393/McKenzie combo shoot

AceHoly · 2005-10-31 12:59:10

I was quite fascinated when Agonee 393 claimed that she was doing a duel camera shoot - a Face Only shoot for BA, and a Full Body shoot (ok, it's a wide shot gyno-cam) that would appear on Ishotmyself.com (it's under the name McKenzie). I actually took the bullet and subscribed to ISM just to see that video.

I mean - here we go, the ultimate test of the Face/Full Body debate that has oft raged here. My natural thought was that both movies could be started side by side and we could see for ourselves whether or not one was sexier than the other... or better yet, be "exposed" to a dual shot that would be even grander than just one or the other.

And yet...

While I know that certain editing occurs with videos submitted to these sites, I am SO puzzled by what happened here. The editing on these two videos DOES NOT MATCH UP! You CAN'T run them side by side, even finding a common starting point, because they were not edited in the same way.

WHY?

I can't quite fathom why, if editing HAD to be done on both videos, the SAME edits couldn't have been made so that they lined up exactly throughout their play times. Once the "synch" goes, the experience isn't just lost, it's ruined.

Clearly since each video promotes the other website, the idea was to get (new) subscribers to both sites to watch a tandem video. How come they couldn't be edited to match? It would be extremely easy to make those edits using Final Cut Pro or something similar. Find the common starting point then make the same edit to each version.

Is this something that will be done and released later? Obviously it can't be released HERE because it features full nudity, but on ISM?

Enquiring minds....

Ace

richard · 2005-10-31 13:07:09

AceHoly wrote:

I was quite fascinated when Agonee 393 claimed that she was doing a duel camera shoot - a Face Only shoot for BA, and a Full Body shoot (ok, it's a wide shot gyno-cam) that would appear on Ishotmyself.com (it's under the name McKenzie). I actually took the bullet and subscribed to ISM just to see that video.
I mean - here we go, the ultimate test of the Face/Full Body debate that has oft raged here. My natural thought was that both movies could be started side by side and we could see for ourselves whether or not one was sexier than the other... or better yet, be "exposed" to a dual shot that would be even grander than just one or the other.
And yet...
While I know that certain editing occurs with videos submitted to these sites, I am SO puzzled by what happened here. The editing on these two videos DOES NOT MATCH UP! You CAN'T run them side by side, even finding a common starting point, because they were not edited in the same way.
WHY?
I can't quite fathom why, if editing HAD to be done on both videos, the SAME edits couldn't have been made so that they lined up exactly throughout their play times. Once the "synch" goes, the experience isn't just lost, it's ruined.
Clearly since each video promotes the other website, the idea was to get (new) subscribers to both sites to watch a tandem video. How come they couldn't be edited to match? It would be extremely easy to make those edits using Final Cut Pro or something similar. Find the common starting point then make the same edit to each version.
Is this something that will be done and released later? Obviously it can't be released HERE because it features full nudity, but on ISM?
Enquiring minds....
Ace

I guess the answer is that each video was edited for its own site, in a way that fit its format best, and nobody figured people would want to play them side-by-side.

AceHoly · 2005-10-31 13:42:51

richard wrote:

I guess the answer is that each video was edited for its own site, in a way that fit its format best, and nobody figured people would want to play them side-by-side.

That's me, always thinking out of the box. (I think that's the nice way to say I'm a pain in the ass!) :-)

Ace

Jakeview · 2005-10-31 20:54:24

393 is amazing. What a beauty. I can't wait to check out AW tomorrow!

Tonning · 2005-10-31 23:56:45

AceHoly, I find it Interresting to run the "peak" of the session "combo".

It starts at ISM 3:45 fade in vs BA 4:30 and ends at ISM 5:35 "knees pulled together" vs BA 6:20 fade to talking.

Short but sweet.

erdna · 2005-11-06 05:52:20

McKenzie is a beauty. However from a technical point of view the shooting angle in ISM is too shallow and some shadow is not helping either. This was a sunny and windy day for her at the beach and I wonder if the idea of doing it on a beach on a windy day is OK since some sand grains at the wrong place can turn a beautiful agony into a pain in the .... (well a real agony). and

al · 2005-11-06 10:08:06

I just got to her. Wow.
She really should submit a customary shoot. This one was enough to recognize the value of the agony she is capable of, and to make my neck ache from tilting sideways.

miykwhat · 2005-11-24 11:44:16

She's also on Abbywinters.com on their Intimate Moments thingy with a different coloured towel. As are quite a few other agonees (some with and without coloured towels). And yes, I'm aware that BA and AW are run by the same people, before anyone picks holes in the things I write!

richard · 2005-11-24 12:23:42

miykwhat wrote:

She's also on Abbywinters.com on their Intimate Moments thingy with a different coloured towel. As are quite a few other agonees (some with and without coloured towels). And yes, I'm aware that BA and AW are run by the same people, before anyone picks holes in the things I write!

Actually none of the same people are involved in Agony and AW, either as owners or operators.

miykwhat · 2005-11-24 14:13:19

I stand corrected! Although I could have sworn someone mentioned that somewhere sometime ago. I just assumed that with the connections to GMBill and people appearing on both sites that there was at least a little association. But I can but dream!

richard · 2005-11-24 21:52:10

miykwhat wrote:

I stand corrected! Although I could have sworn someone mentioned that somewhere sometime ago. I just assumed that with the connections to GMBill and people appearing on both sites that there was at least a little association. But I can but dream!

We are located in the same city; they own GMBill which provides billing services for us; and we are friends. But the site operation and management is totally separate.

Jo · 2005-11-24 21:55:05

miykwhat wrote:

I stand corrected! Although I could have sworn someone mentioned that somewhere sometime ago. I just assumed that with the connections to GMBill and people appearing on both sites that there was at least a little association. But I can but dream!

Perhaps you confuse AW with ISM?! There is some connection.

Lenny · 2005-11-29 18:42:10

Ace, can you send me the video from ISMS.com ?

AceHoly · 2005-11-29 22:56:23

Lenny wrote:

Ace, can you send me the video from ISMS.com ?

Ye Gods, Lenny! I do enough things to get myself in trouble accidentally without agreeing to defraud adminstrators of a site in one of their own forums in front of God, McKenzie, and everybody!

;-)

Love to help you, Len, but discretion and bandwidth suggest that I instead advise you to take the plunge yourself as I did. Lots of interesting stuff on ISM all available for merely the cost of a few hamburgers.

Now THAT is something the admins can quote.

Ace

Lenny · 2005-11-30 08:02:52

Allright, at least I tried it
Just kiddin, Ill go register me anyway in a few days.

#1 2005-10-31 12:59:10

393/McKenzie combo shoot

#2 2005-10-31 13:07:09

Re: 393/McKenzie combo shoot

#3 2005-10-31 13:42:51

Re: 393/McKenzie combo shoot

#4 2005-10-31 20:54:24

Re: 393/McKenzie combo shoot

#5 2005-10-31 23:56:45

Re: 393/McKenzie combo shoot

#6 2005-11-06 05:52:20

Re: 393/McKenzie combo shoot

#7 2005-11-06 10:08:06

Re: 393/McKenzie combo shoot

#8 2005-11-24 11:44:16

Re: 393/McKenzie combo shoot

#9 2005-11-24 12:23:42

Re: 393/McKenzie combo shoot

#10 2005-11-24 14:13:19

Re: 393/McKenzie combo shoot

#11 2005-11-24 21:52:10

Re: 393/McKenzie combo shoot

#12 2005-11-24 21:55:05

Re: 393/McKenzie combo shoot

#13 2005-11-29 18:42:10

Re: 393/McKenzie combo shoot

#14 2005-11-29 22:56:23

Re: 393/McKenzie combo shoot

#15 2005-11-30 08:02:52

Re: 393/McKenzie combo shoot

Board footer