MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?  (Read 46705 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #75 on: May 09, 2010, 15:35 »
0
I guarantee you no-one is saying that about you Lisa, i have found you a pleasure, and also I have learned from your opinions on things..

Thanks a lot for the kind words Hilary :) 
I am on several people's ignore lists though, so I've managed to tick some people off.  I guess most of us who express opinions manage to get on somebody's bad side...

Back on topic, if you do a shoot incorporating both I hope you will post how it goes so that others of us who haven't tried video yet can get an idea what we're in for. 

I will, even if it's a disaster.. as much as it will pain me to make 'you know who' right ;) :P It'll be good to let other people know, plus I can do a full-length blog post on it with all the details on lighting, pre-shoot planning/set-up etc.. so I'll post the link here when I give it a go!


« Reply #76 on: May 09, 2010, 17:10 »
0
For example right now he's saying he doesn't watch video, there's no value in it, he's the demographic companies market to etc etc, thereby putting people off shooting video, or at least saying there's no point, yet he has started shooting video himself and is selling it.. so whatever he says and does, it's for self-gain.. and for a community forum, it goes against the whole thing..

Sigh.  You are quite hopeless when it comes to opinions that disagree with yours, and quite frankly, I thought my response to your initial post in this thread was a pretty good answer to your question.   I, personally, find most video (news stories, ads, etc) a waste of my time to skip through to find the information.  That doesn't mean I am not allowed to test the market, see what might sell, etc. or even to comment on whether stock video is the "next big thing" or "just a fad".

"we're all here because we love the same thing".   I'm not sure how you know why everyone is here posting.  I would think that it because we all participate to one extent or another in the business venture known as "microstock", not necessarily because we all "love" whatever you think we do.

I would suggest starting a forum where your secret PM friends can join you for topics of discussion you find wholesome and agreeable.  Otherwise, welcome to the world where everyone is free to state their views.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #77 on: May 09, 2010, 17:30 »
0
For example right now he's saying he doesn't watch video, there's no value in it, he's the demographic companies market to etc etc, thereby putting people off shooting video, or at least saying there's no point, yet he has started shooting video himself and is selling it.. so whatever he says and does, it's for self-gain.. and for a community forum, it goes against the whole thing..

Sigh.  You are quite hopeless when it comes to opinions that disagree with yours, and quite frankly, I thought my response to your initial post in this thread was a pretty good answer to your question.   I, personally, find most video (news stories, ads, etc) a waste of my time to skip through to find the information.  That doesn't mean I am not allowed to test the market, see what might sell, etc. or even to comment on whether stock video is the "next big thing" or "just a fad".

"we're all here because we love the same thing".   I'm not sure how you know why everyone is here posting.  I would think that it because we all participate to one extent or another in the business venture known as "microstock", not necessarily because we all "love" whatever you think we do.

I would suggest starting a forum where your secret PM friends can join you for topics of discussion you find wholesome and agreeable.  Otherwise, welcome to the world where everyone is free to state their views.

where everyone is free to state their views. in a respectful and polite way.. which is the code most other people follow except you.. what did happen to Jonathan? Did you have a disagreement with him? How many people have you argued with on these boards, and how many people ignore you? I'm just telling you to your face, why I can't stand most of what you say, not because you don't know what you're talking about, quite the opposite, you do know what you're talking about, the content is possibly good, but I can't tell because of the way you say it, in a nasty aggressive manner. Pardon me for saying what many people are thinking but won't post.. in fact they would rather not post at all than come out with it. Up to you whether you want to take it on board or not.

« Reply #78 on: May 10, 2010, 02:35 »
0
Hilary, your angry posts are not contributing to the topic of this thread (which is very interesting by the way).
-Is stock video the next big thing or just a fad?-

Back to topic:
No, I don't think video is the next big thing.
We'll certainly see more video everyday, but never as much as we see stills. 

« Reply #79 on: May 10, 2010, 02:47 »
0
Why does everyone assume you have to shoot still photos with strobes? I've worked for years as both a DP and photographer, and I specifically invested in hot lights because I knew I could shoot both stills and video with them. If your lights are bright enough for a film shoot, odds are pretty good they are just fine for still photos.

« Reply #80 on: May 10, 2010, 09:06 »
0
^^ Great point!

When I started shooting stills, I used hot-lights and still have some of them around. I've been playing with video and those old CFL's are working out just fine.

