MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Fotolia and Adobe unfair extended video license price  (Read 11179 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 14, 2017, 04:58 »
0
Hello, i wasn't happy that fotolia offer for 200$ not only hd enhanced but also 4k, which other sites offer in standard license for that price.
I think it should be updated to match other sites.
But Adode go even further they offer all videos in extended license, hd for 79 for enhanced license, when pond5 offer extended for 149 itself.


alno

« Reply #1 on: February 14, 2017, 09:16 »
0
Hello, i wasn't happy that fotolia offer for 200$ not only hd enhanced but also 4k, which other sites offer in standard license for that price.
I think it should be updated to match other sites.
But Adode go even further they offer all videos in extended license, hd for 79 for enhanced license, when pond5 offer extended for 149 itself.

$200 for standard 4K is very outdated pricing, I guess all major agencies will reduce it within a year or so. It's certainly not ok when your camera costs 5-7 times more than a clip produced with it.

« Reply #2 on: February 14, 2017, 09:49 »
+1
Hello, i wasn't happy that fotolia offer for 200$ not only hd enhanced but also 4k, which other sites offer in standard license for that price.
I think it should be updated to match other sites.
But Adode go even further they offer all videos in extended license, hd for 79 for enhanced license, when pond5 offer extended for 149 itself.

$200 for standard 4K is very outdated pricing, I guess all major agencies will reduce it within a year or so. It's certainly not ok when your camera costs 5-7 times more than a clip produced with it.

It's not about the camera but the work/time put into the footages. In my opinion ft or ss should allow certain freedom to adjust the prices. I started to shoot time lapse videos so I appreciated the effort in the shooting/production. The efforts needed for different subjects vary so wildly thus I like P5 when people can set the prices accordingly.

« Reply #3 on: February 14, 2017, 09:56 »
0
My camera cost more than 10 times of 4k price. it cost about 40 times for only body.
4k needs also more power to produce and so on.
really need some price points like on 123rf or set price like pond.
Because 4k from go pro mounted on car is not the same as 4k prores footage or even timelapse of 4 hours or so.
4k on pond for 189 selling ok, so i don't think it outdated, maybe for mobile 4k or gopro, but not for good quality.
for some not clever people even videohive ok =\

« Reply #4 on: February 14, 2017, 11:38 »
+2
It's not about the camera but the work/time put into the footages. In my opinion ft or ss should allow certain freedom to adjust the prices. I started to shoot time lapse videos so I appreciated the effort in the shooting/production. The efforts needed for different subjects vary so wildly thus I like P5 when people can set the prices accordingly.

Some timelapses could be priced 39$ for 4k because they're low quality material. Full of flicker, uninteresting scene, "jerky movement" (not using ND filters in daylight), bad exposure (not using "holy grail" ramping in transitions) etc.

And some should be priced 399$ because they're well produced.

So a blanket statement like "timelapses should be priced x$" is wrong. The same goes for any type of footage.
« Last Edit: February 14, 2017, 11:46 by spike »

« Reply #5 on: February 14, 2017, 11:54 »
+1
The fact that 4k at the moment is much more expensive than HD is due to demand, nothing to do with production costs.
4k is a new format and all new products demand higher prices.
The few people who buy them are professional buyers who don't care at all paying $400 for a clip.
Price will gradually go down to attract other segments of buyers (like bloggers), but it is still way too soon now

« Reply #6 on: February 14, 2017, 13:13 »
+2
Price will gradually go down to attract other segments of buyers (like bloggers), but it is still way too soon now

Why would bloggers ever need 4k content?

I get a bunch od 240p sales from those customers lol

alno

« Reply #7 on: February 14, 2017, 17:06 »
+1

for some not clever people even videohive ok =\

Here we go again, one more clever person is going to preach his BS to us all...

« Reply #8 on: February 14, 2017, 18:04 »
+1
It's not about the camera but the work/time put into the footages. In my opinion ft or ss should allow certain freedom to adjust the prices. I started to shoot time lapse videos so I appreciated the effort in the shooting/production. The efforts needed for different subjects vary so wildly thus I like P5 when people can set the prices accordingly.

Some timelapses could be priced 39$ for 4k because they're low quality material. Full of flicker, uninteresting scene, "jerky movement" (not using ND filters in daylight), bad exposure (not using "holy grail" ramping in transitions) etc.

And some should be priced 399$ because they're well produced.

So a blanket statement like "timelapses should be priced x$" is wrong. The same goes for any type of footage.
That's why I prefer a contributor set price system.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #9 on: February 14, 2017, 21:42 »
+1
Price will gradually go down to attract other segments of buyers (like bloggers), but it is still way too soon now

Why would bloggers ever need 4k content?

