MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Upload 4K and HD seperately? Your thaughts...  (Read 28225 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Benozaur

« on: December 03, 2015, 05:39 »
+1
4K is the future, no doubt about it, but today with HD sales far exceeding 4K sales its still too soon to go all out 4K.

Most agencies automatically downscale 4K clips to HD but are unnecessarily filtered out.
There has been an issue over at Shutterstock for a while on the availability of downscaled HD clips from their 4K sources. Here is a link to a thread on their forum started in September 2014.

http://forums.submit.shutterstock.com/topic/73241-search-bug-on-downscaled-hd-from-4k/

Promises were made but as of today, nothing has changed as far as my tests have indicated.

VB seems to have gotten it right and looks far more intuitive, Pond is a bit of a mess and I can't comment because I gave up on trying to figure out if this issue applies to them.

Possible solution:

Upload HD and 4K seperately?

Seems a bit radical so I'd like your opinions please...


Benozaur

« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2015, 05:49 »
0
The notion of uploading HD and 4K seperately seems silly:

1. Especially due to the fact that agencies downscale automatically.
2. They seem to advise against it (Dissolve, Pond, SS, VB, Fotolia).
3. Multiple copies will hurt search rankings.
4. Additional disk space cost, more time and effort spent, etc...

However If I am loosing downscaled HD sales from my 4K uploads...

I guess the extremity of the solution matches the stupidity of the problem.

« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2015, 08:16 »
0
I don't downsize. All the sites I submit to convert. 

« Reply #3 on: December 03, 2015, 13:11 »
0
The only possible advantage would be if the site does preferential searches or if the buyer is a bit confused when a 4k clip is presented when he's looking for HD or something else like this.

op

« Reply #4 on: December 03, 2015, 13:16 »
0
On GI, HD and 4K are on the same price and to be honest I like it that way, so I'm sure clients get the optimal quality.

« Reply #5 on: December 03, 2015, 17:03 »
+6
On GI, HD and 4K are on the same price and to be honest I like it that way, so I'm sure clients get the optimal quality.
But what about the creator getting the optimal price?

« Reply #6 on: December 03, 2015, 17:30 »
+2
On GI, HD and 4K are on the same price and to be honest I like it that way, so I'm sure clients get the optimal quality.
I'm not sure if I should take your comment seriously.

Just because a camera these days may be 4K capable, doesn't mean that it provides "optimal quality" for a buyer who indeed needs 4K footage.

HD cameras have greatly improved in the last couple of years so, yes, they are quite cheap and produce decent quality.

Have you been shooting RAW HD or 4K? Once I saw the difference between RAW recorded footage and compressed footage which 99.9% of the prosumer (DSLR etc.) cameras produce - there are still worlds of difference in terms of color and clarity.

The substantial costs for high end 4K gear cannot be reflected by the insulting footage prices of iStock, not to mention the fact that they price 4K and HD the same.

So I cannot agree that HD and 4K should be offered at the same price as production costs vary heavily.

« Reply #7 on: December 03, 2015, 17:49 »
0
I upload both 4k H.264 and HD PhotoJPEG.
Customers regularly download the original HD PhotoJPEG, instead of the downsized 4k->HD H.264 version.

« Reply #8 on: December 03, 2015, 17:55 »
0
I upload both 4k H.264 and HD PhotoJPEG.
Customers regularly download the original HD PhotoJPEG, instead of the downsized 4k->HD H.264 version.
So the question is do they prefer the Photojpeg or are the searches biased to the HD? It would be nice to know the answer.

Benozaur

« Reply #9 on: December 03, 2015, 19:42 »
+3
I upload both 4k H.264 and HD PhotoJPEG.
Customers regularly download the original HD PhotoJPEG, instead of the downsized 4k->HD H.264 version.
So the question is do they prefer the Photojpeg or are the searches biased to the HD? It would be nice to know the answer.

Codec preference is another issue altogether. So assuming all other things equal, the 4K / HD issue is still a bit of a pain in the neck.
On the left hand side of Shutterstock's video search results clearly have a resolution "filter". By clicking on HD, it automatically ignores all 4K clips despite the fact that there are downscaled HD versions available. The "filter" applies to the original resolution that the content was uploaded as. So all our 4K footage gets omitted from searches with the HD filter on. This is counter-intuitive as HD versions of original 4K content does exist for sale, the client just doesn't see it.

op

« Reply #10 on: December 04, 2015, 03:37 »
0
On GI, HD and 4K are on the same price and to be honest I like it that way, so I'm sure clients get the optimal quality.
I'm not sure if I should take your comment seriously.

Just because a camera these days may be 4K capable, doesn't mean that it provides "optimal quality" for a buyer who indeed needs 4K footage.

HD cameras have greatly improved in the last couple of years so, yes, they are quite cheap and produce decent quality.

Have you been shooting RAW HD or 4K? Once I saw the difference between RAW recorded footage and compressed footage which 99.9% of the prosumer (DSLR etc.) cameras produce - there are still worlds of difference in terms of color and clarity.

The substantial costs for high end 4K gear cannot be reflected by the insulting footage prices of iStock, not to mention the fact that they price 4K and HD the same.

So I cannot agree that HD and 4K should be offered at the same price as production costs vary heavily.

95% of my work is time lapse shot in RAW 6K 14bits. HD was already $xxxx on GI, how much more do you want them to sell 4K then?.. I agree with that and when a client is willing to pay that price I'd rather see him/her get 4K instead of HD.

op

« Reply #11 on: December 04, 2015, 03:46 »
0
I upload both 4k H.264 and HD PhotoJPEG.
Customers regularly download the original HD PhotoJPEG, instead of the downsized 4k->HD H.264 version.
So the question is do they prefer the Photojpeg or are the searches biased to the HD? It would be nice to know the answer.

Codec preference is another issue altogether. So assuming all other things equal, the 4K / HD issue is still a bit of a pain in the neck.
On the left hand side of Shutterstock's video search results clearly have a resolution "filter". By clicking on HD, it automatically ignores all 4K clips despite the fact that there are downscaled HD versions available. The "filter" applies to the original resolution that the content was uploaded as. So all our 4K footage gets omitted from searches with the HD filter on. This is counter-intuitive as HD versions of original 4K content does exist for sale, the client just doesn't see it.

But do clients really filter out 4K files when they search for something? I bought footages there recently and my only concern was to find content I was looking for and avoid SD but I haven't seen any so far. 

Benozaur

« Reply #12 on: December 04, 2015, 07:56 »
0
I upload both 4k H.264 and HD PhotoJPEG.
Customers regularly download the original HD PhotoJPEG, instead of the downsized 4k->HD H.264 version.
So the question is do they prefer the Photojpeg or are the searches biased to the HD? It would be nice to know the answer.

Codec preference is another issue altogether. So assuming all other things equal, the 4K / HD issue is still a bit of a pain in the neck.
On the left hand side of Shutterstock's video search results clearly have a resolution "filter". By clicking on HD, it automatically ignores all 4K clips despite the fact that there are downscaled HD versions available. The "filter" applies to the original resolution that the content was uploaded as. So all our 4K footage gets omitted from searches with the HD filter on. This is counter-intuitive as HD versions of original 4K content does exist for sale, the client just doesn't see it.

But do clients really filter out 4K files when they search for something? I bought footages there recently and my only concern was to find content I was looking for and avoid SD but I haven't seen any so far.

Good point   ;)  I also filter out SD when searching for something in HD. The problem is that footage originally uploaded at 4K is also filtered out...
Test it for yourself and see.

« Reply #13 on: December 04, 2015, 08:57 »
0
I upload both 4k H.264 and HD PhotoJPEG.
Customers regularly download the original HD PhotoJPEG, instead of the downsized 4k->HD H.264 version.
So the question is do they prefer the Photojpeg or are the searches biased to the HD? It would be nice to know the answer.

Codec preference is another issue altogether. So assuming all other things equal, the 4K / HD issue is still a bit of a pain in the neck.
On the left hand side of Shutterstock's video search results clearly have a resolution "filter". By clicking on HD, it automatically ignores all 4K clips despite the fact that there are downscaled HD versions available. The "filter" applies to the original resolution that the content was uploaded as. So all our 4K footage gets omitted from searches with the HD filter on. This is counter-intuitive as HD versions of original 4K content does exist for sale, the client just doesn't see it.

But do clients really filter out 4K files when they search for something? I bought footages there recently and my only concern was to find content I was looking for and avoid SD but I haven't seen any so far.

Good point   ;)  I also filter out SD when searching for something in HD. The problem is that footage originally uploaded at 4K is also filtered out...
Test it for yourself and see.

That would explain a LOT. The only content of mine that sells is my older HD. When I started shooting 4K a year ago, I believe that NONE of it has sold. This just sucks, period.

« Reply #14 on: December 04, 2015, 10:21 »
0
On GI, HD and 4K are on the same price and to be honest I like it that way, so I'm sure clients get the optimal quality.
I'm not sure if I should take your comment seriously.

Just because a camera these days may be 4K capable, doesn't mean that it provides "optimal quality" for a buyer who indeed needs 4K footage.

HD cameras have greatly improved in the last couple of years so, yes, they are quite cheap and produce decent quality.

Have you been shooting RAW HD or 4K? Once I saw the difference between RAW recorded footage and compressed footage which 99.9% of the prosumer (DSLR etc.) cameras produce - there are still worlds of difference in terms of color and clarity.

The substantial costs for high end 4K gear cannot be reflected by the insulting footage prices of iStock, not to mention the fact that they price 4K and HD the same.

So I cannot agree that HD and 4K should be offered at the same price as production costs vary heavily.

95% of my work is time lapse shot in RAW 6K 14bits. HD was already $xxxx on GI, how much more do you want them to sell 4K then?.. I agree with that and when a client is willing to pay that price I'd rather see him/her get 4K instead of HD.
Pardon me for not being clear enough: This is not aimed at you but 4K timelapse clips can be shot in RAW at a decent quality starting at $400 or less.

Obviously I didn't include such an example as "high end gear".

I was trying to refer to genuine 4K real time footage shot for example on a RED system. Needless to say that you can easily add two more 0s to that price.

I'm not familiar with the GI footage pricing structure - only with iStock's where I enjoyed selling footage until they changed it to commissions below the double digits.

Adding insult to injury and selling 4K (NOT time lapse) at the same price is delusional. Sure, the buyers will be happy in terms of the money they can save but the question is how many contributors can sustain a business model while delivering top notch content for $8 royalties per sale?

I'm not even selling my HD stuff that low.

op

« Reply #15 on: December 04, 2015, 14:18 »
0
On GI, HD and 4K are on the same price and to be honest I like it that way, so I'm sure clients get the optimal quality.
I'm not sure if I should take your comment seriously.

Just because a camera these days may be 4K capable, doesn't mean that it provides "optimal quality" for a buyer who indeed needs 4K footage.

HD cameras have greatly improved in the last couple of years so, yes, they are quite cheap and produce decent quality.

Have you been shooting RAW HD or 4K? Once I saw the difference between RAW recorded footage and compressed footage which 99.9% of the prosumer (DSLR etc.) cameras produce - there are still worlds of difference in terms of color and clarity.

The substantial costs for high end 4K gear cannot be reflected by the insulting footage prices of iStock, not to mention the fact that they price 4K and HD the same.

So I cannot agree that HD and 4K should be offered at the same price as production costs vary heavily.

95% of my work is time lapse shot in RAW 6K 14bits. HD was already $xxxx on GI, how much more do you want them to sell 4K then?.. I agree with that and when a client is willing to pay that price I'd rather see him/her get 4K instead of HD.
Pardon me for not being clear enough: This is not aimed at you but 4K timelapse clips can be shot in RAW at a decent quality starting at $400 or less.

Obviously I didn't include such an example as "high end gear".

I was trying to refer to genuine 4K real time footage shot for example on a RED system. Needless to say that you can easily add two more 0s to that price.

I'm not familiar with the GI footage pricing structure - only with iStock's where I enjoyed selling footage until they changed it to commissions below the double digits.

Adding insult to injury and selling 4K (NOT time lapse) at the same price is delusional. Sure, the buyers will be happy in terms of the money they can save but the question is how many contributors can sustain a business model while delivering top notch content for $8 royalties per sale?

I'm not even selling my HD stuff that low.

Yes I totally agree with you. Base HD clips on iStock, SS or whatever are too cheap. I think if HD would be at the same price as 4K (for example SS market price) so $199, nobody would complain about 4K being at same price as HD.

op

« Reply #16 on: December 04, 2015, 14:27 »
0
I upload both 4k H.264 and HD PhotoJPEG.
Customers regularly download the original HD PhotoJPEG, instead of the downsized 4k->HD H.264 version.
So the question is do they prefer the Photojpeg or are the searches biased to the HD? It would be nice to know the answer.

Codec preference is another issue altogether. So assuming all other things equal, the 4K / HD issue is still a bit of a pain in the neck.
On the left hand side of Shutterstock's video search results clearly have a resolution "filter". By clicking on HD, it automatically ignores all 4K clips despite the fact that there are downscaled HD versions available. The "filter" applies to the original resolution that the content was uploaded as. So all our 4K footage gets omitted from searches with the HD filter on. This is counter-intuitive as HD versions of original 4K content does exist for sale, the client just doesn't see it.

But do clients really filter out 4K files when they search for something? I bought footages there recently and my only concern was to find content I was looking for and avoid SD but I haven't seen any so far.

Good point   ;)  I also filter out SD when searching for something in HD. The problem is that footage originally uploaded at 4K is also filtered out...
Test it for yourself and see.

Oh, that's not what I meant. I didn't bother to do an advanced search, I just went on SS homepage, selected Footage and typed what I was looking for. Then, results came out and you can clearly see a caption with "SD", "HD" or "4K" at the bottom of each video and I just ignored SD when i started to check previews. And I guess, that's what people usually do... But I can be wrong.

So in final, my client bought two footages, one HD and one 4K but we bought the HD resized version.

Benozaur

« Reply #17 on: December 09, 2015, 05:50 »
0
OK, so nobody has offered any sort of answer on whether to upload only 4K or both 4K and HD versions.
I assume that it is not that big of an issue anyway - perhaps I'm overanalysing the "problem"...

« Reply #18 on: December 09, 2015, 08:36 »
0
OK, so nobody has offered any sort of answer on whether to upload only 4K or both 4K and HD versions.
I assume that it is not that big of an issue anyway - perhaps I'm overanalysing the "problem"...

I have contacted Shutterstock to ask them specifically about their filter that weeds out 4k, when in fact 4k is available in HD as well. I may end up uploading both version there if they don't fix this. That will be a lot of extra work. A simple fix could give buyers FAR more options to choose from.

Benozaur

« Reply #19 on: December 09, 2015, 11:06 »
0
OK, so nobody has offered any sort of answer on whether to upload only 4K or both 4K and HD versions.
I assume that it is not that big of an issue anyway - perhaps I'm overanalysing the "problem"...

I have contacted Shutterstock to ask them specifically about their filter that weeds out 4k, when in fact 4k is available in HD as well. I may end up uploading both version there if they don't fix this. That will be a lot of extra work. A simple fix could give buyers FAR more options to choose from.

Hey Mantis, I sent you a PM...

« Reply #20 on: December 09, 2015, 22:13 »
+1
On GI, HD and 4K are on the same price and to be honest I like it that way, so I'm sure clients get the optimal quality.
I'm not sure if I should take your comment seriously.

Just because a camera these days may be 4K capable, doesn't mean that it provides "optimal quality" for a buyer who indeed needs 4K footage.

HD cameras have greatly improved in the last couple of years so, yes, they are quite cheap and produce decent quality.

Have you been shooting RAW HD or 4K? Once I saw the difference between RAW recorded footage and compressed footage which 99.9% of the prosumer (DSLR etc.) cameras produce - there are still worlds of difference in terms of color and clarity.

The substantial costs for high end 4K gear cannot be reflected by the insulting footage prices of iStock, not to mention the fact that they price 4K and HD the same.

So I cannot agree that HD and 4K should be offered at the same price as production costs vary heavily.

95% of my work is time lapse shot in RAW 6K 14bits. HD was already $xxxx on GI, how much more do you want them to sell 4K then?.. I agree with that and when a client is willing to pay that price I'd rather see him/her get 4K instead of HD.
Pardon me for not being clear enough: This is not aimed at you but 4K timelapse clips can be shot in RAW at a decent quality starting at $400 or less.

Obviously I didn't include such an example as "high end gear".

I was trying to refer to genuine 4K real time footage shot for example on a RED system. Needless to say that you can easily add two more 0s to that price.

I'm not familiar with the GI footage pricing structure - only with iStock's where I enjoyed selling footage until they changed it to commissions below the double digits.

Adding insult to injury and selling 4K (NOT time lapse) at the same price is delusional. Sure, the buyers will be happy in terms of the money they can save but the question is how many contributors can sustain a business model while delivering top notch content for $8 royalties per sale?

I'm not even selling my HD stuff that low.

I think the problem is more iStock's non-exclusive commission structure. For footage producers you really need to be either exclusive with IS or not upload. Most are now going with the latter option.

While 4K production costs may have varied a lot even 12mths ago, there's plenty of equipment now available at a sub $1K price point that will do the job. As with any footage, the costs for production are about far more than the gear you shoot it with.

The thing that differentiates 4K for me is that its a more useful file for the end user. For example you can take a static clip and apply motion effects or crop in to give the impression of a second camera used and still deliver a HD product. Its the usefulness that should justify a higher price point.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #21 on: December 11, 2015, 04:46 »
+2
I think I might upload a separate HD version of my 4K videos if Shutterstock doesn't fix their search problem (doesn't seem like they will though, they just don't care). For all other agencies, I only upload 4K since their search lists both versions as it should.

« Reply #22 on: December 11, 2015, 09:03 »
+1
I finally received a response from Shutterstock regarding the video filters. At least they were honest.

Paraphrase: it's by design and not going away.

So, even though 4K is ALSO AVAILABLE IN HD, 4K content and its HD purchasing option go away if a buyer clicks the HD filter. This means that your 4K content, which is also available in HD by default, is not available when the HD filter is clicked. 

So for those of us who believe that we are losing sales via filters we must upload two versions if we want to have the strategic advantage of selling our work in both formats.

For me, I am going to reprocess my 4k clips into HD and upload them. I suppose it will be 3-6 months before I know if it makes any difference.

Noedelhap

  • www.colincramm.com

« Reply #23 on: December 11, 2015, 10:50 »
+2
I finally received a response from Shutterstock regarding the video filters. At least they were honest.

Paraphrase: it's by design and not going away.

So, even though 4K is ALSO AVAILABLE IN HD, 4K content and its HD purchasing option go away if a buyer clicks the HD filter. This means that your 4K content, which is also available in HD by default, is not available when the HD filter is clicked. 

So for those of us who believe that we are losing sales via filters we must upload two versions if we want to have the strategic advantage of selling our work in both formats.

For me, I am going to reprocess my 4k clips into HD and upload them. I suppose it will be 3-6 months before I know if it makes any difference.


What an absolutely ridiculous decision by SS. It's not design, it's called a design FLAW.

Benozaur

« Reply #24 on: December 11, 2015, 11:56 »
+1
I finally received a response from Shutterstock regarding the video filters. At least they were honest.

Paraphrase: it's by design and not going away.

So, even though 4K is ALSO AVAILABLE IN HD, 4K content and its HD purchasing option go away if a buyer clicks the HD filter. This means that your 4K content, which is also available in HD by default, is not available when the HD filter is clicked. 

So for those of us who believe that we are losing sales via filters we must upload two versions if we want to have the strategic advantage of selling our work in both formats.

For me, I am going to reprocess my 4k clips into HD and upload them. I suppose it will be 3-6 months before I know if it makes any difference.

I suggest that you upload them in seperate batches, they don't like parallel uploads of the same content at different resolutions at the same time...


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
1 Replies
2600 Views
Last post May 20, 2008, 01:30
by khwi
6 Replies
7749 Views
Last post March 08, 2011, 11:50
by Niakris
5 Replies
3325 Views
Last post March 21, 2011, 21:46
by lola
1 Replies
3094 Views
Last post September 06, 2011, 14:51
by CD123
0 Replies
2246 Views
Last post March 14, 2015, 16:30
by Cesar

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results