pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Upload 4K and HD seperately? Your thaughts...  (Read 18675 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Benozaur

« on: December 03, 2015, 05:39 »
+1
4K is the future, no doubt about it, but today with HD sales far exceeding 4K sales its still too soon to go all out 4K.

Most agencies automatically downscale 4K clips to HD but are unnecessarily filtered out.
There has been an issue over at Shutterstock for a while on the availability of downscaled HD clips from their 4K sources. Here is a link to a thread on their forum started in September 2014.

http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/73241-search-bug-on-downscaled-hd-from-4k/

Promises were made but as of today, nothing has changed as far as my tests have indicated.

VB seems to have gotten it right and looks far more intuitive, Pond is a bit of a mess and I can't comment because I gave up on trying to figure out if this issue applies to them.

Possible solution:

Upload HD and 4K seperately?

Seems a bit radical so I'd like your opinions please...


Benozaur

« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2015, 05:49 »
0
The notion of uploading HD and 4K seperately seems silly:

1. Especially due to the fact that agencies downscale automatically.
2. They seem to advise against it (Dissolve, Pond, SS, VB, Fotolia).
3. Multiple copies will hurt search rankings.
4. Additional disk space cost, more time and effort spent, etc...

However If I am loosing downscaled HD sales from my 4K uploads...

I guess the extremity of the solution matches the stupidity of the problem.

« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2015, 08:16 »
0
I don't downsize. All the sites I submit to convert. 

« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2015, 13:11 »
0
The only possible advantage would be if the site does preferential searches or if the buyer is a bit confused when a 4k clip is presented when he's looking for HD or something else like this.

op

« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2015, 13:16 »
0
On GI, HD and 4K are on the same price and to be honest I like it that way, so I'm sure clients get the optimal quality.

« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2015, 17:03 »
+5
On GI, HD and 4K are on the same price and to be honest I like it that way, so I'm sure clients get the optimal quality.
But what about the creator getting the optimal price?

« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2015, 17:30 »
+2
On GI, HD and 4K are on the same price and to be honest I like it that way, so I'm sure clients get the optimal quality.
I'm not sure if I should take your comment seriously.

Just because a camera these days may be 4K capable, doesn't mean that it provides "optimal quality" for a buyer who indeed needs 4K footage.

HD cameras have greatly improved in the last couple of years so, yes, they are quite cheap and produce decent quality.

Have you been shooting RAW HD or 4K? Once I saw the difference between RAW recorded footage and compressed footage which 99.9% of the prosumer (DSLR etc.) cameras produce - there are still worlds of difference in terms of color and clarity.

The substantial costs for high end 4K gear cannot be reflected by the insulting footage prices of iStock, not to mention the fact that they price 4K and HD the same.

So I cannot agree that HD and 4K should be offered at the same price as production costs vary heavily.

« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2015, 17:49 »
0
I upload both 4k H.264 and HD PhotoJPEG.
Customers regularly download the original HD PhotoJPEG, instead of the downsized 4k->HD H.264 version.

« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2015, 17:55 »
0
I upload both 4k H.264 and HD PhotoJPEG.
Customers regularly download the original HD PhotoJPEG, instead of the downsized 4k->HD H.264 version.
So the question is do they prefer the Photojpeg or are the searches biased to the HD? It would be nice to know the answer.

Benozaur

« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2015, 19:42 »
+3
I upload both 4k H.264 and HD PhotoJPEG.
Customers regularly download the original HD PhotoJPEG, instead of the downsized 4k->HD H.264 version.
So the question is do they prefer the Photojpeg or are the searches biased to the HD? It would be nice to know the answer.

Codec preference is another issue altogether. So assuming all other things equal, the 4K / HD issue is still a bit of a pain in the neck.
On the left hand side of Shutterstock's video search results clearly have a resolution "filter". By clicking on HD, it automatically ignores all 4K clips despite the fact that there are downscaled HD versions available. The "filter" applies to the original resolution that the content was uploaded as. So all our 4K footage gets omitted from searches with the HD filter on. This is counter-intuitive as HD versions of original 4K content does exist for sale, the client just doesn't see it.

op

« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2015, 03:37 »
0
On GI, HD and 4K are on the same price and to be honest I like it that way, so I'm sure clients get the optimal quality.
I'm not sure if I should take your comment seriously.

Just because a camera these days may be 4K capable, doesn't mean that it provides "optimal quality" for a buyer who indeed needs 4K footage.

HD cameras have greatly improved in the last couple of years so, yes, they are quite cheap and produce decent quality.

Have you been shooting RAW HD or 4K? Once I saw the difference between RAW recorded footage and compressed footage which 99.9% of the prosumer (DSLR etc.) cameras produce - there are still worlds of difference in terms of color and clarity.

The substantial costs for high end 4K gear cannot be reflected by the insulting footage prices of iStock, not to mention the fact that they price 4K and HD the same.

So I cannot agree that HD and 4K should be offered at the same price as production costs vary heavily.

95% of my work is time lapse shot in RAW 6K 14bits. HD was already $xxxx on GI, how much more do you want them to sell 4K then?.. I agree with that and when a client is willing to pay that price I'd rather see him/her get 4K instead of HD.

op

« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2015, 03:46 »
0
I upload both 4k H.264 and HD PhotoJPEG.
Customers regularly download the original HD PhotoJPEG, instead of the downsized 4k->HD H.264 version.
So the question is do they prefer the Photojpeg or are the searches biased to the HD? It would be nice to know the answer.

Codec preference is another issue altogether. So assuming all other things equal, the 4K / HD issue is still a bit of a pain in the neck.
On the left hand side of Shutterstock's video search results clearly have a resolution "filter". By clicking on HD, it automatically ignores all 4K clips despite the fact that there are downscaled HD versions available. The "filter" applies to the original resolution that the content was uploaded as. So all our 4K footage gets omitted from searches with the HD filter on. This is counter-intuitive as HD versions of original 4K content does exist for sale, the client just doesn't see it.

But do clients really filter out 4K files when they search for something? I bought footages there recently and my only concern was to find content I was looking for and avoid SD but I haven't seen any so far. 

Benozaur

« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2015, 07:56 »
0
I upload both 4k H.264 and HD PhotoJPEG.
Customers regularly download the original HD PhotoJPEG, instead of the downsized 4k->HD H.264 version.
So the question is do they prefer the Photojpeg or are the searches biased to the HD? It would be nice to know the answer.

Codec preference is another issue altogether. So assuming all other things equal, the 4K / HD issue is still a bit of a pain in the neck.
On the left hand side of Shutterstock's video search results clearly have a resolution "filter". By clicking on HD, it automatically ignores all 4K clips despite the fact that there are downscaled HD versions available. The "filter" applies to the original resolution that the content was uploaded as. So all our 4K footage gets omitted from searches with the HD filter on. This is counter-intuitive as HD versions of original 4K content does exist for sale, the client just doesn't see it.

But do clients really filter out 4K files when they search for something? I bought footages there recently and my only concern was to find content I was looking for and avoid SD but I haven't seen any so far.

Good point   ;)  I also filter out SD when searching for something in HD. The problem is that footage originally uploaded at 4K is also filtered out...
Test it for yourself and see.

« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2015, 08:57 »
0
I upload both 4k H.264 and HD PhotoJPEG.
Customers regularly download the original HD PhotoJPEG, instead of the downsized 4k->HD H.264 version.
So the question is do they prefer the Photojpeg or are the searches biased to the HD? It would be nice to know the answer.

Codec preference is another issue altogether. So assuming all other things equal, the 4K / HD issue is still a bit of a pain in the neck.
On the left hand side of Shutterstock's video search results clearly have a resolution "filter". By clicking on HD, it automatically ignores all 4K clips despite the fact that there are downscaled HD versions available. The "filter" applies to the original resolution that the content was uploaded as. So all our 4K footage gets omitted from searches with the HD filter on. This is counter-intuitive as HD versions of original 4K content does exist for sale, the client just doesn't see it.

But do clients really filter out 4K files when they search for something? I bought footages there recently and my only concern was to find content I was looking for and avoid SD but I haven't seen any so far.

Good point   ;)  I also filter out SD when searching for something in HD. The problem is that footage originally uploaded at 4K is also filtered out...
Test it for yourself and see.

That would explain a LOT. The only content of mine that sells is my older HD. When I started shooting 4K a year ago, I believe that NONE of it has sold. This just sucks, period.

« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2015, 10:21 »
0
On GI, HD and 4K are on the same price and to be honest I like it that way, so I'm sure clients get the optimal quality.
I'm not sure if I should take your comment seriously.

Just because a camera these days may be 4K capable, doesn't mean that it provides "optimal quality" for a buyer who indeed needs 4K footage.

HD cameras have greatly improved in the last couple of years so, yes, they are quite cheap and produce decent quality.

Have you been shooting RAW HD or 4K? Once I saw the difference between RAW recorded footage and compressed footage which 99.9% of the prosumer (DSLR etc.) cameras produce - there are still worlds of difference in terms of color and clarity.

The substantial costs for high end 4K gear cannot be reflected by the insulting footage prices of iStock, not to mention the fact that they price 4K and HD the same.

So I cannot agree that HD and 4K should be offered at the same price as production costs vary heavily.

95% of my work is time lapse shot in RAW 6K 14bits. HD was already $xxxx on GI, how much more do you want them to sell 4K then?.. I agree with that and when a client is willing to pay that price I'd rather see him/her get 4K instead of HD.
Pardon me for not being clear enough: This is not aimed at you but 4K timelapse clips can be shot in RAW at a decent quality starting at $400 or less.

Obviously I didn't include such an example as "high end gear".

I was trying to refer to genuine 4K real time footage shot for example on a RED system. Needless to say that you can easily add two more 0s to that price.

I'm not familiar with the GI footage pricing structure - only with iStock's where I enjoyed selling footage until they changed it to commissions below the double digits.

Adding insult to injury and selling 4K (NOT time lapse) at the same price is delusional. Sure, the buyers will be happy in terms of the money they can save but the question is how many contributors can sustain a business model while delivering top notch content for $8 royalties per sale?

I'm not even selling my HD stuff that low.

op

« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2015, 14:18 »
0
On GI, HD and 4K are on the same price and to be honest I like it that way, so I'm sure clients get the optimal quality.
I'm not sure if I should take your comment seriously.

Just because a camera these days may be 4K capable, doesn't mean that it provides "optimal quality" for a buyer who indeed needs 4K footage.

HD cameras have greatly improved in the last couple of years so, yes, they are quite cheap and produce decent quality.

Have you been shooting RAW HD or 4K? Once I saw the difference between RAW recorded footage and compressed footage which 99.9% of the prosumer (DSLR etc.) cameras produce - there are still worlds of difference in terms of color and clarity.

The substantial costs for high end 4K gear cannot be reflected by the insulting footage prices of iStock, not to mention the fact that they price 4K and HD the same.

So I cannot agree that HD and 4K should be offered at the same price as production costs vary heavily.

95% of my work is time lapse shot in RAW 6K 14bits. HD was already $xxxx on GI, how much more do you want them to sell 4K then?.. I agree with that and when a client is willing to pay that price I'd rather see him/her get 4K instead of HD.
Pardon me for not being clear enough: This is not aimed at you but 4K timelapse clips can be shot in RAW at a decent quality starting at $400 or less.

Obviously I didn't include such an example as "high end gear".

I was trying to refer to genuine 4K real time footage shot for example on a RED system. Needless to say that you can easily add two more 0s to that price.

I'm not familiar with the GI footage pricing structure - only with iStock's where I enjoyed selling footage until they changed it to commissions below the double digits.

Adding insult to injury and selling 4K (NOT time lapse) at the same price is delusional. Sure, the buyers will be happy in terms of the money they can save but the question is how many contributors can sustain a business model while delivering top notch content for $8 royalties per sale?

I'm not even selling my HD stuff that low.

Yes I totally agree with you. Base HD clips on iStock, SS or whatever are too cheap. I think if HD would be at the same price as 4K (for example SS market price) so $199, nobody would complain about 4K being at same price as HD.

op

« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2015, 14:27 »
0
I upload both 4k H.264 and HD PhotoJPEG.
Customers regularly download the original HD PhotoJPEG, instead of the downsized 4k->HD H.264 version.
So the question is do they prefer the Photojpeg or are the searches biased to the HD? It would be nice to know the answer.

Codec preference is another issue altogether. So assuming all other things equal, the 4K / HD issue is still a bit of a pain in the neck.
On the left hand side of Shutterstock's video search results clearly have a resolution "filter". By clicking on HD, it automatically ignores all 4K clips despite the fact that there are downscaled HD versions available. The "filter" applies to the original resolution that the content was uploaded as. So all our 4K footage gets omitted from searches with the HD filter on. This is counter-intuitive as HD versions of original 4K content does exist for sale, the client just doesn't see it.

But do clients really filter out 4K files when they search for something? I bought footages there recently and my only concern was to find content I was looking for and avoid SD but I haven't seen any so far.

Good point   ;)  I also filter out SD when searching for something in HD. The problem is that footage originally uploaded at 4K is also filtered out...
Test it for yourself and see.

Oh, that's not what I meant. I didn't bother to do an advanced search, I just went on SS homepage, selected Footage and typed what I was looking for. Then, results came out and you can clearly see a caption with "SD", "HD" or "4K" at the bottom of each video and I just ignored SD when i started to check previews. And I guess, that's what people usually do... But I can be wrong.

So in final, my client bought two footages, one HD and one 4K but we bought the HD resized version.

Benozaur

« Reply #17 on: December 09, 2015, 05:50 »
0
OK, so nobody has offered any sort of answer on whether to upload only 4K or both 4K and HD versions.
I assume that it is not that big of an issue anyway - perhaps I'm overanalysing the "problem"...

« Reply #18 on: December 09, 2015, 08:36 »
0
OK, so nobody has offered any sort of answer on whether to upload only 4K or both 4K and HD versions.
I assume that it is not that big of an issue anyway - perhaps I'm overanalysing the "problem"...

I have contacted Shutterstock to ask them specifically about their filter that weeds out 4k, when in fact 4k is available in HD as well. I may end up uploading both version there if they don't fix this. That will be a lot of extra work. A simple fix could give buyers FAR more options to choose from.

Benozaur

« Reply #19 on: December 09, 2015, 11:06 »
0
OK, so nobody has offered any sort of answer on whether to upload only 4K or both 4K and HD versions.
I assume that it is not that big of an issue anyway - perhaps I'm overanalysing the "problem"...

I have contacted Shutterstock to ask them specifically about their filter that weeds out 4k, when in fact 4k is available in HD as well. I may end up uploading both version there if they don't fix this. That will be a lot of extra work. A simple fix could give buyers FAR more options to choose from.

Hey Mantis, I sent you a PM...

« Reply #20 on: December 09, 2015, 22:13 »
+1
On GI, HD and 4K are on the same price and to be honest I like it that way, so I'm sure clients get the optimal quality.
I'm not sure if I should take your comment seriously.

Just because a camera these days may be 4K capable, doesn't mean that it provides "optimal quality" for a buyer who indeed needs 4K footage.

HD cameras have greatly improved in the last couple of years so, yes, they are quite cheap and produce decent quality.

Have you been shooting RAW HD or 4K? Once I saw the difference between RAW recorded footage and compressed footage which 99.9% of the prosumer (DSLR etc.) cameras produce - there are still worlds of difference in terms of color and clarity.

The substantial costs for high end 4K gear cannot be reflected by the insulting footage prices of iStock, not to mention the fact that they price 4K and HD the same.

So I cannot agree that HD and 4K should be offered at the same price as production costs vary heavily.

95% of my work is time lapse shot in RAW 6K 14bits. HD was already $xxxx on GI, how much more do you want them to sell 4K then?.. I agree with that and when a client is willing to pay that price I'd rather see him/her get 4K instead of HD.
Pardon me for not being clear enough: This is not aimed at you but 4K timelapse clips can be shot in RAW at a decent quality starting at $400 or less.

Obviously I didn't include such an example as "high end gear".

I was trying to refer to genuine 4K real time footage shot for example on a RED system. Needless to say that you can easily add two more 0s to that price.

I'm not familiar with the GI footage pricing structure - only with iStock's where I enjoyed selling footage until they changed it to commissions below the double digits.

Adding insult to injury and selling 4K (NOT time lapse) at the same price is delusional. Sure, the buyers will be happy in terms of the money they can save but the question is how many contributors can sustain a business model while delivering top notch content for $8 royalties per sale?

I'm not even selling my HD stuff that low.

I think the problem is more iStock's non-exclusive commission structure. For footage producers you really need to be either exclusive with IS or not upload. Most are now going with the latter option.

While 4K production costs may have varied a lot even 12mths ago, there's plenty of equipment now available at a sub $1K price point that will do the job. As with any footage, the costs for production are about far more than the gear you shoot it with.

The thing that differentiates 4K for me is that its a more useful file for the end user. For example you can take a static clip and apply motion effects or crop in to give the impression of a second camera used and still deliver a HD product. Its the usefulness that should justify a higher price point.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2015, 04:46 »
+2
I think I might upload a separate HD version of my 4K videos if Shutterstock doesn't fix their search problem (doesn't seem like they will though, they just don't care). For all other agencies, I only upload 4K since their search lists both versions as it should.

« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2015, 09:03 »
+1
I finally received a response from Shutterstock regarding the video filters. At least they were honest.

Paraphrase: it's by design and not going away.

So, even though 4K is ALSO AVAILABLE IN HD, 4K content and its HD purchasing option go away if a buyer clicks the HD filter. This means that your 4K content, which is also available in HD by default, is not available when the HD filter is clicked. 

So for those of us who believe that we are losing sales via filters we must upload two versions if we want to have the strategic advantage of selling our work in both formats.

For me, I am going to reprocess my 4k clips into HD and upload them. I suppose it will be 3-6 months before I know if it makes any difference.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2015, 10:50 »
+2
I finally received a response from Shutterstock regarding the video filters. At least they were honest.

Paraphrase: it's by design and not going away.

So, even though 4K is ALSO AVAILABLE IN HD, 4K content and its HD purchasing option go away if a buyer clicks the HD filter. This means that your 4K content, which is also available in HD by default, is not available when the HD filter is clicked. 

So for those of us who believe that we are losing sales via filters we must upload two versions if we want to have the strategic advantage of selling our work in both formats.

For me, I am going to reprocess my 4k clips into HD and upload them. I suppose it will be 3-6 months before I know if it makes any difference.


What an absolutely ridiculous decision by SS. It's not design, it's called a design FLAW.

Benozaur

« Reply #24 on: December 11, 2015, 11:56 »
+1
I finally received a response from Shutterstock regarding the video filters. At least they were honest.

Paraphrase: it's by design and not going away.

So, even though 4K is ALSO AVAILABLE IN HD, 4K content and its HD purchasing option go away if a buyer clicks the HD filter. This means that your 4K content, which is also available in HD by default, is not available when the HD filter is clicked. 

So for those of us who believe that we are losing sales via filters we must upload two versions if we want to have the strategic advantage of selling our work in both formats.

For me, I am going to reprocess my 4k clips into HD and upload them. I suppose it will be 3-6 months before I know if it makes any difference.

I suggest that you upload them in seperate batches, they don't like parallel uploads of the same content at different resolutions at the same time...

KB

« Reply #25 on: December 11, 2015, 12:43 »
0
I finally received a response from Shutterstock regarding the video filters. At least they were honest.

Paraphrase: it's by design and not going away.
This doesn't surprise me, but does greatly disappoint me.

I asked about this issue last December, and was quoted a post on the SS forum which said, in part, that they have taken my "concern to heart and will actively work to resolve it". Specifically:
" ... we are gearing up to qualitatively and quantitatively test an updated logic - users selecting HD will not only see original HD videos, but all videos that are available in HD. Same for SD and 4K. [snip] Rest assured, you will love the new filter experience that we hope to roll out sometime in January next year. " (Please note that "January next year" meant January, 2015.)

So they've been aware of this as an issue for well over a year, but do not GAD. In fact, that same post strongly discouraged uploading duplicate clips of the same video in different sizes.

« Reply #26 on: December 11, 2015, 13:33 »
0
I finally received a response from Shutterstock regarding the video filters. At least they were honest.

Paraphrase: it's by design and not going away.

So, even though 4K is ALSO AVAILABLE IN HD, 4K content and its HD purchasing option go away if a buyer clicks the HD filter. This means that your 4K content, which is also available in HD by default, is not available when the HD filter is clicked. 

So for those of us who believe that we are losing sales via filters we must upload two versions if we want to have the strategic advantage of selling our work in both formats.

For me, I am going to reprocess my 4k clips into HD and upload them. I suppose it will be 3-6 months before I know if it makes any difference.

I suggest that you upload them in seperate batches, they don't like parallel uploads of the same content at different resolutions at the same time...


Totally agree.

« Reply #27 on: December 11, 2015, 17:19 »
0
I usually wait for a week between the HD and the 4k versions. However, it is rather hard to belive that customers don't know about the possibility to get the HD version of a 4k clip.
It might still be about quality, some could prefer an original PhotoJPEG/ProRes HD to a downsized H.264, originating from a 4k clip.

Sent from my SM-N910T using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: December 11, 2015, 17:21 by Zero Talent »

« Reply #28 on: December 12, 2015, 03:58 »
0
So, there are contributors already uploading both versions AND getting them approved?

Besides being a solution to this search filter issue are there other problems that might reduce sales for example since most buyers do not use the filter and when they see duplicate clips they might unknowingly buy the same clip in HD 50/50 as original and downsized from 4K which reduces the ranking in search results.

I hope I could get this point across. English is not my mother tongue.

« Reply #29 on: December 12, 2015, 13:42 »
+1
So, there are contributors already uploading both versions AND getting them approved?

Besides being a solution to this search filter issue are there other problems that might reduce sales for example since most buyers do not use the filter and when they see duplicate clips they might unknowingly buy the same clip in HD 50/50 as original and downsized from 4K which reduces the ranking in search results.

I hope I could get this point across. English is not my mother tongue.

Yes, if you're uploading duplicate versions you're going to negatively effect the rankings for both resolutions. I don't think that uploading multiple clips is the solution. Although, if the collection becomes more of a mess because people are doing this it might encourage SS to fix the problem.

Micro4

« Reply #30 on: December 12, 2015, 17:58 »
0
So, there are contributors already uploading both versions AND getting them approved?

Besides being a solution to this search filter issue are there other problems that might reduce sales for example since most buyers do not use the filter and when they see duplicate clips they might unknowingly buy the same clip in HD 50/50 as original and downsized from 4K which reduces the ranking in search results.

I hope I could get this point across. English is not my mother tongue.

Yes, if you're uploading duplicate versions you're going to negatively effect the rankings for both resolutions.

What 'rankings' are you referring to?

« Reply #31 on: December 12, 2015, 18:29 »
0
So, there are contributors already uploading both versions AND getting them approved?

Besides being a solution to this search filter issue are there other problems that might reduce sales for example since most buyers do not use the filter and when they see duplicate clips they might unknowingly buy the same clip in HD 50/50 as original and downsized from 4K which reduces the ranking in search results.

I hope I could get this point across. English is not my mother tongue.

Yes, if you're uploading duplicate versions you're going to negatively effect the rankings for both resolutions.

What 'rankings' are you referring to?

I'm referring to the rankings of the individual clips. Each agency has there own secret algorithm that determine what order they show the clips when a search is performed. While we may not know all the specifics of the algorithm it's generally agreed upon that the more times a clip is downloaded for a given keyword the higher up that clip appears in the results when someone searches for that keyword.

Theoretically, if you have separate HD and 4k versions of a clip and they each get downloaded 5 times, each clip will have 5 downloads instead of the 10 downloads the single clip would have had. Over time a clip with 10 downloads is going to appear higher in the search results than a clip with 5 downloads for a given search term.

If the search term has very few results then it really doesn't matter but if it is a competitive term it may make the difference between your clip ever being seen or not.

Micro4

« Reply #32 on: December 12, 2015, 19:43 »
+1
So, there are contributors already uploading both versions AND getting them approved?

Besides being a solution to this search filter issue are there other problems that might reduce sales for example since most buyers do not use the filter and when they see duplicate clips they might unknowingly buy the same clip in HD 50/50 as original and downsized from 4K which reduces the ranking in search results.

I hope I could get this point across. English is not my mother tongue.

Yes, if you're uploading duplicate versions you're going to negatively effect the rankings for both resolutions.

What 'rankings' are you referring to?

I'm referring to the rankings of the individual clips. Each agency has there own secret algorithm that determine what order they show the clips when a search is performed. While we may not know all the specifics of the algorithm it's generally agreed upon that the more times a clip is downloaded for a given keyword the higher up that clip appears in the results when someone searches for that keyword.

