MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Which is the best place to sell aerial video drone (4K Raw )  (Read 29098 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 08, 2016, 09:39 »
0
Hello everybody,

i'm french drone operator and videographer for 8 years,

i would to sell a lot off nices aerials videos drone shoot in 4k raw, i'm actually searching the best place to post and sell videos. Idealy website where i can find quality and good remunaration...
The principal theme is natural landscape and architectural french heritage.

There is also many 4k timelapses.

Can you help me?

Thanks


« Reply #1 on: February 08, 2016, 11:49 »
0
Younali,

I sent you a PM.

« Reply #2 on: February 08, 2016, 15:46 »
0
i would like to know too. Please

Harvepino

« Reply #3 on: February 10, 2016, 06:03 »
0
I started selling 4k drone footage few months ago, so I would like to know too. So far it looks like the good footage agencies work just as well for aerials... P5, SS, VB

« Reply #4 on: April 04, 2016, 17:56 »
+1
I started selling 4k drone footage few months ago, so I would like to know too. So far it looks like the good footage agencies work just as well for aerials... P5, SS, VB
Please have a look at my site. It's an upstart and growing. Ask questions here or contact me directly. Thanks,

Peter

http://www.overflightstock.com/contributors

« Reply #5 on: April 04, 2016, 20:03 »
+1
Peter -- I think the FAA might want a word with you!! LOL!

« Reply #6 on: April 04, 2016, 20:14 »
0
Peter -- I think the FAA might want a word with you!! LOL!
Not my shot but it was taken legit. There are flight paths that stack around busy areas. I thought it was pretty cool shot.

« Reply #7 on: April 04, 2016, 20:16 »
+1
Peter -- I think the FAA might want a word with you!! LOL!

That is actually disconcerting

« Reply #8 on: April 04, 2016, 20:21 »
0
Peter -- I think the FAA might want a word with you!! LOL!

That is actually disconcerting
Long lenses do cool things.

« Reply #9 on: April 06, 2016, 12:10 »
+1
Peter -- I think the FAA might want a word with you!! LOL!
Holmes, I realize now that some people are thinking this may have been taken with a UAV, in which case it would be serious violation of all the rules. No, it was shot from an aircraft under direct control, and in a position assigned, by ATC.

Cheers,

Peter

« Reply #10 on: April 07, 2016, 07:37 »
0
Peter -- I think the FAA might want a word with you!! LOL!

i doubt it was an airplane...those who fly airplane know paths...it was hundred per cent a drone...considering the height the plane was landing and i don't think airplane used for photos can fly like this near a commercial airline....if it's  drone i suggest u remove it u can get a big trouble...

« Reply #11 on: April 07, 2016, 07:39 »
0
I started selling 4k drone footage few months ago, so I would like to know too. So far it looks like the good footage agencies work just as well for aerials... P5, SS, VB

how is the revenue? i shoot mostly aerial photo in the las year...have a collection of 5000 photos no video...

« Reply #12 on: April 07, 2016, 08:24 »
0
Peter -- I think the FAA might want a word with you!! LOL!

Long lens or not, flying a drone anywhere near an airplane or anywhere near the controlled airspace, especially an airplane that looks like it is landing, is just wrong and is endangering the lives of others. For what...to get a cool shot and make a few $$? Seriously? The shot is taken straight down, so a camera would have had to have been mounted on the bottom of the aircraft taking the shot. Possibly.

Hopefully the image is just a good photoshop job.
« Last Edit: April 07, 2016, 08:27 by cathyslife »

« Reply #13 on: April 07, 2016, 09:51 »
+1
Peter -- I think the FAA might want a word with you!! LOL!

Long lens or not, flying a drone anywhere near an airplane or anywhere near the controlled airspace, especially an airplane that looks like it is landing, is just wrong and is endangering the lives of others. For what...to get a cool shot and make a few $$? Seriously? The shot is taken straight down, so a camera would have had to have been mounted on the bottom of the aircraft taking the shot. Possibly.

Hopefully the image is just a good photoshop job.
@jonbull and @cathyslife, I can only reiterate at this point. It was taken from a plane, a piloted aircraft, under the control of an ATC. Not a drone. I'm a pilot myself with a commercial license. Assuming I get the appropriate clearance, today, in about 3 hours I will fly over YVR and all its landing jets. Depending on the active runway this will place me in a couple of different spots but in all cases I will at right angles to the active runways and will be listening very carefully to what ATC tells me to do. Separations are well thought out, really well, and everyone does their part to make sure they are adhered to. It really is okay for that plane to be there. I wish I could take you both for a ride today. You'd have a very nice time, take some great pictures, and see how Air Traffic Control handles their work in congested flight areas. Not just from the back seat. I'll even let you fly if you want, just not over YVR.

PS. The EXIF data on that shot would indicate the need for a HUGE drone to carry that camera lens combo. :) I mean huge.

« Reply #14 on: April 07, 2016, 11:17 »
0
Peter -- I think the FAA might want a word with you!! LOL!

Long lens or not, flying a drone anywhere near an airplane or anywhere near the controlled airspace, especially an airplane that looks like it is landing, is just wrong and is endangering the lives of others. For what...to get a cool shot and make a few $$? Seriously? The shot is taken straight down, so a camera would have had to have been mounted on the bottom of the aircraft taking the shot. Possibly.

Hopefully the image is just a good photoshop job.
@jonbull and @cathyslife, I can only reiterate at this point. It was taken from a plane, a piloted aircraft, under the control of an ATC. Not a drone. I'm a pilot myself with a commercial license. Assuming I get the appropriate clearance, today, in about 3 hours I will fly over YVR and all its landing jets. Depending on the active runway this will place me in a couple of different spots but in all cases I will at right angles to the active runways and will be listening very carefully to what ATC tells me to do. Separations are well thought out, really well, and everyone does their part to make sure they are adhered to. It really is okay for that plane to be there. I wish I could take you both for a ride today. You'd have a very nice time, take some great pictures, and see how Air Traffic Control handles their work in congested flight areas. Not just from the back seat. I'll even let you fly if you want, just not over YVR.

PS. The EXIF data on that shot would indicate the need for a HUGE drone to carry that camera lens combo. :) I mean huge.

So do you fly the plane and take photos at the same time? I hope not.

Actually, I had a pilot's license in my younger days, and I still fly with my brother, who has been a pilot practically his whole life, and owns his own plane, so i can go flying any time I like. I understand how controlled airspace works. And I have a pretty good idea of how air traffic control works. All I am saying is that drones should be kept away from ANY airport or airplane. And if you are flying, your attention should only be on air traffic and flying the plane.

« Reply #15 on: April 07, 2016, 11:36 »
0
Peter -- I think the FAA might want a word with you!! LOL!

Long lens or not, flying a drone anywhere near an airplane or anywhere near the controlled airspace, especially an airplane that looks like it is landing, is just wrong and is endangering the lives of others. For what...to get a cool shot and make a few $$? Seriously? The shot is taken straight down, so a camera would have had to have been mounted on the bottom of the aircraft taking the shot. Possibly.

Hopefully the image is just a good photoshop job.
@jonbull and @cathyslife, I can only reiterate at this point. It was taken from a plane, a piloted aircraft, under the control of an ATC. Not a drone. I'm a pilot myself with a commercial license. Assuming I get the appropriate clearance, today, in about 3 hours I will fly over YVR and all its landing jets. Depending on the active runway this will place me in a couple of different spots but in all cases I will at right angles to the active runways and will be listening very carefully to what ATC tells me to do. Separations are well thought out, really well, and everyone does their part to make sure they are adhered to. It really is okay for that plane to be there. I wish I could take you both for a ride today. You'd have a very nice time, take some great pictures, and see how Air Traffic Control handles their work in congested flight areas. Not just from the back seat. I'll even let you fly if you want, just not over YVR.

PS. The EXIF data on that shot would indicate the need for a HUGE drone to carry that camera lens combo. :) I mean huge.

what combo is?
this phot can be taken by a drone or copter without window...it's pointing straight down....no way an ultralightyou can take this photos....copter flying like this near an airplane landing? no way...this is drone...a dii s1000 can take up to 5 kilos....so  any dslr can be easily fitted....the s1000 so will weight 10 kilo, if it fall down and hit the plane good luck.
in my opinion if far see this photo you can have trouble. you cannot believe me but i will never show a photo like this on a business website if i don't have all the document needed.

« Reply #16 on: April 07, 2016, 16:05 »
0
All I am saying is that drones should be kept away from ANY airport or airplane. And if you are flying, your attention should only be on air traffic and flying the plane.

I couldn't agree with you more. Nothing will ruin a great industry faster than flaunting important rules. But for some reason people think the shot in question was taken from a drone and it wasn't. There is an obviously big distinction. Blue skies and all that.

Peter

« Reply #17 on: April 19, 2016, 08:45 »
0
How much demand is there for aerial footage do people think?

When I seach London on Pond5 the bestsellers are timelapse then a ton of aerials from a helicopter!

« Reply #18 on: April 19, 2016, 08:57 »
+3
@Peter, I think it's amusing that all of these people are telling you that this was a drone shot. And none of them were there but you, and you can probably PROVE that it's a legit shot from an aircraft...and yet they still say "no way." That takes balls! :)

Good grief.

Peter -- I think the FAA might want a word with you!! LOL!

Long lens or not, flying a drone anywhere near an airplane or anywhere near the controlled airspace, especially an airplane that looks like it is landing, is just wrong and is endangering the lives of others. For what...to get a cool shot and make a few $$? Seriously? The shot is taken straight down, so a camera would have had to have been mounted on the bottom of the aircraft taking the shot. Possibly.

Hopefully the image is just a good photoshop job.
@jonbull and @cathyslife, I can only reiterate at this point. It was taken from a plane, a piloted aircraft, under the control of an ATC. Not a drone. I'm a pilot myself with a commercial license. Assuming I get the appropriate clearance, today, in about 3 hours I will fly over YVR and all its landing jets. Depending on the active runway this will place me in a couple of different spots but in all cases I will at right angles to the active runways and will be listening very carefully to what ATC tells me to do. Separations are well thought out, really well, and everyone does their part to make sure they are adhered to. It really is okay for that plane to be there. I wish I could take you both for a ride today. You'd have a very nice time, take some great pictures, and see how Air Traffic Control handles their work in congested flight areas. Not just from the back seat. I'll even let you fly if you want, just not over YVR.

PS. The EXIF data on that shot would indicate the need for a HUGE drone to carry that camera lens combo. :) I mean huge.

« Reply #19 on: April 19, 2016, 10:40 »
0
@Peter, I think it's amusing that all of these people are telling you that this was a drone shot. And none of them were there but you, and you can probably PROVE that it's a legit shot from an aircraft...and yet they still say "no way." That takes balls! :)

Good grief.

See post #6. He says it isn't his shot. But he says it is legit. Maybe he is getting his info from metadata, or knows who did shoot it? He doesn't say how he knows, so it is all speculation, on everyone's part. And my posts are only addressing the fact that it was shot, not how it was shot. All I am concerned about is safety for everyone in the airspace.

PS. I don't have balls.  ;)

« Reply #20 on: April 19, 2016, 23:32 »
+3
@Peter, I think it's amusing that all of these people are telling you that this was a drone shot. And none of them were there but you, and you can probably PROVE that it's a legit shot from an aircraft...and yet they still say "no way." That takes balls! :)

Good grief.

See post #6. He says it isn't his shot. But he says it is legit. Maybe he is getting his info from metadata, or knows who did shoot it? He doesn't say how he knows, so it is all speculation, on everyone's part. And my posts are only addressing the fact that it was shot, not how it was shot. All I am concerned about is safety for everyone in the airspace.

PS. I don't have balls.  ;)

The assertion that the shot in question must have been taken illegally, or at a minimum in a dangerous manner, is quite bothersome to me. Yeh it's fun to discuss it from an academic perspective, but the fact is, those making those assertions don't have the facts, and even when presented with details, seem to be incapable of accepting them.

Peter

« Reply #21 on: April 20, 2016, 01:33 »
+1
Don't worry about it, welcome to the internet!  ;)  People somehow expect the worst.

« Reply #22 on: April 20, 2016, 06:04 »
+1
@Peter, I think it's amusing that all of these people are telling you that this was a drone shot. And none of them were there but you, and you can probably PROVE that it's a legit shot from an aircraft...and yet they still say "no way." That takes balls! :)

Good grief.

See post #6. He says it isn't his shot. But he says it is legit. Maybe he is getting his info from metadata, or knows who did shoot it? He doesn't say how he knows, so it is all speculation, on everyone's part. And my posts are only addressing the fact that it was shot, not how it was shot. All I am concerned about is safety for everyone in the airspace.

PS. I don't have balls.  ;)

The assertion that the shot in question must have been taken illegally, or at a minimum in a dangerous manner, is quite bothersome to me. Yeh it's fun to discuss it from an academic perspective, but the fact is, those making those assertions don't have the facts, and even when presented with details, seem to be incapable of accepting them.

Peter

Airports route cross traffic directly overhead perpendicular to the runways.  This creates the maximum altitude differential between cross traffic and landing - taking off aircraft.  The perspective looks legally obtainable (from a piloted aircraft or helicopter) to me.   

« Reply #23 on: April 20, 2016, 07:32 »
+1
How much demand is there for aerial footage do people think?

When I seach London on Pond5 the bestsellers are timelapse then a ton of aerials from a helicopter!

Huge demand for GOOD aerials, mostly shot over big cities with a Red Epic or other REAL camera mounted on a helicopter. Every single TV show uses aerials from Los Angeles and New York.

Of course, there is serious cost involved in doing this, and most useful shots already exist.

I believe it's not easy getting those shots legally with drones.

« Reply #24 on: April 20, 2016, 07:42 »
+1
What would be the total cost of hiring a helicopter plus red camera kit?

The other thing is you would never make your money back on micro, where would you sell it?

I guess micro aerial work has a market but pay will be low.


 

Related Topics


Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results