« Reply #81 on: May 10, 2010, 09:38 »
0
If you want to try video - do it and don't listen to anybody else.

Too many people think they can give you advice without knowing who you are, your circumstances, location, resources etc. so just ignore them.

Also many of these people might fear the competition despite participating on a forum to "help each other".

I started with a $400 SD Panasonic camcorder, recording straight to HD using a terrible codec with very high compression. The footage looks terrible and yet got approved (wouldn't dare uploading it to IS of course but still). It sold many times and never had one refund on the clips from that camera.

Those were outdoor shots nothing fancy. Now, with the video feature on DSLRs you're way ahead in terms of quality, compared to my Panasonic handycam.

I feel video is a very exciting and great thing to try out. Just give it a shot.

And yeah, you can spend $3000 on a full HD Canon or $50.000 on a RED rig but in the end it's still not the quality of a Panavision camera with a $250.000 master prime lens on it either. So quality is ALWAYS relative. Just make the best out of it with what you have. As long as it's fun (and make still some $$$ off your pics).

Good luck!

« Reply #82 on: May 10, 2010, 10:08 »
0
I'd have to agree with Sean and others on this __ stills and video are totally different beasts and, when I briefly tried to do both, quickly gave up the idea.

I bought a videocam to take with me on travel trips but found more than anything else that they required totally different ways of thinking. I found I couldn't concentrate on both at the same time any more than I can ride a bike and swim simultaneously. With stills you are generally trying to freeze whatever movement there might be (if there is any at all) whereas with video unless there is movement it will probably be a very dull film. Then there was the excessive and time-consuming workflow, which I barely began to understand, with editing video. Trying to combine with video just got in the way of me shooting stills effectively.

« Reply #83 on: May 10, 2010, 10:42 »
0
If you want to try video - do it and don't listen to anybody else.

Too many people think they can give you advice without knowing who you are, your circumstances, location, resources etc. so just ignore them.

I don't recall anyone giving anyone advice on what to do.  Questions were asked, answers and opinions given.  People are free to go do what they like.

Agree with cardmaverick too.  The question had been about "usual shoot", which for me involves strobes 90% of the time, but if you are in the park or something shooting with sunlight, and the talent is good, and you brought a tripod as well, you could probably direct some video.

WarrenPrice

« Reply #84 on: May 10, 2010, 11:18 »
0
As much as dislike his demeanor, sjlocke did just answer a question, Hillary.  And, unfortunately, his answer made sense.  Dang it.   :P


ed:  but, I do think that video is a big thing.  Maybe not a replacement for stills but certainly is worth pursuing.  IMHO
« Last Edit: May 10, 2010, 11:20 by WarrenPrice »

« Reply #85 on: May 10, 2010, 13:18 »
0
Why does everyone assume you have to shoot still photos with strobes? I've worked for years as both a DP and photographer, and I specifically invested in hot lights because I knew I could shoot both stills and video with them. If your lights are bright enough for a film shoot, odds are pretty good they are just fine for still photos.

I would agree with that... However, your lighting setup for stills versus video is often different.  For video I shoot mostly chroma key and my lights are set up to mimic sunlight in terms of position and shadows so that my subject(s) can easily be composited into outdoor shots.  However I find that most stills are shot brighter with less shadow on the subject for use in magazines.

The stills I've had accepted that were lit for video compositing have never sold, but the stills I've submitted with a 'studio lighting setup' have sold.  Although since we're talking *very small* sample in my case, my results may not be typical.

lisafx

« Reply #86 on: May 10, 2010, 14:28 »
0

When I started shooting stills, I used hot-lights and still have some of them around. I've been playing with video and those old CFL's are working out just fine.

I started with hot lights too, and still have them around.  For static objects they were just fine if you have a steady hand or are willing to use a tripod, but for people they were pretty cumbersome. 

First off, people get hot under "hot" lights - particularly here in Florida.  Secondly, and more important, you just can't get the shutter speeds to stop action and camera shake as well as with strobes.  You either have to shoot at higher ISO and deal with noise, or you have to be tethered to a tripod and pray your models don't move a muscle.   

I used to have to take dozens more shots of each pose when I was using hot lights, just to make sure I had enough usable sharp ones.  This equaled hundreds more images to sort through from each day of shooting. Time wasted on both ends - shooting and processing. 

I can't see ever going back to shooting model stills with hot lights.  Shudder...

« Reply #87 on: May 10, 2010, 15:28 »
0

When I started shooting stills, I used hot-lights and still have some of them around. I've been playing with video and those old CFL's are working out just fine.

I started with hot lights too, and still have them around.  For static objects they were just fine if you have a steady hand or are willing to use a tripod, but for people they were pretty cumbersome.  

First off, people get hot under "hot" lights - particularly here in Florida.  Secondly, and more important, you just can't get the shutter speeds to stop action and camera shake as well as with strobes.  You either have to shoot at higher ISO and deal with noise, or you have to be tethered to a tripod and pray your models don't move a muscle.  

I used to have to take dozens more shots of each pose when I was using hot lights, just to make sure I had enough usable sharp ones.  This equaled hundreds more images to sort through from each day of shooting. Time wasted on both ends - shooting and processing.  

I can't see ever going back to shooting model stills with hot lights.  Shudder...

Same experience.  And I would never use hot lights to shot people. It's a waste of time, money, and energy.  

So, since I use strobes for my photo shots, shooting some video as part of the session would require a lot of changes in lighting equipment and lighting setup.

« Reply #88 on: May 12, 2010, 13:13 »
0

When I started shooting stills, I used hot-lights and still have some of them around. I've been playing with video and those old CFL's are working out just fine.

I started with hot lights too, and still have them around.  For static objects they were just fine if you have a steady hand or are willing to use a tripod, but for people they were pretty cumbersome.  

First off, people get hot under "hot" lights - particularly here in Florida.  Secondly, and more important, you just can't get the shutter speeds to stop action and camera shake as well as with strobes.  You either have to shoot at higher ISO and deal with noise, or you have to be tethered to a tripod and pray your models don't move a muscle.  

I used to have to take dozens more shots of each pose when I was using hot lights, just to make sure I had enough usable sharp ones.  This equaled hundreds more images to sort through from each day of shooting. Time wasted on both ends - shooting and processing.  

I can't see ever going back to shooting model stills with hot lights.  Shudder...

Same experience.  And I would never use hot lights to shot people. It's a waste of time, money, and energy.  

So, since I use strobes for my photo shots, shooting some video as part of the session would require a lot of changes in lighting equipment and lighting setup.

Depends on what kind of film lights your using. I would say most photographers go for the cheaper solutions which tend to be the lower output options.

lisafx

« Reply #89 on: May 12, 2010, 13:33 »
0

Depends on what kind of film lights your using. I would say most photographers go for the cheaper solutions which tend to be the lower output options.

My hot lights are 1000 watt halogens.  Do they make brighter ones than that?

« Reply #90 on: May 12, 2010, 13:38 »
0
I agree about shooting people with hot-lights. In the beginning of my stock "career", I only shot objects and used a tripod all of the time. I was just saying that the 500 watt equivalent compact fluorescent bulbs seem to work well enough for video. They also have the advantage of being MUCH cooler than halogens!

« Reply #91 on: May 12, 2010, 17:30 »
0

Depends on what kind of film lights your using. I would say most photographers go for the cheaper solutions which tend to be the lower output options.

My hot lights are 1000 watt halogens.  Do they make brighter ones than that?

You have heard of HMI's right? 

Despite the nay-sayers alleged expertise, the fashion and editorial world is buzzing about video capture, at least here in NYC.  Digital techs are becoming more video savvy and a couple are even renting out their RED One kits on fashion and advertising shoots.  Esquire did a cover shoot this past year with the RED One and A/X has done the past two seasons of print/web advertising shot on RED grabbing frames for their print campaign and using the video on the web.  More than a few fashion photographers here are anxiously watching the progress of the RED Scarlet and dozens (if not hundreds) of editorial and advertising still photographers are adding video to their capabilities.  Stock video plays right into that.

lisafx

« Reply #92 on: May 12, 2010, 18:12 »
0

My hot lights are 1000 watt halogens.  Do they make brighter ones than that?


You have heard of HMI's right?  


Actually no.  That's why I asked.  Thanks for the response.  :)

As I mentioned before in this thread, I don't shoot video, so I'm completely ignorant on what's required.

For other still photographers who also don't know what HMIs are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrargyrum_medium-arc_iodide_lamp

With an average price of $3-5k per light it looks like they are quite a bit more expensive than hot lights.  Affordable for professional video studios but completely out of reach for me, and most likely quite a few other microstock submitters too:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&Ntt=hmi%20lights&Q=&N=0&A=endecaSearch
« Last Edit: May 12, 2010, 18:22 by lisafx »

« Reply #93 on: May 13, 2010, 06:05 »
0

Actually no.  That's why I asked.  Thanks for the response.  :)

As I mentioned before in this thread, I don't shoot video, so I'm completely ignorant on what's required.

For other still photographers who also don't know what HMIs are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrargyrum_medium-arc_iodide_lamp

With an average price of $3-5k per light it looks like they are quite a bit more expensive than hot lights.  Affordable for professional video studios but completely out of reach for me, and most likely quite a few other microstock submitters too:
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?O=&Ntt=hmi%20lights&Q=&N=0&A=endecaSearch


Indeed HMI's are expensive.  Their advantage is the relative balance to daylight color temperature.  They were quite the fad in fashion photography about a decade or so ago.  They are easily rentable at photo rental houses and also from grip rental across the country.  Another fad since then is Kino-flo constant lighting systems.

I don't use them myself. I picked up a Profoto tungsten head that uses most of the same light modifiers as my Profoto strobe system which is my primary lighting system.

lisafx

« Reply #94 on: May 13, 2010, 14:02 »
0

 I picked up a Profoto tungsten head that uses most of the same light modifiers as my Profoto strobe system which is my primary lighting system.

That sounds like a good compromise.  Nice that it fits with your strobe system. 

How are you finding the transition between still and video?  Are you able to fit both in the same shoot, or finding it better to do one media at a time? 

« Reply #95 on: May 13, 2010, 14:20 »
0
I've got a mixed shoot coming up this weekend and I'll let you know how it works out.

lisafx

« Reply #96 on: May 13, 2010, 14:23 »
0
^^ Thanks!  That would be much appreciated.  Best of luck with it :)

« Reply #97 on: May 13, 2010, 16:32 »
0


How are you finding the transition between still and video?  Are you able to fit both in the same shoot, or finding it better to do one media at a time? 

I'm still on the outside looking in.  I am starting to get requests for it but on a personality/celebrity or fashion shoot, there is generally not enough time to do both without sacrificing the stills.  I haven't clicked into a good workflow for it yet which will encourage (I hope) more motion capture.

« Reply #98 on: May 14, 2010, 22:31 »
0
Been out and busy for a while, but yes, HMI's are wonderful given their lower heat and higher lumens per watt. Keep in mind that any tungsten lights (BTW quartz halogen's are actually tungsten lights, the glass is quartz to withstand the heat, and they are pressurized with halogen gas, and the filament is tungsten) are the WORST performing lights lumens per watt wise, in fact, about 80% of the energy they require is converted into HEAT. HMI's are roughly the direct opposite! Tungsten is dirt cheap however...and trust me, not going to disappear anytime soon.

HMI's do, like all things, have their drawbacks. You'd wanna do some home work on flicker before shooting stills or video with these suckers. Another caveat is that their color temperature actually shift over time, so they will not always be "XXXX" Kelvin forever. There are noisy ballasts, and quite ballasts (electronic and magnetic are the two options, electronic being the more expensive, smaller, more desired option for most people). You have more cables to deal with (feeder cables going from ballast to light fixture, and then regular power cables from power source to ballast). If you go cheap and get magnetic ballasts, get ready for heavy lifting!

Film production, good film production, has *never* been very lightweight in the lighting and grip departments. If you light the set with the right tools, you can certainly shoot both stills and video at the same time. Professional films have done this for years. All of the still frame grabs you see from movies over the years (think advertising, DVD box cover shots, etc...) were shot with blimped still cameras on set, from the same vantage point as the film camera.

« Reply #99 on: May 14, 2010, 22:34 »
0
How are you finding the transition between still and video?  Are you able to fit both in the same shoot, or finding it better to do one media at a time? 

Big tip.

Master setting up a film set, *thats bright enough for stills*, and then you'll be better off trying to do both video and stills. I think a lot of photographers are saying it can't be done because they simply have never lit a real film set before. Its new territory, thats all.

Another tip, film lighting can require more time due to heavier gear, etc...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
16 Replies
15862 Views
Last post October 22, 2010, 21:21
by tbmpvideo
9 Replies
14998 Views
Last post December 17, 2010, 23:15
by tbmpvideo
35 Replies
20519 Views
Last post January 21, 2011, 17:35
by taavet
1 Replies
6949 Views
Last post June 16, 2014, 05:48
by Mantis
3 Replies
3468 Views
Last post September 11, 2019, 02:36
by pkphotos

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors