Author Topic: Fotolia has been a disappointment since Adobe took over. (Read 36617 times)

helloitsme · « **on:** June 22, 2015, 20:27 »

I thought video sales would increase, but it hasn't happened and now it's decreasing. Problem is that they only accepted low quality H264 files until recently. No serious pros want low quality video files when you can get prores 422 or motion jpeg on other sites.

ultimagina · « **Reply #1 on:** June 22, 2015, 21:02 »

Quote from: helloitsme on June 22, 2015, 20:27

I thought video sales would increase, but it hasn't happened and now it's decreasing. Problem is that they only accepted low quality H264 files until recently. No serious pros want low quality video files when you can get prores 422 or motion jpeg on other sites.

Supported codecs are: flv, dvvideo, h264, mjpeg, mpeg1video, mpeg2video, mpeg4, rpza, svq1, vp6f, wmv2 and wmv3

spike · « **Reply #2 on:** June 22, 2015, 22:07 »

I'm still waiting for them to enable 4k content.

Hongover · « **Reply #3 on:** June 22, 2015, 22:13 »

Quote from: spike on June 22, 2015, 22:07

I'm still waiting for them to enable 4k content.

Only if they get enough demand from downloaders.

Currently, there aren't many 4K TV's out there and broadcasting is still fine using 720P. If and when they enable that ability, server cost is going to really expensive for them...and they'll probably sell it at a much higher price than 1080p videos.

helloitsme · « **Reply #4 on:** June 22, 2015, 22:37 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on June 22, 2015, 21:02

Quote from: helloitsme on June 22, 2015, 20:27
I thought video sales would increase, but it hasn't happened and now it's decreasing. Problem is that they only accepted low quality H264 files until recently. No serious pros want low quality video files when you can get prores 422 or motion jpeg on other sites.
Supported codecs are: flv, dvvideo, h264, mjpeg, mpeg1video, mpeg2video, mpeg4, rpza, svq1, vp6f, wmv2 and wmv3

OK all of my videos are in prores 422. I had to convert to h264 to upload there until recently.

ultimagina · « **Reply #5 on:** June 23, 2015, 05:18 »

Quote from: Hongover on June 22, 2015, 22:13

Quote from: spike on June 22, 2015, 22:07
I'm still waiting for them to enable 4k content.

Only if they get enough demand from downloaders.

Currently, there aren't many 4K TV's out there and broadcasting is still fine using 720P. If and when they enable that ability, server cost is going to really expensive for them...and they'll probably sell it at a much higher price than 1080p videos.

Resolution: Minimum: 320 x 240 / Maximum: 3840 × 2160

helloitsme · « **Reply #6 on:** June 23, 2015, 07:05 »

Quote from: ultimagaina on June 23, 2015, 05:18

Quote from: Hongover on June 22, 2015, 22:13
Quote from: spike on June 22, 2015, 22:07
I'm still waiting for them to enable 4k content.

Only if they get enough demand from downloaders.

Currently, there aren't many 4K TV's out there and broadcasting is still fine using 720P. If and when they enable that ability, server cost is going to really expensive for them...and they'll probably sell it at a much higher price than 1080p videos.

Resolution: Minimum: 320 x 240 / Maximum: 3840 × 2160

OK, but it doesn't matter when whatever you upload just don't sell there despite Adobe connection. It's been disappointing.

ShadySue · « **Reply #7 on:** June 23, 2015, 07:13 »

Presumably, there won't be many totally new stock buyers with this Adobe deal. So you're waiting for subs elsewhere to end and customers to switch. However, although it's very difficult to understand clearly, it looks as though there's a big price hike for the convenience of buying through Adobe compared to via Ft. (I could be wrong about that.)
Plus surely some people are like me and hate bait and switch chain-yanks.

Petr Toman · « **Reply #8 on:** June 23, 2015, 08:29 »

Just wait.

I talked to a graphic designer of mobile games today, he is an employee in big company. He said: "I just got a new laptop and I saw Adobe Stock, I show it to my boss and we will shift from DS to AS."

So as you can imagine, it is not happening immediately (gear/knowledge/budgets/company decision etc.), people are just experiencing it, comparing prices, figuring out how easy it is to have it in new PS libraries etc.

It will be a bomb in few months/years believe me. All the students or new freelancers learning PS, it is the easiest solution for them. It is not a matter of price per image but how easy is to operate with the images, show it to clients with logos, one click buy etc. it is the service what matters and what will sell.

ultimagina · « **Reply #9 on:** June 23, 2015, 08:56 »

Quote from: helloitsme on June 23, 2015, 07:05

Quote from: ultimagaina on June 23, 2015, 05:18
Quote from: Hongover on June 22, 2015, 22:13
Quote from: spike on June 22, 2015, 22:07
I'm still waiting for them to enable 4k content.

Only if they get enough demand from downloaders.

Currently, there aren't many 4K TV's out there and broadcasting is still fine using 720P. If and when they enable that ability, server cost is going to really expensive for them...and they'll probably sell it at a much higher price than 1080p videos.

Resolution: Minimum: 320 x 240 / Maximum: 3840 × 2160

OK, but it doesn't matter when whatever you upload just don't sell there despite Adobe connection. It's been disappointing.

You are welcome!

spike · « **Reply #10 on:** June 23, 2015, 13:03 »

Quote from: ultimagina on June 23, 2015, 05:18

Resolution: Minimum: 320 x 240 / Maximum: 3840 × 2160

Hey smart guy, learn the difference between UHD (or 2160p) and 4k.

I'm not downsampling to UHD, I'm asking them to take my 4k content. And my 4k content is in full 4k, aka 4096 x 2304, not UHD. I never mentioned UHD. :*

Tryingmybest · « **Reply #11 on:** June 23, 2015, 13:19 »

As an illustrator, I have seen a shift from mostly subscription sales to mostly credit sales, with more money per image sold. So it has been good for me in that regard.

Zero Talent · « **Reply #12 on:** June 23, 2015, 16:52 »

Quote from: spike on June 23, 2015, 13:03

Quote from: ultimagina on June 23, 2015, 05:18
Resolution: Minimum: 320 x 240 / Maximum: 3840 × 2160

Hey smart guy, learn the difference between UHD (or 2160p) and 4k.

I'm not downsampling to UHD, I'm asking them to take my 4k content. And my 4k content is in full 4k, aka 4096 x 2304, not UHD. I never mentioned UHD. :*

There is more than one flavor for 4K
Helloitsme talks about 4K TVs. Most of these TVs are 16:9 with 3840 x 2160 resolution
The other 4K standard is not really 4096 x 2304, but rather 4096 x 2160 with a 1.9:1 ratio.

A 4096 x 2304 clip will most probably be cropped to fit in a 4096 x 2160 format.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

So FT can claim they have (a flavor of) 4K.

spike · « **Reply #13 on:** June 23, 2015, 17:14 »

Quote from: Zero Talent on June 23, 2015, 16:52

There is more than one flavor for 4K
Helloitsme talks about 4K TVs. Most of these TVs are 16:9 with 3840 x 2160 resolution
The other 4K standard is not really 4096 x 2304, but rather 4096 x 2160 with a 1.9:1 ratio.

A 4096 x 2304 clip will most probably be cropped to fit in a 4096 x 2160 format.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution

So FT can claim they have (a flavor of) 4K.

There is, but nobody in the industry considers 3840x2160 to be 4k. At least I haven't heard anyone on a higer level calling it 4k.
In production, when you say 4k, 4096x2160 is the standard, with 4096*2304 also suitable (you just crop a little vertically).
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/174221-no-tv-makers-4k-and-uhd-are-not-the-same-thing

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Fotolia has been a disappointment since Adobe took over. (Read 36617 times)

helloitsme

ultimagina

spike

Hongover

helloitsme

ultimagina

helloitsme

ShadySue

Petr Toman

ultimagina

spike

Tryingmybest

Zero Talent

spike

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors