. I'm reasonably happy with my clips as they are, and I'd take convenience and familiarity over HD.

Welcome to the world of HD. Never look back at DV. That's the kiddie pool.

Assuming that I stick to 16:9 and convert the original footage to MTS files of a smaller screen size. Does the editing software still recognizes the footage as HD when it's reduced in size? I mean, does it recognize HD by the file format (MTS) or by the resolution? Thing is, Premiere Elements 7 has an option for importing and working with HD, but I don't yet know if it can do so with 16:9 MTS files that have been reduced in size.

This is more elegantly handled in Sony Vegas Pro 9 than in Premiere. In Vegas the aspect ratio is what is considered and not the actual resolution. However, I would advise you not to make any effort to reduce the resolution. There are editing benefits to keeping it high such as zooming and panning for virtual camera moves.

Let's suppose that I've managed to edit the material, ending up with final MTS files of some screen size (say 1280x720, for instance, although that might still be too big for my computer). It's now time to convert them to the commercial product format, which has always been WMV in my case. What screen size is best? Currently, my WMV clips are 640x480. Clearly, I can't do the same with the HD footage. I've seen clips from other producers that are the same size, but letterboxed. The actual picture seems to be about 640x360. I could live with that, but like I said, I don’t know how to create letterboxed video. I've also seen clips that were something like about 850x480 or so. Very close to 16:9. I guess it would be simple enough to make WMV clips of that size. But it does represent more information that 640x480. Would it make the file size and/or bitrate too high for most computers? I already find the size and bitrate of my 640x480 clips to be rather high (higher than some other producers; how do they do it?) How about even larger WMV clips? Is 1280x720 a viable screen size for downloadable clips? Are there any standards among producers when it comes to HD clips?

Great question. The way I address this is that I output my clips in multiple resolutions and formats: 1920 x 1080i WMV, 1280 x 720p WMV, 720 x 408 WMV and 720 x 408 MOV. In addition to providing formats that various people prefer, I stagger their release in my store to get listed in the updated stores 4 times for each clip release. This helps with sales.

Aside from clips, I also make DVDs. I have software that supports HD. But I haven't tried it yet, not having figured out what to do with the original footage. If I resize the MTS videos so that they're smaller than 1920x1080, will they still be recognized as HD? Also, does one still need to convert the original footage to MPEG2 before burning a DVD, or is it once again completely different from non-HD video?

While it is possible to output HD and Blu-Ray DVDs, not all players (or even computers) are compatible with such discs. For now, I output 720 x 480 DVDs.

By the way, I was wondering, how useful are the CPI files that are created during the capture process. I know they contain information about the videos, but do I really need them? Or is it safe to delete them and just keep the MTS files?

Those are just indexing files used by the camcorder for local playback. They hold no value during the edit or capture process. I always delete any files from my camcorder and computer that are not the actual video content.

As you can see, I still have a lot to learn about HD. I have to admit that I'm a bit discouraged that after 7 years I have to learn a new process, including new software. Frankly, I almost wish I had decided to have my old Sony fixed instead or buying the Canon, so as to avoid all this HD hassle. But I have an HD camcorder now, so I might as well learn how to use the material. I currently still have S-DV footage for three more videos, and then I won't have a choice but to figure out the HD thing, or else there won't be any more The Last Laugh videos.

An opportunity to learn is a blessing from the Universe.

Anyway, I'm not exactly sure what I'm asking for here. But if there are people reading this who have experience with HD footage and who can help me in any way, I would be most grateful. Thank you.

Oh, and my apologies to those who don't find all this technical stuff interesting in the slightest. To tell the truth, I wish I could do without it myself.

All great questions. Please let me know if you need to know more.

I have all of the major editing applications for the Mac and PC and am currently writing an article about the hardware and software that I use for producing my tickle videos. maybe that will answer other questions for you and other producers as well.

I really think that admins should create a technical forum for us to discuss these hyper-geek issues as they may have a 'Valium' effect on the masses.

Aelia's T-Pose tickle being edited today in Sony Vegas Pro 9

JD

 

[ktickler]

Now, I've become quite used to handling the standard DV footage filmed with the Sony ... JD

Dude, this is awesome!

I agree with the suggestion for a technical forum to discuss production-related questions.

 

[The Last Laugh]

I really think that admins should create a technical forum for us to discuss these hyper-geek issues as they may have a 'Valium' effect on the masses

Well, there is the "Technical Assistance" forum, so the mods might feel that it would be a little redundant. But that forum does cover a wide variety of topics, usually not related to video production, and very few people check it out anyway. I would be very interested in seeing a forum dedicated to video production issues, like lighting, editing, file conversion, etc. It would certainly be fun for the producers. I know I could learn a lot from it. And let's face it, producers and their videos are an important part of the TMF. If a tech forum can help them make better videos, it benefits the whole community.

On the other hand, even if the mods do create such a forum, would enough producers and other video-savvy people use it for it to be worth it? Or would it be pretty much like the Technical Assistance forum, that doesn't get many hits and bores most people to tears? I assume most producers are already comfortable with the way they make videos and don't feel much need to search for help on a regular basis.

Not long ago I posted a request for HD video help there, kind of like I did in this thread. But I didn't get a single reply, whereas I already got a few very insightful replies right here. So while a video tech forum might be a neat idea on paper, it's possible that it wouldn't be popular enough to be viable. I just don't know.

 

[sole seeker]

wow - this looks like a fun scenario. I'd be glad to render technical assistance of a tickling nature!