Where to those 'QTGMC' versions of early 2000s movies come from?

[respot5]

1. Why do they (subjectively) look so much better than regular/old DVD rips?
2. Do their creators use the original source material or just normal bought DVD available to the public?

I hope this doesn't break any rules and thanks!

[poisondeathray]

Likely QTGMC is applied to the retail DVD. QTGMC is primarily a deinterlacing filter, but it applies other enhancements by default such as denoising, sharpening
http://avisynth.nl/index.php/QTGMC

[themaster1]

more likely they use the masters tapes.

[Selur]

or QTGMC + some ai upscaling,... (never seen such content, but a quick search seems to hint in that direction)

[4kblurayguru]

Where to those 'QTGMC' versions of early 2000s porn movies come from?

piracy

1. Why do they (subjectively) look so much better than regular/old DVD rips?

did you watch the original DVDs on a CRT TV then the new versions on a HDTV to compare?

1. Do their creators use the original source material or just normal bought DVD available to the public?

DVDs they own or DVDs they've "acquired".

[respot5]

or QTGMC + some ai upscaling,... (never seen such content, but a quick search seems to hint in that direction)

I'm only referring to non-upscaled versions. At least they have a resolution someone would expect from a DVD and no AI upscale artifacts. They look like those QTGMC examples one can find on YouTube and such.

Where to those 'QTGMC' versions of early 2000s porn movies come from?

piracy

Piracy is not a source but a way to acquire something.

1. Why do they (subjectively) look so much better than regular/old DVD rips?

did you watch the original DVDs on a CRT TV then the new versions on a HDTV to compare?

No, I watched videos on streaming sites, then bought subscriptions from a few well-known official sites that allow video downloads and none could compare to those non-official 'QTGMC' versions, even files that, with their modern video codec and large size, potentially would have been able to keep most of the details the QTGMC ones had.

I'm asking especially since I do not have the DVDs and they can't easily be acquired anymore because I was confused why official websites that have licenses to use them still only offer such inferior qualities.

Maybe it's really some other, original source material...

[4kblurayguru]

Piracy is not a source but a way to acquire something.

spin it however you want, it's piracy.

No, I watched videos on streaming sites, then bought subscriptions from a few well-known official sites that allow video downloads and none could compare to those non-official 'QTGMC' versions, even files that, with their modern video codec and large size, potentially would have been able to keep most of the details the QTGMC ones had.

those videos are encoded for convenience not quality.

I'm asking especially since I do not have the DVDs and they can't easily be acquired anymore because I was confused why official websites that have licenses to use them still only offer such inferior qualities.

because no cares about quality in that genre of entertainment

Maybe it's really some other, original source material...

the sources are from DVD ISOs which are pirated

[sophisticles]

First things first, it is not piracy because movies of this type are not eligible for copyright protections under U.S. Copyright Law.

Every single state has laws against offering or giving anything of value to have sex and even offering or paying for two other people to have sex. There is no exception for the presence of a camera or any other recording device and in fact many people have been prosecuted and jailed for producing these types of movies, even if the acts themselves were consensual.

Further, there is a federal law that prohibits the interstate or international transport of adults for the purposes of having sex, even if the acts would be legal in the new locale, as long as it would be illegal in the originating state.

On top of that, U.S. Copyright Law specifies that in order to have valid actionable copyrights to a work, 2 copies of the highest quality, typically 2 copies of the master files, must be sent to the U.S. Copyright office, one is kept in that building and one is sent to the Library of Congress.

The problem is that federal law does not allow the possession of any pornography on any government property, it is a federal crime, and there is another federal law that makes it illegal to send obscene material through any common carrier.

Taken together that means that even if it were legal to produce these types of movies, they still could not enjoy copyright protections because it is impossible to comply with the provisions of the U.S. Copyright Act.

For the record, the above has been successfully argued before a federal judge.

The above notwithstanding, I would argue with the OP that the movies he is referencing do not subjectively look better. They are so over-processed that they look fake, artificial.

The only ones that i have ever seen that look very impressive are the ones from the 70's that were distributed on film and people are able to scan the film and convert it to a digital format.

Those showcase why film is a superior media for movies, in fact I recall seeing two from the early 70's that were so clear and clean that they would put many modern mainstream movies produced for Netflix to shame.

[hello_hello]

First things first, it is not piracy because movies of this type are not eligible for copyright protections under U.S. Copyright Law.

Every single state has laws against offering or giving anything of value to have sex and even offering or paying for two other people to have sex. There is no exception for the presence of a camera or any other recording device and in fact many people have been prosecuted and jailed for producing these types of movies, even if the acts themselves were consensual.

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Delivery.cfm/SSRN_ID2187432_code328005.pdf?abstractid=2187432&mirid=1
Copyright Law and Pornography
Oregon Law Review, Vol. 91, No. 1, 2012
ABSTRACT
Sex-for-hire is usually illegal, unless it is being filmed. Debates about pornography tread uneasily into legal terrain that implicates freedom of expression under the First Amendment, the specter of censorship, and genuine concerns about the function and role of pornography in persistent gender inequality. It is less common for conversations about pornography to include a discussion of copyright law. Yet copyright law is a powerful tool that operates to protect the financial interests of pornographers. Owners of copyrighted pornography frequently threaten public exposure of an alleged infringer’s consumption habits in order to force a financial settlement. Thus copyright law operates as both a metaphoric legal shield and sword in the hands of pornographers.....

On top of that, U.S. Copyright Law specifies that in order to have valid actionable copyrights to a work, 2 copies of the highest quality, typically 2 copies of the master files, must be sent to the U.S. Copyright office, one is kept in that building and one is sent to the Library of Congress.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_States#Registration_procedure
Copyright is automatically granted to the author of an original work (that otherwise meets the basic copyright requirements, discussed above). Registration is not necessary. However, registration amplifies a copyright holder's rights in a number of ways. Registration is required before a lawsuit can be filed, and registration creates the possibility for enhanced "statutory" damages.

Taken together that means that even if it were legal to produce these types of movies, they still could not enjoy copyright protections because it is impossible to comply with the provisions of the U.S. Copyright Act.

For the record, the above has been successfully argued before a federal judge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_test
Pornography is subject to copyright. Obscenity is not. Whether a particular porn is obscene or not is open to interpretation.
I'm not easily offended, but that's probably because I've watched so much I'm desensitized to it.

[VoodooFX]

[list=1][*]Why do they (subjectively) look so much better than regular/old DVD rips?

Maybe one of those filters was used to make them look "better": http://avisynth.nl/index.php/External_filters#Sharpeners

[sophisticles]

@hello_hello

Since you specifically mention Oregon:

https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_167.007

A person commits the crime of prostitution if the person engages in, or offers or agrees to engage in, sexual conduct or sexual contact in return for a fee.

https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_167.008

A person commits the crime of commercial sexual solicitation if the person pays, or offers or agrees to pay, a fee to engage in sexual conduct or sexual contact.

https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_167.012

A person commits the crime of promoting prostitution if, with intent to promote prostitution, the person knowingly:
(a)
Owns, controls, manages, supervises or otherwise maintains a place of prostitution or a prostitution enterprise;
(b)
Induces or causes a person to engage in prostitution or to remain in a place of prostitution;
(c)
Receives or agrees to receive money, goods, property, services or something else of value, other than as a prostitute being compensated for personally rendered prostitution services, pursuant to an agreement or understanding that the money, goods, property, services or something else of value is derived from a prostitution activity; or
(d)
Engages in any conduct that institutes, aids or facilitates an act or enterprise of prostitution.

https://oregon.public.law/statutes/ors_167.060

Notice that there is no exception for the presence of a camera or other recording device.

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-fixler

https://casetext.com/case/people-v-kovner-3

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/ca-court-of-appeal/1838582.html

https://prostitution.procon.org/us-federal-and-state-prostitution-laws-and-related-punishments/

As I stated, this has been argued successfully before a federal judge during one of those troll pornography download lawsuits and these arguments have been used by people around the country to win those suits.

[4kblurayguru]

First things first, it is not piracy because movies of this type are not eligible for copyright protections under U.S. Copyright Law.

copyright infringement is the legal term, any non obscene motion picture is eligible for copyright protection.

Every single state has laws against offering or giving anything of value to have sex and even offering or paying for two other people to have sex. There is no exception for the presence of a camera or any other recording device and in fact many people have been prosecuted and jailed for producing these types of movies, even if the acts themselves were consensual.

this has nothing to do with motion pictures or what OP is talking about.

Further, there is a federal law that prohibits the interstate or international transport of adults for the purposes of having sex, even if the acts would be legal in the new locale, as long as it would be illegal in the originating state.

OP is asking about motion pictures, this statement makes no sense

On top of that, U.S. Copyright Law specifies that in order to have valid actionable copyrights to a work, 2 copies of the highest quality, typically 2 copies of the master files, must be sent to the U.S. Copyright office, one is kept in that building and one is sent to the Library of Congress..

You're talking about mandatory deposit, which is separate from copyright registration (which is optional), neither affects whether a work is copyrighted. Electronic works such as OF/youtube/streaming exclusive videos would be exempt from mandatory deposit.

The problem is that federal law does not allow the possession of any pornography on any government property, it is a federal crime, and there is another federal law that makes it illegal to send obscene material through any common carrier.

point us to that law please.

Taken together that means that even if it were legal to produce these types of movies, they still could not enjoy copyright protections because it is impossible to comply with the provisions of the U.S. Copyright Act.

you're mistaken, it's a case by case basis. Non obscene movies are eligible for protection just like the news or documentary or an anime.

The above notwithstanding, I would argue with the OP that the movies he is referencing do not subjectively look better. They are so over-processed that they look fake, artificial..

I agree, they were shot on interlace video and such, must be viewed on interlace monitor but since those aren't being made anymore, you have to convert it to show on progressive displays.

The only ones that i have ever seen that look very impressive are the ones from the 70's that were distributed on film and people are able to scan the film and convert it to a digital format.

Those showcase why film is a superior media for movies, in fact I recall seeing two from the early 70's that were so clear and clean that they would put many modern mainstream movies produced for Netflix to shame.

which is why Hollywood transfers their digital movies to film for archival purposes. Film is superior but digital will catch up eventually.

[hello_hello]

As I stated, this has been argued successfully before a federal judge during one of those troll pornography download lawsuits and these arguments have been used by people around the country to win those suits.

I looked at your links but failed to see copyright mentioned.

You offered examples of cases based on prostitution charges that were allowed to go forward, but do you know what the outcomes were?
It seems there was an under-age person involved in each one.