Well, after the 2018 update to the Adobe CC - Quicktime PhotoJPEG support is GONE.
Now, this wasen't such a great codec - BUT, it was the only codec all the video selling agencies supported.
for someone who uploads to SS, P5, AS, Istock, VB - having to encode all files only once is mission critical.
Now, DNxHR is a much much better codec, but is not supported on SS and Getty.
H.264 is not supported in DCI 4K on Getty (I shoot all my video in DCI 4K)
I guess ProRes will be the best choice - but I haven't found a way to encode ProRes on a windows machine (anyone??)

Any thoughts will be welcome!

AfterCodecs for Windows lets you encode ProRes on a Windows machine. A free trial version is available and lets you render video for up to 500 frames.

And, who cares about video on Getty? Not worth the hassle.

Are you working with in on Adobe Media Encoder? how does it work?
And regarding Getty- The are indeed not my best selling agancy - but for a few hundreds of $ per month I still think they are worth the hassle...

I am trying out Stock submitter for my video uploading and I already started to like it. I have all my files as mp4 h264 which are accepted by all but Getty/IS. The software can auto-transcode your h264 to whatever Getty is accepting before the upload.

Sent from my Pixel XL using Tapatalk

Resolve supports photo jpg renders. It's free unless you want export 4k dci, then it's $299 for studio version. I was forced to switch to resolve from premiere because they took 8 months to support my camera. Best thing that ever happened to me, come to find out resolve is a much better program to edit for stock if you are just grading clips. Much more control, much better layout for stock, super easy to bounce grades from one clip to the next, or portions of grades. Resolve's engine also handles files much better, playing graded 4k raw files full resolution no problem, same file in premiere maybe only play in half resolution or one quarter and still stutters. There is a learning curve switching, but tons of great tutorials out there. I would say premiere is better for putting movies together, but that's it. Getty took a year to even think about supporting 4k for windows users, guessing its going to be a while before they find another codec. I vote for dnxhr.

There are certainly workarounds to get PhotoJpeg files if you use Premiere Pro. I use MPEG_Streamclip and that works fine.

However, the latest requirements page on the Adobe Stock site say that they accept these codecs:

Quote

If you are processing your footage, use these codecs:
4K/UHD: ProRes HQ 422, DNxHD/HR
HD: ProRes HQ422, DNxHD/HR

Basically, they accept the DNxHR codec if you are a windows user. Shutterstock doesn't.

I tried to get an answer out of Adobe Stock on when they will discontinue accepting PhotoJpeg, but no response so far (it has only been a week!!!)

Steve

Right, I can confirm Adobe and Pond 5 just approved some 4k files uploaded DNxHR, but not shutterstock. Photo jpg for shutterstock.

Quote from: Noedelhap on April 17, 2018, 14:25

AfterCodecs for Windows lets you encode ProRes on a Windows machine. A free trial version is available and lets you render video for up to 500 frames.

And, who cares about video on Getty? Not worth the hassle.

Are you working with in on Adobe Media Encoder? how does it work?
And regarding Getty- The are indeed not my best selling agancy - but for a few hundreds of $ per month I still think they are worth the hassle...

You simply install the AfterCodecs.aex in the plugins/format folder and it will show up as another video format (including settings) in AE. No need to use AME (I don't know if that's even possible).

Shutter Encoder!

 So does this have any effect on buyers? If all  my videos are in photojpeg are people less likely to download them?
 

After looking into all the options I guess switching to Resolve for simple editing and color correcting is the best option for now.
Considering the fact that sometimes today I use resolve to create LUT's for Premiere Pro, it might even speed up the whole process.

BTW - how is Resolve in terms of encoding speed?

If you have a decent graphics card it is really fast. In my experience everything is faster in resolve. If you are used to working in Photoshop using layers you'll love the node system which is very similar.

Quote from: cdwheatley on April 19, 2018, 05:58

If you are used to working in Photoshop using layers you'll love the node system which is very similar.

It is more like the opposite of layers. 

What ever it is, it just works I wasn't happy about having to learn resolve, pissed off at adobe really for dragging their feet on camera support. But, after watching this tutorial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcFPJOLTFP0&t=3s a few times it all made sense and was able to put together a basic grading workflow for resolve. My biggest issue with Premiere is skin tones, much harder to isolate skin on a moving image, I never liked the secondary tools in Lumetri. Being able to do a skin node and control how much of the rest of the grade affects the skin tone is huge. Guess I'm a fan now, if I didn't need photoshop I would drop my adobe subscription...lol.

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on April 19, 2018, 03:42

Quote from: suz7 on April 19, 2018, 01:38

So does this have any effect on buyers? If all  my videos are in photojpeg are people less likely to download them?
 

I wouldn't touch them with gloves on... 

So basically what you are saying is that if I would upload all my videos in ProRes I would have much more sales??

Now that's a frustrating thought after 5 years in the business... 😮

Right, that is good question. How many buyers will not buy unless its in ProRes. I've always suspected there have been sales lost depending on what codec you upload in. What about broadcasters, don't they need 10 bit and a high mbps? I've heard DNxHR is as good as ProRes, so that would be a nice option as a standard for windows users.

Quote from: StockStudio on April 19, 2018, 10:12

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on April 19, 2018, 03:42

Quote from: suz7 on April 19, 2018, 01:38

So does this have any effect on buyers? If all  my videos are in photojpeg are people less likely to download them?
 

I wouldn't touch them with gloves on... 

Gave me a slight heart attack there...

As I am also buying many stock videos as well as creating ones, I never ruled out a clip because of codec or frame rate.
But I'm starting to consider buying a Mac just for encoding...
all the workarounds just don't seem good enough.

So basically what you are saying is that if I would upload all my videos in ProRes I would have much more sales??

Now that's a frustrating thought after 5 years in the business... 😮

Haha, no. It was just a joke. 

I don't believe buyers care too much about framerates and codecs if the clip is right. That being said, editors like ProRes, so I provide ProRes.

Gave me a slight heart attack there...
I also buy many stock videos and never ruled out any clip because of codec or frame rate...
But I'm starting to consider buying a mac just for encoding since all the workarounds just don't seem to work properly...

what version of mackbook is enough to work with 4k movies? I'm talking about old models

That depends largely on what codec you are working with. If you work with ProRes for example, it's much easier for the computer to handle than h264.

And by "work with 4k movies", do you mean just single clips? Or editing together multiple clips into a movie? For a single clip, older computers can do the job, even though it might be slow.

For complicated timelines, that same slow computer might be next to impossible to work with.

Well, I can't give you the exact lowest/cheapest possible configuration which is what I guess you're looking for, because it's more about how slow/fast it will work, rather than if it will work. It will work fine on most computers from 2011-2012 or so I believe, but it might be on the slow side. Maybe unbearable.

I can tell you that the slowest computer I have used for 4k is a 2013 MacBook Pro (16 GB RAM, 2.3 GHz i7) and it has worked really well. But it can always go faster. With After Effects, the CPU and RAM is what you should be concerned about, not so much the GPU.

MacBooks and MacBook Airs (even brand new ones) will be considerably slower than old MacBook Pros.

Furthermore, Final Cut Pro X is MANY TIMES faster than Premiere and After Effects, but of course a bit limited in what you can do.

For serious single clip editing, After Effects is, in my opinion, the way to go.

On the 2013 MacBook Pro, editing several 4k clips into a film with basic color correction in FCP X works in real time, while a 10-second export in After Effects of a single clip with color correction, grading, and denoising may take 30 minutes to export.

It all depends on what you need to do to the clips.

FCPX combined with Motion is a powerhouse!! most people have no idea of how the two work together!