Theoretically, if you have separate HD and 4k versions of a clip and they each get downloaded 5 times, each clip will have 5 downloads instead of the 10 downloads the single clip would have had. Over time a clip with 10 downloads is going to appear higher in the search results than a clip with 5 downloads for a given search term.

If the search term has very few results then it really doesn't matter but if it is a competitive term it may make the difference between your clip ever being seen or not.

And what happens to your rankings theory when a 4K clips is filtered out and not even shown in the listings?

Your theory is correct if both clips were treated equally but they are not.

« Reply #33 on: January 13, 2016, 06:18 »
+1
I've recently uploaded couple of hundreds aerials to SS. All but one were in 4K. I had to downsize one video due to technical problems. I've just had my first sale and it was THE one video uploaded in HD! The batch contained similar videos in 4K which in my opinion looked better. Why would the customer pick the only HD video? This raises suspicion that the customer filtered out 4K versions, possibly unknowingly.

The way SS filter works is really really bad for 4k producers. I'm puzzled. I really don't want to upload HD versions and duplicate my content. But we might be losing out on sales... bummer.  >:(


« Reply #34 on: January 13, 2016, 06:54 »
+1
I've recently uploaded couple of hundreds aerials to SS. All but one were in 4K. I had to downsize one video due to technical problems. I've just had my first sale and it was THE one video uploaded in HD! The batch contained similar videos in 4K which in my opinion looked better. Why would the customer pick the only HD video? This raises suspicion that the customer filtered out 4K versions, possibly unknowingly.

The way SS filter works is really really bad for 4k producers. I'm puzzled. I really don't want to upload HD versions and duplicate my content. But we might be losing out on sales... bummer.  >:(
That is sad to hear although it's impossible to know for sure what exactly the reason was for the HD sale.

It simply makes no sense whatsoever to not include the HD versions of 4K clips into the HD filtered results (which provide even better image quality as native HD).

Just the lower resolutions should be filtered out - not the better ones.

KB

« Reply #35 on: January 13, 2016, 20:35 »
0
This raises suspicion that the customer filtered out 4K versions, possibly unknowingly.

The way SS filter works is really really bad for 4k producers. I'm puzzled. I really don't want to upload HD versions and duplicate my content. But we might be losing out on sales... bummer.  >:(
Suspicions were raised long ago. I'd say this all but confirms that some sales are lost for those files that are UL'd only as 4K.

I'm equally puzzled why SS refuses to address this. It's been over a year now that I've been very reluctant to UL 4K clips to them. I UL a few, but mostly I skip them entirely. Probably stupid (but not as stupid as their filtering out 4K content on HD searches).

« Reply #36 on: January 14, 2016, 02:03 »
+1
I've already written to Shutterstock asking them about the current situation or plans on changing this system.

I urge everyone who is annoyed to send an email to SS to let them know that there is a number of contributors who experience questionable sales as the one mentioned above or if you don't believe this to be a good system the way it is now.

If they don't get (enough) feedback about it - they definitely won't change anything.

« Reply #37 on: January 14, 2016, 08:13 »
+1
I've already written to Shutterstock asking them about the current situation or plans on changing this system.

I urge everyone who is annoyed to send an email to SS to let them know that there is a number of contributors who experience questionable sales as the one mentioned above or if you don't believe this to be a good system the way it is now.

If they don't get (enough) feedback about it - they definitely won't change anything.

I've already done this. It's by design and they have no intention of changing it. But I do encourage everyone to send them some constructive emails about this. In the meantime I have uploaded hundreds of videos that I converted to HD from 4K and then since I downsized I added some motion paths and zooms to give them a more unique look. But it took weeks to do. I haven't seen jack in sales uptick. HD versions only up for 8 weeks though.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2237 Views
Last post May 20, 2008, 01:30
by khwi
6 Replies
5314 Views
Last post March 08, 2011, 11:50
by Niakris
5 Replies
2672 Views
Last post March 21, 2011, 21:46
by lola
1 Replies
1864 Views
Last post September 06, 2011, 14:51
by CD123
0 Replies
1209 Views
Last post March 14, 2015, 16:30
by Cesar

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors