4K video upload now available in Istock

[Mantis]

Video Contributor Announcement - ESP now accepting 4K content!

The next step towards full 4K implementation is here! The iStock ESP (enterprise submission platform) is now accepting 4K content. Here are the details:
This stage is for mirroring of 4K content to Getty Images only. This means we will accept 4K content, but not sell it via iStock.com until later this summer when that product is released. All 4K will be mirrored for sale at gettyimages.com until that time. You will NOT have to resubmit the 4K file when the product option becomes active on iStock.com. The 4K file will be stored on iStock.com and activated at that time.

Similarly, 1920x1080 HD file will be created from the original 4K file and will be available for sale via your iStock account. Similarly a 1920x1080 HD file will be generated from the 4K file on gettyimages.com.

4K will be accepted with the same frame rates as regular HD content.

3840x2160, the preferred frame size, will be accepted with the Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) and Apple ProRes 4444 codec only.

4096x2160 will be accepted with Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) codec only.

IMPORTANT: During this initial phase of 4K ingestion into the iStock ESP portal we will be maintaining a 2.0 GB limit on 4K files. This is a temporary file size limit only. At a later date we will be announcing an increase in file size.

We have two discussion threads on this topic started. One is present on the soon-to-be closed iStock site forums, the other is visible on the new Contributor Community Site. Either thread will work for you in the event you have any questions, concerns, or trouble uploading your 4k submissions.

We hope you are as excited as we are!

[cobalt]

How much will we earn?

I haven�t really uploaded to istock anymore, 7 dollars for hd is very little.

[Mantis]

How much will we earn?

I haven�t really uploaded to istock anymore, 7 dollars for hd is very little.

That I haven't seen. It will be announced later this summer, but I'd guess that it is 4X than HD, or around $30 per full 4k dl.

[Noedelhap]

I'm not gonna bother if the 4K prices royalties are going to be in the $30-ish range (and HD remains in the $7-10 dollar range, or whatever sad price royalties they're paying now)

[tickstock]

I'm not gonna bother if the 4K prices are going to be in the $30-ish range (and HD remains in the $7-10 dollar range, or whatever sad price they have now)

HD prices are in the 50-60 dollar range.  Compared to SS which is in the 68-79 dollar range (lower resolutions offered for down to $14).  Both of those are for nonexclusive video, exclusive video at iStock is in the 150-170 dollar range.  Getty video is in the 175-575 dollar range, 4k and HD is $575.

[Noedelhap]

I'm not gonna bother if the 4K prices are going to be in the $30-ish range (and HD remains in the $7-10 dollar range, or whatever sad price they have now)

HD prices are in the 50-60 dollar range.  Compared to SS which is in the 68-79 dollar range (lower resolutions offered for down to $14).  Both of those are for nonexclusive video, exclusive video at iStock is in the 150-170 dollar range.  Getty video is in the 175-575 dollar range, 4k and HD is $575.

I meant our royalties, which is roughly 7$-$10 for an HD sale (non-exclusive).
At SS the royalty is roughly $23 for an HD sale or $60 for a 4K sale (used to be roughly $90).

In other words, unless a 4K sale will net me at least $50-$60 at iStock, I'm not going to bother.

[Noedelhap]

Another weird thing I noticed: their video platform is apparently incapable of handling MOV PhotoJPEG or MP4 H.264:

3840x2160, the preferred frame size, will be accepted with the Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) and Apple ProRes 4444 codec only.
4096x2160 will be accepted with Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) codec only.

Name one other agency that limits uploaded 4K files to only 1 specific codec.

[PhotoLA]

Another weird thing I noticed: their video platform is apparently incapable of handling MOV PhotoJPEG or MP4 H.264:

3840x2160, the preferred frame size, will be accepted with the Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) and Apple ProRes 4444 codec only.
4096x2160 will be accepted with Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) codec only.

Name one other agency that limits uploaded 4K files to only 1 specific codec.

iStock limits HD footage to only one codec (photoJPEG), so limiting 4k to one codec is not much of a surprise.

