‘Twas just something I began wondering shortly after watching this webcam video of AngelOfLove4uS from ImLive…
…because, perving through some of her cam caps afterwards, it seemed as if the webcam made her tits look huge in some cases, but more diminutive in others (most notably her topless and nude shots)…
…so my question is this: Do most webcams have a built-in wide-angle lens to provide virtual, non-surgical breast enhancement? I don’t have tits (well, not big ones, anyway), so I can’t test my theory. Still, wouldn’t it be a major disappointment if you’d spent literally months cyber-sex camming with a busty girl, only to find out she had small boobs when you met her in real life? Such big breast deception shouldn’t be allowed, if my busty webcam cleavage enhancing hypothesis holds water. Here’s one more quickie, just for tits comparison sake, this time from WebGirl at ImLive…
…oh, and here’s her sexy big tits in your face live cam preview video, too:
There is no question that webcam distort images because of the size of the lenses, the closer you get (as in any camera BTW) you will look bigger. you get your nose in the camera and see your nose look like Cyrano’s!
[Reese writes: Thanks, BigDee, but my nose already looks like Cyrano’s. :~P]
Yeah… there’s always a size distortion with any camera lens… but especially a webcam. Couple that with the fact that any set of breasts will look larger in bras and some lingerie (thanks push-up technology… bunch of lies!!!) and less diminutive without.
I believe this is the wonder of wide-angle lenses. Most Webcams automatically adjust the focal length based on where the subject sits relative to the cam. The closer they get, the bigger the middle ground appears, and that’s usually the chest. Bang Bros have made a fortune out of shooting with a wide-angled lense.
Have you featured AngelOfLove4uS before? She is phenomenal!
Pinup files and the like having been doing this forever, it’s not just the wide angle it’s physically sticking the boobs the most forward towards the lens for even more distorted effect.
ya see technology serves a purpose
I’m sick to death of the terrible cinematography skills of nearly every cemera guys in the business and their cheap hand held cameras.
Always set to widest angle and 3 inches away from the model, all you get is distortion, lack of perspective and the terrible but seemingly universal cliche of random rotations. It’s often more like an autopsy directed by a very drunk David Lynch than something erotic.
The time ANYONE films their models at a 45 degree angle from an inch’s distance, that’s the time I’m cancelling a subscription.
Amazing models exist in the world at the moment (as they always have done since Cheesecake and porn wer invented), yet the quality of the films is awful – untrained camera work from idiots.
Immovable webcams with horrible lighting and terrible resolution and all; at least they don’t have an ADHD moron in control of them.
Lots of websites have their own unique problems due to the incompetance of the camera work. Pinupfiles records videos of models posing for photographs (nothing is less erotic, given the potential), Polish Busty and several other sites have no idea about makeu: it was only fashionable for elderly women to apply aqua eyeshadow with a trowel in the 80s. Abbi Secraa is actually a young woman with a beautiful face, not a late-middle-aged crusty prostitute, as early Polish Busty videos (busty.pl ?) made her look like. Seriously! As her videos are getting better, she’s looking prettier each time.
And then there’s direction. As in “film director”, not the way to the toilets. Is it too much to ask that someone with at least some idea about what’s sexy and what’s not get a job in the porn web site industry.
That’s what makes webcam stuff look so good despite awful fram-rate, lighting and an immovable camera: it’s not controlled by untallented incompetant production staff with only a hi-def handy-cam to their name.
//rant
Wow, that was a lot of typos and spelling errors. o_O To clarify, I think videos from the age of Cheesecake, 40-50 years ago were infinitely better produced and directed than they are today where any idiot can get a hi-def hand held camera for cheap and commit terrible sins against the model they’re supposed to be filming.
That’s true even for hard-core porn. Remember the 80s when hardcore largely consisted of boring badly acted set-ups followed by 20 minutes of a close up dick-into-vag action – the hope at that point was that porn would be, in the future, better produced, but nope, not happening. It’s worse.
I’ve no idea why I’m making critical comments about the artisitc merits, or lack thereof, of what is essentially wanking material (hey, if this site’s propriator, married to one of the sexiest chicks in porn, runs a blog on wanking material…). Maybe the models deserve more than crap production values and shit camera work.
If working by themselves with a webcam produces much sexier video, there’s something wrong with the porn production industry.
Where’s a modern Russ Meyer when you need him?
70s porn rules,, no silly sets or stories
just great sex
Web cam girls are mostly small but they look huge because of the lens. If you see them in a regular pic, they are barely Ds