I get a bunch od 240p sales from those customers lol

And as 4K should be 4 times the price of HD, 240p should be 20 times less than HD?

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #10 on: February 14, 2017, 22:29 »
+1
Hello, i wasn't happy that fotolia offer for 200$ not only hd enhanced but also 4k, which other sites offer in standard license for that price.
I think it should be updated to match other sites.
But Adode go even further they offer all videos in extended license, hd for 79 for enhanced license, when pond5 offer extended for 149 itself.

$200 for standard 4K is very outdated pricing, I guess all major agencies will reduce it within a year or so. It's certainly not ok when your camera costs 5-7 times more than a clip produced with it.

I agree. The cost of processors, hard drives and 4K cameras are falling all the time, but the price for 4K clips stays the same. Will 8K be $800 and 16K be $3200? By the same reasoning, should 240p footage be $2.50?

I appreciate that a 4K clip should cost more than a 1080p one, but it seems like some people think they should recoup the majority of their production costs from a handful of sales.

Better computer... say an extra $500 on top of the one you use for HD? How many clips are you going to edit and render on it.... 500? So add $2 to the price of HD. (I'm doubling the actual price to take into account 50% commission)

Extra storage costs... say 1Gb per clip, instead of 500Mb. 500 clips makes that an extra 250Gb. Cost of a 250Gb hard drive... less than $50. So add $0.20 per clip.

Editing time... pretty much the same. Shooting time... pretty much the same.

Rendering time... twice as long. But as you've bought your fancy new computer, lets say 50% more. Normal rendering time is probably two minutes depending on how many effects you've added. Probably less. So for 500 clips that makes an extra 500 minutes. What's your time worth? Let's say $50 an hour. That adds $13 to each clip... the biggest hike in price.

We'll be generous and add another $13 for transferring files. We'll be stingy when it comes to uploading files as you can be busy editing while that's happening.

So your HD stuff should cost you about $28.20 more than HD. So if your HD is $49 then your 4K should be around $79 and if your HD stuff is $79 already, then it should probably be $99 or so. Sure, you can add a bit of padding in, but $199 is maybe a bit of an excessive markup. 

And that's saying you only sell each clip once. The moment you sell it twice, the $28 cost drops to $14, then to $9 and so on and so forth. Yes, there will be clips that won't even sell once, but that's your fault for making a s**t clip! Yes, it takes more work, and it costs more, and it has more value than HD.... but not four times more value.

I mean, come 2022 when you can pick up 4K TV's and video cameras for a steal, and the best computers today for about $500... it would feel a bit strange to be paying $199 for a 4K clip. That's just the way I see it anyway.   

« Reply #11 on: February 15, 2017, 00:50 »
+3
my pc for 4k workflow cost over 4k $, render time of 4k 30sec clip is 15min for me and hd is about 4-5 min.
your calculations are not so good.
in your opinion for example canon 1dx II shout cost 50% more that 80d? exactly the same but it cost times more.
And first of all discussion not supposed to be about producing and camera costs at all.
It's about that Adobe stock uses more broad license instead of standard for same price and even without any notification.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #12 on: February 15, 2017, 01:28 »
0
15 minutes to render a 30 second clip on a $4K machine? I think you were ripped off!

« Reply #13 on: February 15, 2017, 01:33 »
+1
sony x-avc 10 bit in 32 bit ae comp, try it on your pc)
ripped off by whom? lol

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #14 on: February 15, 2017, 03:29 »
+1
Isn't 32bpc slightly overkill? Unless you're adding fancy lighting or blur effects.

« Reply #15 on: February 15, 2017, 04:48 »
0
Maybe but noticed for highlights it's better and for color correction too.
So i want to deliver best possible quality.

« Reply #16 on: February 15, 2017, 05:09 »
0
Pricing should have very little to do with resolution and very much to do with the content of the clip. It's ridiculous to price a 4k tripod clip of a rose in your backyard at $199 just because it's 4k...

On the other hand, a 720p clip of flowing lava splashing on top of an eagle in super slow motion could be priced at $999.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #17 on: February 15, 2017, 05:42 »
0
clip of flowing lava splashing on top of an eagle in super slow motion

Those are my favourites!

« Reply #18 on: February 15, 2017, 05:47 »
+2
Pricing should have very little to do with resolution and very much to do with the content of the clip. It's ridiculous to price a 4k tripod clip of a rose in your backyard at $199 just because it's 4k...

On the other hand, a 720p clip of flowing lava splashing on top of an eagle in super slow motion could be priced at $999.
Even more if the eagle is wearing sunglasses

« Reply #19 on: February 15, 2017, 16:33 »
0
15 minutes to render a 30 second clip on a $4K machine? I think you were ripped off!

Try importing images (16 bit tiff) for a 30 second 25fps hyperlapse clip --> 750 images. Now stabilize position, rotation, add warp stabilizer once, twice, deflicker footage, add pixel motion blur. If you can get it to render below 15 minutes, you're a magician. It's more like 1h15min. And that's just the render time. 1080p is more than 4x faster in these circumstances.

« Reply #20 on: February 15, 2017, 16:40 »
0
Try importing images (16 bit tiff) for a 30 second 25fps hyperlapse clip --> 750 images. Now stabilize position, rotation, add warp stabilizer once, twice, deflicker footage, add pixel motion blur. If you can get it to render below 15 minutes, you're a magician. It's more like 1h15min. And that's just the render time. 1080p is more than 4x faster in these circumstances.

Oh yes. On some hyperlapses I can spend two full days. It's extremely time consuming (especially if you were a bit lazy when taking the pictures)...

But here's a tip: Skip the tiff images step and work with RAW in After Effects. Saves time and space.

« Reply #21 on: February 15, 2017, 16:55 »
0
Oh yes. On some hyperlapses I can spend two full days. It's extremely time consuming (especially if you were a bit lazy when taking the pictures)...

But here's a tip: Skip the tiff images step and work with RAW in After Effects. Saves time and space.
Can I "develop" them in AE like in LR by using camera raw or something similar? I edit most of them heavily, so I'm wondering if I can get those adjustments in AE as well.

« Reply #22 on: February 15, 2017, 17:07 »
+1
Oh yes. On some hyperlapses I can spend two full days. It's extremely time consuming (especially if you were a bit lazy when taking the pictures)...

But here's a tip: Skip the tiff images step and work with RAW in After Effects. Saves time and space.
Can I "develop" them in AE like in LR by using camera raw or something similar? I edit most of them heavily, so I'm wondering if I can get those adjustments in AE as well.

Yes, Camera Raw runs in AE.

I edit in Lightroom, save the metadata (Save Metadata to file) and then open the RAW images as an image sequence in AE. They will develop with the Lightroom settings as long as the XMP files are in the same folder as the RAW images.

I usually choose flat settings in Lightroom though and export a ProRes HQ 10-bit mov from that which is much faster to work with when stabilizing etc. Unless I need to do something extreme, I grade in AE on the movie file instead of in Lightroom. Of course you lose some information but it saves many hours if I want to revisit a timelapse/hyperlapse a year later and grade it differently. Then I just pull up the flat movie file. 10-bit HQ is usually enough.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2017, 17:11 by increasingdifficulty »

« Reply #23 on: February 15, 2017, 17:15 »
0
Oh yes. On some hyperlapses I can spend two full days. It's extremely time consuming (especially if you were a bit lazy when taking the pictures)...

But here's a tip: Skip the tiff images step and work with RAW in After Effects. Saves time and space.
Can I "develop" them in AE like in LR by using camera raw or something similar? I edit most of them heavily, so I'm wondering if I can get those adjustments in AE as well.

Yes, Camera Raw runs in AE.

I edit in Lightroom, save the metadata (Save Metadata to file) and then open the RAW images as an image sequence in AE. They will develop with the Lightroom settings as long as the XMP files are in the same folder as the RAW images.

I usually choose flat settings in Lightroom though and export a ProRes HQ 10-bit mov from that which is much faster to work with when stabilizing etc. Unless I need to do something extreme, I grade in AE on the movie file instead of in Lightroom. Of course you lose some information but it saves many hours if I want to revisit a timelapse/hyperlapse a year later and grade it differently. Then I just pull up the flat movie file. 10-bit HQ is usually enough.
Interesting...
I export TIFF from Lightroom and batch rename in Bridge because I always thought That AE does not accept RAW or DNG, I even tried doing it at first and it did not work.
If I could read RAW as a sequence it would save me tons of time. Maybe the trick is to Save Metadata to File?

« Reply #24 on: February 15, 2017, 17:18 »
0
I export TIFF from Lightroom and batch rename in Bridge because I always thought That AE does not accept RAW or DNG, I even tried doing it at first and it did not work.
If I could read RAW as a sequence it would save me tons of time. Maybe the trick is to Save Metadata to File?

Yes, just choose Import > File and choose the first RAW image.

You don't need to edit in Lightroom first and save the XMP files, you can just edit the first image in AE and the rest will use the same settings.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
8 Replies
7175 Views
Last post November 17, 2006, 18:36
by madelaide
2 Replies
2438 Views
Last post March 04, 2009, 06:04
by Fred
1 Replies
3330 Views
Last post April 02, 2012, 14:27
by heywoody
7 Replies
3149 Views
Last post April 04, 2014, 12:16
by Me
4 Replies
2540 Views
Last post March 28, 2019, 06:09
by PZF

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle