pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Quality standards and universal codec questions  (Read 2256 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: January 18, 2017, 04:30 »
0
I can't seem to find much info or the video quality guidelines on the agencies I submit photos to. I've found general guidelines but they don't talk much about this as they do about codecs and camera shake.
Are the quality standards the same for video as they are for photos (tack sharp, zero noise etc)?
Or if anyone can point me out to some guide about this on SS/FT/P5?

Also, what would be the codec that works best across agencies, considering a decent file size since I have a mediocre upload speed?


SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #1 on: January 18, 2017, 04:55 »
+2
Usually QuickTime .mov with a Photo-JPEG codec. Most places accept that, or a Prores file if you're using a Mac.

They're probably a bit more lenient when it comes to sharpness and noise than they are with images, but clips do still get rejected for that kind of thing.

« Reply #2 on: January 18, 2017, 06:43 »
0
Thank you.
So basically it's a bit grey area...

« Reply #3 on: January 18, 2017, 09:37 »
0
Thank you.
So basically it's a bit grey area...

Not really. Stick with the basics. MOV and 422 (MAC) or PJPEG or H264.  Keep it simple. H264 will give you a much smaller file size, but I believe quality is slightly compromised.  ISTOCK now requiring 422HQ, very inflexible.  It's a good idea to look at each site's requirements. I use 422 for MAC on all sites. I don't upload video to Istock anymore, nor do I bother with Envanto, DT, DP, Clip Dealer, Clipcancas, etc.  I only upload video to SS, VB, ME, P5.  All 422. You just need to be able to back these files up and they are big.  A 20 sec clip is about 1.2 to 1.5 GIGS (UHD) in 422 format.

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #4 on: January 18, 2017, 09:59 »
0
Most sites don't recommend H.264 unless it's the native output of your camera. Just so you know.

« Reply #5 on: January 18, 2017, 19:37 »
0
Thanks, I'll just probably stick with the .mov, never used 422 as I'm on PC (and Nikon) and those file sizes would be a serious deal breaker for me. Was just wondering about what is the universal one you guys usually use to speed the things up, will read some more too on each agency.

I was more eager to know about the quality standards, when I look at the videos on agencies the quality is quite diverse. It's important to me because at the moment I don't have any video lighting equipment and will have to use available light, so I wanted to know if I should bother at all. If it needed to be just perfect as with photos I'm not sure I could pull it off or at least I would be seriously restricted.   


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
4 Replies
3169 Views
Last post November 19, 2013, 09:20
by enstoker
2 Replies
1955 Views
Last post January 02, 2014, 00:14
by Uncle Pete
12 Replies
3954 Views
Last post January 06, 2014, 16:27
by Uncle Pete
8 Replies
2572 Views
Last post February 20, 2016, 05:19
by PatrickA1
19 Replies
4962 Views
Last post March 20, 2016, 14:16
by Rinderart

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results