[jjneff]

Just got word on the forum that 4k is not at a different price point then HD! It is the same as now. They said they would not get into a price war but they just did for video! They are undercutting SS and most other places now!

[stockmn]

Just got word on the forum that 4k is not at a different price point then HD! It is the same as now. They said they would not get into a price war but they just did for video! They are undercutting SS and most other places now!

All the more reason not to upload video to iStock. Especially for non-exclusives.

Getty video is in the 175-575 dollar range, 4k and HD is $575.

That may be the list price on the website but more often than not the actual sale price is MUCH lower!

[ShadySue]

Getty video is in the 175-575 dollar range, 4k and HD is $575.

That may be the list price on the website but more often than not the actual sale price is MUCH lower!

Same as stills there, way below list price a lot of the time. 

[Noedelhap]

Just got word on the forum that 4k is not at a different price point then HD! It is the same as now. They said they would not get into a price war but they just did for video! They are undercutting SS and most other places now!

I expected a low price, but certainly not this! They never cease to amaze me. That means $7-$10 for a 4K footage sale, unbelievable.

I wouldn't worry about them undercutting other sites, though. They're no threat anymore. Their regular buyers and traffic are long gone.

[PeterChigmaroff]

Just got word on the forum that 4k is not at a different price point then HD! It is the same as now. They said they would not get into a price war but they just did for video! They are undercutting SS and most other places now!

It would behoove all video producers to not upload to this site.

[cobalt]

So i will get 7 dollars for 4k? Um, no, not attractive.

[Mantis]

I really don't understand the logic behind not offering higher pricing for 4K.  It's in their OWN BEST INTEREST to sell 4K at a higher price. Why?

1. People will simply NOT UPLOAD ANY CONTENT (no content means $0 in sales)

2. They claim they don't want to get into a price war. Fine. "IF" they do happen to get a decent collection they will be the company who destroys video altogether, forcing the DISSOLVES of the world to match 4K at $69, or whatever.

3. Will exclusive 4K be higher priced than exclusive HD? If so, there is one answer....a push to offer incentives to become exclusive.  If not then this is another way to erode the value of exclusivity, at least on the video side. 

Really, who will invest in 4K equipment, storage, processing power, etc. in pursuit of HD pricing for their 4K work? NOBODY in their right mind should, even Istock exclusives like JJNEFF. This is a slap in the face for exclusive video contributors if in fact their pricing will also only be at HD rates. How would one possibly grow their business under these conditions? That's not a partnership by any means.

[trek]

I stopped uploading video to istock when the HD price was cut.  The 4K pricing reinforces that decision. 

[jjneff]

This is a pure power play at the expense of the video artist! There is no reason they can not offer 4k at $199.00 for exclusive and non-exclusive! I just started with the ability to do 4k with my drone. Now the other side is Getty, will this make up the lost income from iStock? Because I do this to eat I have to proceed with caution it may work for them it may not. I hate all of this, why can't companies just do the right thing for all involved! It's not that hard!!!

[sharpshot]

If its true that 4k buyers are put off by low prices because they associate it with low quality, istock wont be selling many anyway.

[jjneff]

It is true but I don't think buyers will be put off from Getty, that is the wild card here for earnings for me.

[tickstock]

I really don't understand the logic behind not offering higher pricing for 4K.  It's in their OWN BEST INTEREST to sell 4K at a higher price. Why?

1. People will simply NOT UPLOAD ANY CONTENT (no content means $0 in sales)

2. They claim they don't want to get into a price war. Fine. "IF" they do happen to get a decent collection they will be the company who destroys video altogether, forcing the DISSOLVES of the world to match 4K at $69, or whatever.

3. Will exclusive 4K be higher priced than exclusive HD? If so, there is one answer....a push to offer incentives to become exclusive.  If not then this is another way to erode the value of exclusivity, at least on the video side. 

Really, who will invest in 4K equipment, storage, processing power, etc. in pursuit of HD pricing for their 4K work? NOBODY in their right mind should, even Istock exclusives like JJNEFF. This is a slap in the face for exclusive video contributors if in fact their pricing will also only be at HD rates. How would one possibly grow their business under these conditions? That's not a partnership by any means.

Aren't you already selling your 4k work for $75? 

[Mantis]

I really don't understand the logic behind not offering higher pricing for 4K.  It's in their OWN BEST INTEREST to sell 4K at a higher price. Why?

1. People will simply NOT UPLOAD ANY CONTENT (no content means $0 in sales)

2. They claim they don't want to get into a price war. Fine. "IF" they do happen to get a decent collection they will be the company who destroys video altogether, forcing the DISSOLVES of the world to match 4K at $69, or whatever.

3. Will exclusive 4K be higher priced than exclusive HD? If so, there is one answer....a push to offer incentives to become exclusive.  If not then this is another way to erode the value of exclusivity, at least on the video side. 

Really, who will invest in 4K equipment, storage, processing power, etc. in pursuit of HD pricing for their 4K work? NOBODY in their right mind should, even Istock exclusives like JJNEFF. This is a slap in the face for exclusive video contributors if in fact their pricing will also only be at HD rates. How would one possibly grow their business under these conditions? That's not a partnership by any means.

Aren't you already selling your 4k work for $75?

Even if I were, getting $6-$8 commissions for that is silly.

[tickstock]

I really don't understand the logic behind not offering higher pricing for 4K.  It's in their OWN BEST INTEREST to sell 4K at a higher price. Why?

1. People will simply NOT UPLOAD ANY CONTENT (no content means $0 in sales)

2. They claim they don't want to get into a price war. Fine. "IF" they do happen to get a decent collection they will be the company who destroys video altogether, forcing the DISSOLVES of the world to match 4K at $69, or whatever.

3. Will exclusive 4K be higher priced than exclusive HD? If so, there is one answer....a push to offer incentives to become exclusive.  If not then this is another way to erode the value of exclusivity, at least on the video side. 

Really, who will invest in 4K equipment, storage, processing power, etc. in pursuit of HD pricing for their 4K work? NOBODY in their right mind should, even Istock exclusives like JJNEFF. This is a slap in the face for exclusive video contributors if in fact their pricing will also only be at HD rates. How would one possibly grow their business under these conditions? That's not a partnership by any means.

Aren't you already selling your 4k work for $75?

Nope

Someone is using your name and face to sell it for $75, https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/49866308/dungeness-crabs-tank-water.html

[Mantis]

I really don't understand the logic behind not offering higher pricing for 4K.  It's in their OWN BEST INTEREST to sell 4K at a higher price. Why?

1. People will simply NOT UPLOAD ANY CONTENT (no content means $0 in sales)

2. They claim they don't want to get into a price war. Fine. "IF" they do happen to get a decent collection they will be the company who destroys video altogether, forcing the DISSOLVES of the world to match 4K at $69, or whatever.

3. Will exclusive 4K be higher priced than exclusive HD? If so, there is one answer....a push to offer incentives to become exclusive.  If not then this is another way to erode the value of exclusivity, at least on the video side. 

Really, who will invest in 4K equipment, storage, processing power, etc. in pursuit of HD pricing for their 4K work? NOBODY in their right mind should, even Istock exclusives like JJNEFF. This is a slap in the face for exclusive video contributors if in fact their pricing will also only be at HD rates. How would one possibly grow their business under these conditions? That's not a partnership by any means.

Aren't you already selling your 4k work for $75?

Nope

Someone is using your name and face to sell it for $75, https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/49866308/dungeness-crabs-tank-water.html

Ha, you beat me to it. When I started uploading my 4K to P5 I priced at that range based on what other clips were selling....see edited post above.  So, yes. I recall having a pricing conundrum for "saturated" 4K clips, which is what these are and priced them accordingly. But I get 50% not $6-$8. As my work gets more unique (say, underwater 4K) it will be priced much, much higher as will some of my new footage.  When you upload to sites like P5 I believe that it is smart to see what the sales history iOS for similar clips and that is the strategy I used.  But I get 50% of that $75 not $6-$8 like I would at Istock.

[tickstock]

I really don't understand the logic behind not offering higher pricing for 4K.  It's in their OWN BEST INTEREST to sell 4K at a higher price. Why?

1. People will simply NOT UPLOAD ANY CONTENT (no content means $0 in sales)

2. They claim they don't want to get into a price war. Fine. "IF" they do happen to get a decent collection they will be the company who destroys video altogether, forcing the DISSOLVES of the world to match 4K at $69, or whatever.

3. Will exclusive 4K be higher priced than exclusive HD? If so, there is one answer....a push to offer incentives to become exclusive.  If not then this is another way to erode the value of exclusivity, at least on the video side. 

Really, who will invest in 4K equipment, storage, processing power, etc. in pursuit of HD pricing for their 4K work? NOBODY in their right mind should, even Istock exclusives like JJNEFF. This is a slap in the face for exclusive video contributors if in fact their pricing will also only be at HD rates. How would one possibly grow their business under these conditions? That's not a partnership by any means.

Aren't you already selling your 4k work for $75?

Nope

Someone is using your name and face to sell it for $75, https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/49866308/dungeness-crabs-tank-water.html

Ha, you beat me to it. When I started uploading my 4K to P5 I priced at that range based on what other clips were selling....see edited post above.  So, yes. I recall having a pricing conundrum for "saturated" 4K clips, which is what these are and priced them accordingly. But I get 50% not $6-$8. As my work gets more unique (say, underwater 4K) it will be priced much, much higher as will some of my new footage.  When you upload to sites like P5 I believe that it is smart to see what the sales history iOS for similar clips and that is the strategy I used.  But I get 50% of that $75 not $6-$8 like I would at Istock.

Your arguments were about pricing undercutting other sites.  If it was just an argument about royalties then it would make sense but that's not what you are arguing.  You say people won't upload content if the pricing is the same, you did it priced at lower than HD.  You say that will start a price war but again you have priced all of your work at about half or less than SS, isn't that a price war already?   It seems to me that if you were really concerned about those things you wouldn't be undercutting SS at all let alone by almost 1/3.  It's not just you BTW I see other people in this thread selling 4k work for under $60.  Don't you think that is a problem as well?

[Jo Ann Snover]

An iStock contributor (not exclusive for video) who isn't a member here at MSG was talking elsewhere about being really ticked off at what Getty had done with 4K video. The contributor had received e-mail from  Getty suggesting to upload 4K video to Getty as it would be on both iStock and Getty.

With the contributor's permission, I'm posting the experience here. I don't do video, so I have no personal experience with this.

A few weeks ago the contributor got an email from Getty stating that Getty was going to start accepting all 4K video from iStock contributors, and would mirror it all on Getty.

Thinking that was amazing news, and reading Getty's suggestion to start uploading as much 4K content as you could shoot to get it soon on both sites, the contributor spent a couple of weeks of intensive uploading to Getty's ESP video portal.

All the 4K content has been posted on iStock, but not on Getty, and on iStock, the super-high-resolution 4K videos have all been sampled down to blurry 1080p.

The contributor went to the new Getty/iStock forums to ask questions. Finally a moderator admits that 4K content is "live" on Getty 360. And that is why contributors can't see it. They are only putting iStock contributor content in the bargain basement, Getty 360.

So instead of getting about $100 per 4K video like a proper Getty contributor, istock (non-exclusive) contributors will get somewhere between pennies and a couple bucks per sale, and can't even view content on Getty.

The email didn't make that clear at all. The contributor's view? "Their big promise to "mirror" the 4K content was a big fat lie. ... More Getty promises that amount to a steaming pile."

Not sure how the deal for exclusives might differ

[cobalt]

If this is true then it is very sad. The istock video team have a good reputation and always took good care of the video contributors, including non exclusives like me.

Why not tell people openly  that files will be mirrored on getty360 and what kind of returns we can expect? I read somewhere that the payout for 4k would be equivalent to hd, that would be around 7 dollars for 4k content? Has anybody had a 4k sale from istock and can share what they earned?

If we know how much money to expect we can make our own decisions if we have any content that will fit that price range.

Just be honest with information, because we will find out anyway.

7 dollar royalties will mean 7 dollar file quality, 30 or 60 dollar royalty will mean an appropriate level of file quality.

The other agencies are paying out at least 30%, pond5 pays 50%.

Maybe now is a good time time to rethink what they offer. 4k needs a lot of upload time, only the agencies that give good returns will get regular 4k uploads. At least for 4k they should do something, there really is a big gap between Shutterstock, pond5 and istock/getty.

[Belish]

So... what happened with that IStock/Getty 4k? Anybody any sales? Is it worth it?
And it yes, how can a install that Prores codec in my Adobe Premier? I have QuickTime, but I can not install Prores decoder from Apple's site.

[pkphotos]

Selling video on IStock makes as much sense as pissing into the wind

[Belish]

Yes, but isn't 4k sold at Getty only (for now)?! I can not find 4k option at IStock. And the only clip I've sold at Getty was a little more of $100 in commission. So I feel it's OK to try some 4k at Getty. But how to convert them from Photo-jpeg to Prores?

[PeterChigmaroff]

Yes, but isn't 4k sold at Getty only (for now)?! I can not find 4k option at IStock. And the only clip I've sold at Getty was a little more of $100 in commission. So I feel it's OK to try some 4k at Getty. But how to convert them from Photo-jpeg to Prores?

I agree with pkphoto, but if yo must, converting should be just a matter of a simple transcode AME.

[Belish]

I forget to mention that I'm with Windows...

[Daniel Dash]

Some refresh.
Anything changed on Istock Video?
Are they still accepting 4K files in Prores only and selling them for the same price as HD?

[cobalt]

yes. You�ll earn 4-8 dollars for a full size 4k sale.

[Brightontl]

yes. You�ll earn 4-8 dollars for a full size 4k sale.

Not very exciting, also considering that they ask for a specific codec.
I never considered uploading to istock in the past, but now that P5 has distroyed the video market I might give it a shot.
Maybe just HD, giving away 4k for this price really is too much

[Yay Images Billionaire]

yes. You�ll earn 4-8 dollars for a full size 4k sale.

Not very exciting, also considering that they ask for a specific codec.
I never considered uploading to istock in the past, but now that P5 has distroyed the video market I might give it a shot.
Maybe just HD, giving away 4k for this price really is too much

That's what I do there. I only upload HD versions of 4K footage for IS. I didn't invest money in a 4K camera to be paid the same as HD.

[jjneff]

I have dropped my exclusive status and this is one reason why! I don't care to sell 4k the same as HD, I will not and have stopped loading any 4k to iStock.

[Mantis]

I have dropped my exclusive status and this is one reason why! I don't care to sell 4k the same as HD, I will not and have stopped loading any 4k to iStock.

Wow. Congrats. That is a big step. Best of luck.

[odesigns]

I have dropped my exclusive status and this is one reason why! I don't care to sell 4k the same as HD, I will not and have stopped loading any 4k to iStock.

The big question is, is it worth the extra effort to render out a 4K and an HD version of your clips just to give the HD to iStock where you still may only get between $3 and $9 per download?

That said, I do throw some clips iStock's way every now and then, and yes, some of those clips are HD versions of my 4K files I specifically render at 1080p just for iStock.  Generally, I do this only when I have some extra time and not have other work to do at other agencies.

Only time will tell if I continue this.

[jjneff]

iStock/Getty has been great for me to learn to shoot stock. My income has been falling for months no matter what I shot so I found it time to move on. I could go on a rant about them but in all honesty this is just a business decision. I want to focus on high end 4k work for the most part and if Stocksy opens for video I would try there. If not I will do exclusive shoots for Dissolve and other stuff I will spread out to others. I can't see the sense in shooting more and more just to see my income go down for months. Getty can be good and the next mont I will have 80% of the video sales for  $10.00 or less. I am just finished with the games of that. Still love what I do and I know there is a long few months ahead as my clips get indexed. I do other video work as well so I won't go hungry :-)

[Brightontl]

iStock/Getty has been great for me to learn to shoot stock. My income has been falling for months no matter what I shot so I found it time to move on. I could go on a rant about them but in all honesty this is just a business decision. I want to focus on high end 4k work for the most part and if Stocksy opens for video I would try there. If not I will do exclusive shoots for Dissolve and other stuff I will spread out to others. I can't see the sense in shooting more and more just to see my income go down for months. Getty can be good and the next mont I will have 80% of the video sales for  $10.00 or less. I am just finished with the games of that. Still love what I do and I know there is a long few months ahead as my clips get indexed. I do other video work as well so I won't go hungry :-)

Good luck and let us know how you get on.
Sadly it is not the best moment for the video market

[jjneff]

I have learned there are never is a good moments for tough choices, you just have to make it one!

[pkphotos]

I have dropped my exclusive status and this is one reason why! I don't care to sell 4k the same as HD, I will not and have stopped loading any 4k to iStock.

The big question is, is it worth the extra effort to render out a 4K and an HD version of your clips just to give the HD to iStock where you still may only get between $3 and $9 per download?

That said, I do throw some clips iStock's way every now and then, and yes, some of those clips are HD versions of my 4K files I specifically render at 1080p just for iStock.  Generally, I do this only when I have some extra time and not have other work to do at other agencies.

Only time will tell if I continue this.

Waste of time - you shouldn't accept less than US$25 net/average per download, meaning Istock is a no go for video.

[Brightontl]

I have dropped my exclusive status and this is one reason why! I don't care to sell 4k the same as HD, I will not and have stopped loading any 4k to iStock.

The big question is, is it worth the extra effort to render out a 4K and an HD version of your clips just to give the HD to iStock where you still may only get between $3 and $9 per download?

That said, I do throw some clips iStock's way every now and then, and yes, some of those clips are HD versions of my 4K files I specifically render at 1080p just for iStock.  Generally, I do this only when I have some extra time and not have other work to do at other agencies.

Only time will tell if I continue this.

Waste of time - you shouldn't accept less than US$25 net/average per download, meaning Istock is a no go for video.

What you are saying was perfectly true until a couple of months ago.
I would have never have thought of letting istock even sniff one of my file.
Everything has changed now with p5 membership program:
Basically they are giving good hand picked files covering almost everything for practically nothing and they pay no royalties to artist.
The video stock market is dead, P5 killed it, no more sales to be had. So now I even consider uploading to istock or Envato.
Or if someone wants my portfolio for a couple of drinks, he can have it

[stockmn]

  ...and they pay no royalties to artist.
The video stock market is dead, P5 killed it, no more sales to be had. So now I even consider uploading to istock or Envato.

Dude, you are just plain wrong. You apparently have an axe to grind and trying to convince everyone in every post you write that video clips are now worthless does a disservice to the entire video community.

[jjneff]

If I don't like Pond5 I don't have to submit my work there! I am fine with it. There will always be a market for good unique quality work. I have been shooting stock full-time for 6 years now, I understand the market and markets change.

[Cider Apple]

Pond5 is just a tiny drop in the ocean. The market is so much bigger than one small to medium sized catalogue. Pond5 needs to adapt to compete in the larger market, this is just there strategy. It doesn't change a thing unless you are one of the unfortunate people who depend on their income.

[Konstantin Sutyagin]

The market is still good, no to need panic and submit to istock.

[pkphotos]

I have dropped my exclusive status and this is one reason why! I don't care to sell 4k the same as HD, I will not and have stopped loading any 4k to iStock.

The big question is, is it worth the extra effort to render out a 4K and an HD version of your clips just to give the HD to iStock where you still may only get between $3 and $9 per download?

That said, I do throw some clips iStock's way every now and then, and yes, some of those clips are HD versions of my 4K files I specifically render at 1080p just for iStock.  Generally, I do this only when I have some extra time and not have other work to do at other agencies.

Only time will tell if I continue this.

Waste of time - you shouldn't accept less than US$25 net/average per download, meaning Istock is a no go for video.

What you are saying was perfectly true until a couple of months ago.
I would have never have thought of letting istock even sniff one of my file.
Everything has changed now with p5 membership program:
Basically they are giving good hand picked files covering almost everything for practically nothing and they pay no royalties to artist.
The video stock market is dead, P5 killed it, no more sales to be had. So now I even consider uploading to istock or Envato.
Or if someone wants my portfolio for a couple of drinks, he can have it

Personally I don't agree with you. Stock video market is far from dead, you just need to have niches. P5 pay monthly retainers for all the membership videos. Since the membership I've had more sales than ever and my minimum prices are around $79. I have niches and I find if I submit cliche videos already well stocked then they get rejected.

[cascoly]

Pond5 is just a tiny drop in the ocean. The market is so much bigger than one small to medium sized catalogue. Pond5 needs to adapt to compete in the larger market, this is just there strategy. It doesn't change a thing unless you are one of the unfortunate people who depend on their income.

bringing on the usual question - what sites are worthwhile other than ss, p5,vb and ft (I've about given up with the latter due to worthless rejection messages listing all possible things that MIGHT be wrong, combined with lack of editorial offerings)

[Brightontl]

I have dropped my exclusive status and this is one reason why! I don't care to sell 4k the same as HD, I will not and have stopped loading any 4k to iStock.

The big question is, is it worth the extra effort to render out a 4K and an HD version of your clips just to give the HD to iStock where you still may only get between $3 and $9 per download?

That said, I do throw some clips iStock's way every now and then, and yes, some of those clips are HD versions of my 4K files I specifically render at 1080p just for iStock.  Generally, I do this only when I have some extra time and not have other work to do at other agencies.

Only time will tell if I continue this.

Waste of time - you shouldn't accept less than US$25 net/average per download, meaning Istock is a no go for video.

What you are saying was perfectly true until a couple of months ago.
I would have never have thought of letting istock even sniff one of my file.
Everything has changed now with p5 membership program:
Basically they are giving good hand picked files covering almost everything for practically nothing and they pay no royalties to artist.
The video stock market is dead, P5 killed it, no more sales to be had. So now I even consider uploading to istock or Envato.
Or if someone wants my portfolio for a couple of drinks, he can have it

Personally I don't agree with you. Stock video market is far from dead, you just need to have niches. P5 pay monthly retainers for all the membership videos. Since the membership I've had more sales than ever and my minimum prices are around $79. I have niches and I find if I submit cliche videos already well stocked then they get rejected.

I really hope you are right when you say that the vidoeo market is not dead, by I am frankly starting to thing about letting it go.
When you talk about monthly retainers you mean the ridicolous half a dollar per clip per month, or I am missing something? When I said p5 pays no royalties  I meant that artists don't get any money per each sale. Have I got this wrong?
I suppose you are in the membership program and that explain why you are still getting some sales: apparently partecipating artists are the only one still getting some sales for the moment, as they have been pushed up in the search engine. I wonder wif you still will have sales once the whole market becomes aware of the crazy bargain in the mambership bloody thing.
I don't know if I have niches, but all I can say is that I have been uploading clips for about one year, I was very happy the way things were going until April, every month was BME, I was averaging one clip per day of sales until the P5 membership program came around.
Ever since the p5 thingy started my sales disappeared immediately, on every agencies. And I perfectly knew it would happen, because they are practically giving very good clips covering mostly everything, basically for free