Jump to content
Existing user? Sign In

Sign In



Sign Up

Pool peeing


Recommended Posts

Alright, maybe this wasn't the kind of "pool" you were thinking about when you saw the title of this post.  Personally, I would love to shoot a swimming pool wetting video, but it is extremely cold here, so that will probably have to wait until the weather warms up a bit.

Recently, I was lucky enough to get to do a video shoot with Alisha Adams and Ryann Rain.  And, just the other day, I put the first video from that shoot up on HD Wetting.  In the video, Alisha and Ryann are engaged playing pool, or billiards as it is also called, depending on what part of the world you are from.  

Here is the description of the scene from HD Wetting-

Quote

 

While playing a friendly game of pool with Ryann, Alisha has an embarrassing wetting accident in her pants.

“Holy shit! You pissed yourself!” Ryann exclaims at Alisha, staring at her wet pants.  Alisha is absolutely humiliated.  She just peed her pants while playing pool.

Alisha knew she was desperate to pee, but failed to estimate just how dire the situation really was.  Focused more on the game than on her bladder, she crossed her legs and held herself as she grew more and more desperate with every passing moment.  Still, she remained preoccupied with the game, ignoring her bladder until it was too late.

The instant she started peeing, she knew she made a terrible miscalculation.  Her light colored pants vividly showed off her accident.  Ryann noticed almost right away, and was quick to point out that Alisha, a grown woman, just wet her pants.

After having completely peed in her pants, Alisha is absolutely humiliated.  With her legs soaked in her own urine, she takes off her sopping wet clothes and runs off to clean up.  The game is left unfinished, and Ryann is left shocked and amused, having just witnessed Alisha completely wet her pants.

 

pool-1.jpg

pool-2.jpg

pool-3.jpg

pool-4.jpg

pool-5.jpg

pool-6.jpg

pool-7.jpg

pool-8.jpg

pool-9.jpg

pool-10.jpg

 

Link to comment
2 hours ago, WetDave said:

Nice, but the lighting falls short of your usual standards I'm afraid. Of course it's a tricky environment to light convincingly but hey, that's why you are the "TVGuy" and I'm just the guy that watches it!

Thanks anyway it's otherwise great with a nice wetting from a good-looking girl. 

Part of the problem with the lighting here is I am shooting with this DJI Osmo camera.  It is a gimbal stabilized camera, which lets us do some very interesting shots that would otherwise be too time consuming.  However, the camera itself is around the quality of a GoPro.

I lit the scene as I normally would for my primary cinema camera.  And, on that camera, I think it looked not half bad.  However, I didn't change the lighting setup for the Osmo.  Once I get more accustomed to the Osmo and learn how it responds to light better, and how it handles in different situations, I think I will be able to get better results with it.  Meanwhile, I would say don't worry- We only used the Osmo for a couple videos, most of the shoot was still done with my primary camera.  And, most importantly, we still get to see the girls pee in their pants.  That is, after all, what it's all about :)

For reference, I attached a frame grab from another pool scene we shot on the same day, with the same lighting setup, only shot on my primary camera, not the Osmo.  The lighting was the same, the only difference is the camera.

C300.jpg

Link to comment
44 minutes ago, TVGuy said:

Part of the problem with the lighting here is I am shooting with this DJI Osmo camera.  It is a gimbal stabilized camera, which lets us do some very interesting shots that would otherwise be too time consuming.  However, the camera itself is around the quality of a GoPro.

I lit the scene as I normally would for my primary cinema camera.  And, on that camera, I think it looked not half bad.  However, I didn't change the lighting setup for the Osmo.  Once I get more accustomed to the Osmo and learn how it responds to light better, and how it handles in different situations, I think I will be able to get better results with it.  Meanwhile, I would say don't worry- We only used the Osmo for a couple videos, most of the shoot was still done with my primary camera.  And, most importantly, we still get to see the girls pee in their pants.  That is, after all, what it's all about :)

For reference, I attached a frame grab from another pool scene we shot on the same day, with the same lighting setup, only shot on my primary camera, not the Osmo.  The lighting was the same, the only difference is the camera.

C300.jpg

Is it supposed to be so heavily tinted? Because the Osmo shots at least look like the WB is okay, just a little underexposed. This looks like a scene from a red light district (the lighting, not the girls).

Link to comment
2 hours ago, satyr said:

Is it supposed to be so heavily tinted? Because the Osmo shots at least look like the WB is okay, just a little underexposed. This looks like a scene from a red light district (the lighting, not the girls).

That is kind of the look we were going for.  Both cameras were manually white balanced at 32k.

Link to comment

I would say you hit the mark then with your primary camera.

I took a couple classes in photography/videography, never really was that good at it, so you'll probably be able to tell me how wrong I am, but I never liked having a white wall in the background. That said, I'd probably mess with the white balance settings, then I'd try lowering the ISO (adjusting aperture of course) to see what looked better, then look into adjusting lighting. Honestly I'd guess that the Osmo doesn't work as well with low light, so I'd probably try adding more light then make it look darker using the camera settings. Or maybe it's the metering mode?

(As I'm sure you can tell, I was not the star pupil. I finished the class with about an average grade I guess, as by the end of the semester I was kind of almost a decent photographer. I knew a bunch of the stuff (rules, tips, what does what) and could almost take decent photos - if the image was in focus, I was a tiny bit under or overexposed; if the exposure was correct, I managed to get the white balance wrong. If by some stroke of luck I managed to get everything right, there was probably something slightly off with the shot. It was literally like so close, yet so far.)

I doubt that was very helpful, as if I was even on the right track with my ideas you would already have known what I said already, but I did want to say that the primary camera shot DOES look good, and figured I'd include my thoughts as well just in case my likely incorrect methods might actually be helpful.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, Newbiepeer said:

I would say you hit the mark then with your primary camera.

I took a couple classes in photography/videography, never really was that good at it, so you'll probably be able to tell me how wrong I am, but I never liked having a white wall in the background. That said, I'd probably mess with the white balance settings, then I'd try lowering the ISO (adjusting aperture of course) to see what looked better, then look into adjusting lighting. Honestly I'd guess that the Osmo doesn't work as well with low light, so I'd probably try adding more light then make it look darker using the camera settings. Or maybe it's the metering mode?

(As I'm sure you can tell, I was not the star pupil. I finished the class with about an average grade I guess, as by the end of the semester I was kind of almost a decent photographer. I knew a bunch of the stuff (rules, tips, what does what) and could almost take decent photos - if the image was in focus, I was a tiny bit under or overexposed; if the exposure was correct, I managed to get the white balance wrong. If by some stroke of luck I managed to get everything right, there was probably something slightly off with the shot. It was literally like so close, yet so far.)

I doubt that was very helpful, as if I was even on the right track with my ideas you would already have known what I said already, but I did want to say that the primary camera shot DOES look good, and figured I'd include my thoughts as well just in case my likely incorrect methods might actually be helpful.

I absolutely agree with you about having a white wall in the background.  Few things to me look worse then a giant, flat, blank white wall in the background drowning out the subject in the foreground.  Whenever I light a scene, I try to flag off the background, and, if I have the time, like to do something with the background using a gel or scrim to get some kind of pattern going, or something, not just a solid flat white surface.

The imaging sensor in cameras have a native ISO that they operate best at.  My primary camera has a native ISO of 850.  Shooting at 850 ISO I am able to maximize the dynamic range and performance of the camera.  Once you start getting away from the chip's native ISO, you start start loosing details, and get more clipping.  

So far, with the OSMO, I am unable to determine what the native ISO is.  I think your impulse to lower the ISO is probably the best thing you can do with it- Lowering the ISO will result in lower noise, and the dynamic range of the camera is so poor to begin with, that I don't think you loose much.  Unfortunately, the OSMO has a fixed aperture lens.  There is no way to control exposure except for shutter speed, ISO, and add on neutral density filters.

The problems I've noticed with the OSMO are lack of dynamic range.  You loose shadow details and the highlights clip very easy.  It seems to work best in scenes that are very evenly lit.  Also, complex scenes with even a moderate amount of visual detail seem to tax the camera's ability to encode the video. So very simple scenes seem to work best.  Finally, no matter what settings I use, it seems to struggle with brightly saturated colors.  Even in grading, I simply can't push the saturation very far without everything falling apart.

Still, the stabilization it offers is excellent.  I can easily get shots that would be way too time consuming otherwise.  Just, I think I will have to limit myself to only using it when the scene is evenly lit, very simple visually, and doesn't have any super saturated colors.

Link to comment

Interesting to learn about the native ISO. I either forgot or wasn't paying attention, though we were using 50D or 7D bodies so the teacher probably said "start with these settings then adjust" and I never thought it through or forgot if we were told why. Though considering most of the classwork was group projects, I tried not to be the camera operator and if I was I got someone to double check the settings for me before we started filming.

Now I'm curious what the result would be if you lowered the ISO, did your best to simulate being outside in the sunshine with your lighting, obviously at least a couple of the lights with gels for the red color, then made the exposure darker with lens filters.

I don't speak from experience here, but I don't really get giving up the advantages of your primary camera with a stabilizer, other than obviously the size and weight advantages, because of the drawbacks that you mentioned. I don't really get the time consuming part. Though, mentioning stabilizers reminds me of a story...I had a friend who struggled even more than I did in the classes (we chose separate groups for group projects and didn't stick together a lot for obvious reasons!), and for one of their projects he had the job of shooting some b roll with a handheld stabilizer. I guess they handed him the stabilizer and camera, told him what they wanted him to shoot and where to go, and he went off to the location. Except...he forgot to check if the stabilizer was balanced correctly. I guess after they fixed it so the footage wasn't upside down they ended up using some of it. It ended up being somewhat unique footage in that the shot angle was much lower than you would expect!

Link to comment
21 hours ago, Newbiepeer said:

Interesting to learn about the native ISO. I either forgot or wasn't paying attention, though we were using 50D or 7D bodies so the teacher probably said "start with these settings then adjust" and I never thought it through or forgot if we were told why. Though considering most of the classwork was group projects, I tried not to be the camera operator and if I was I got someone to double check the settings for me before we started filming.

Now I'm curious what the result would be if you lowered the ISO, did your best to simulate being outside in the sunshine with your lighting, obviously at least a couple of the lights with gels for the red color, then made the exposure darker with lens filters.

I don't speak from experience here, but I don't really get giving up the advantages of your primary camera with a stabilizer, other than obviously the size and weight advantages, because of the drawbacks that you mentioned. I don't really get the time consuming part. Though, mentioning stabilizers reminds me of a story...I had a friend who struggled even more than I did in the classes (we chose separate groups for group projects and didn't stick together a lot for obvious reasons!), and for one of their projects he had the job of shooting some b roll with a handheld stabilizer. I guess they handed him the stabilizer and camera, told him what they wanted him to shoot and where to go, and he went off to the location. Except...he forgot to check if the stabilizer was balanced correctly. I guess after they fixed it so the footage wasn't upside down they ended up using some of it. It ended up being somewhat unique footage in that the shot angle was much lower than you would expect!

The issue is that I don't have any kind of stabilizer for my primary camera.  A gimbal system, which would be the best option, is much too expensive right now.  Even if price weren't a factor, setting up a camera on a gimbal, balancing, calibrating, and getting up and running takes a bit of time.  When we shoot for HD Wetting, we have a pretty full day.  There simply isn't enough time to deal with setting up and calibrating a gimbal system.  Even a Steadicam or Glidecam type system, while more affordable, still would take a fair amount of setup time, not to mention be physically exhausting.  When shooting with my primary camera, I am limited to what shots I can get with a tripod or monopod- Mostly static shots, with very little camera movement except for basic pans and tilts.

The Osmo allows me to get different kinds of shots and camera moves- Steady tracking shots while a model is walking, smooth vehicle interior shots, or mount it on a pole for a simple, easy crane system.  It doesn't need any special calibration or lengthy setup, I can just turn it on, and the stabilization it offers is really good.  So, I would like to be able to figure out what conditions it needs to produce acceptable results, as I would enjoy having the ability to easily use it for dynamic camera moves when shooting wetting videos.  It just isn't something I will be able to use for every video.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...