MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: 4K video upload now available in Istock  (Read 60829 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: July 09, 2015, 16:59 »
0
Video Contributor Announcement - ESP now accepting 4K content!

The next step towards full 4K implementation is here! The iStock ESP (enterprise submission platform) is now accepting 4K content. Here are the details:
This stage is for mirroring of 4K content to Getty Images only. This means we will accept 4K content, but not sell it via iStock.com until later this summer when that product is released. All 4K will be mirrored for sale at gettyimages.com until that time. You will NOT have to resubmit the 4K file when the product option becomes active on iStock.com. The 4K file will be stored on iStock.com and activated at that time.

Similarly, 1920x1080 HD file will be created from the original 4K file and will be available for sale via your iStock account. Similarly a 1920x1080 HD file will be generated from the 4K file on gettyimages.com.

4K will be accepted with the same frame rates as regular HD content.

3840x2160, the preferred frame size, will be accepted with the Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) and Apple ProRes 4444 codec only.

4096x2160 will be accepted with Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) codec only.

IMPORTANT: During this initial phase of 4K ingestion into the iStock ESP portal we will be maintaining a 2.0 GB limit on 4K files. This is a temporary file size limit only. At a later date we will be announcing an increase in file size.

We have two discussion threads on this topic started. One is present on the soon-to-be closed iStock site forums, the other is visible on the new Contributor Community Site. Either thread will work for you in the event you have any questions, concerns, or trouble uploading your 4k submissions.

We hope you are as excited as we are!


« Reply #1 on: July 09, 2015, 17:03 »
+1
How much will we earn?

I havent really uploaded to istock anymore, 7 dollars for hd is very little.

« Reply #2 on: July 09, 2015, 17:15 »
+1
How much will we earn?

I havent really uploaded to istock anymore, 7 dollars for hd is very little.
That I haven't seen. It will be announced later this summer, but I'd guess that it is 4X than HD, or around $30 per full 4k dl.

« Reply #3 on: July 09, 2015, 18:18 »
+5
I'm not gonna bother if the 4K prices royalties are going to be in the $30-ish range (and HD remains in the $7-10 dollar range, or whatever sad price royalties they're paying now)
« Last Edit: July 09, 2015, 19:16 by Noedelhap »

« Reply #4 on: July 09, 2015, 18:45 »
+1
I'm not gonna bother if the 4K prices are going to be in the $30-ish range (and HD remains in the $7-10 dollar range, or whatever sad price they have now)
HD prices are in the 50-60 dollar range.  Compared to SS which is in the 68-79 dollar range (lower resolutions offered for down to $14).  Both of those are for nonexclusive video, exclusive video at iStock is in the 150-170 dollar range.  Getty video is in the 175-575 dollar range, 4k and HD is $575.
« Last Edit: July 09, 2015, 18:54 by tickstock »

« Reply #5 on: July 09, 2015, 19:15 »
+9
I'm not gonna bother if the 4K prices are going to be in the $30-ish range (and HD remains in the $7-10 dollar range, or whatever sad price they have now)
HD prices are in the 50-60 dollar range.  Compared to SS which is in the 68-79 dollar range (lower resolutions offered for down to $14).  Both of those are for nonexclusive video, exclusive video at iStock is in the 150-170 dollar range.  Getty video is in the 175-575 dollar range, 4k and HD is $575.

I meant our royalties, which is roughly 7$-$10 for an HD sale (non-exclusive).
At SS the royalty is roughly $23 for an HD sale or $60 for a 4K sale (used to be roughly $90).

In other words, unless a 4K sale will net me at least $50-$60 at iStock, I'm not going to bother.


« Reply #6 on: July 10, 2015, 11:43 »
0
Another weird thing I noticed: their video platform is apparently incapable of handling MOV PhotoJPEG or MP4 H.264:

Quote
3840x2160, the preferred frame size, will be accepted with the Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) and Apple ProRes 4444 codec only.
4096x2160 will be accepted with Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) codec only.

Name one other agency that limits uploaded 4K files to only 1 specific codec.

« Reply #7 on: July 10, 2015, 12:14 »
+1
Another weird thing I noticed: their video platform is apparently incapable of handling MOV PhotoJPEG or MP4 H.264:

Quote
3840x2160, the preferred frame size, will be accepted with the Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) and Apple ProRes 4444 codec only.
4096x2160 will be accepted with Apple ProRes 422 (HQ) codec only.

Name one other agency that limits uploaded 4K files to only 1 specific codec.

iStock limits HD footage to only one codec (photoJPEG), so limiting 4k to one codec is not much of a surprise.

« Reply #8 on: July 10, 2015, 12:27 »
+7
Just got word on the forum that 4k is not at a different price point then HD! It is the same as now. They said they would not get into a price war but they just did for video! They are undercutting SS and most other places now!

« Reply #9 on: July 10, 2015, 13:10 »
+7
Just got word on the forum that 4k is not at a different price point then HD! It is the same as now. They said they would not get into a price war but they just did for video! They are undercutting SS and most other places now!

All the more reason not to upload video to iStock. Especially for non-exclusives.

Getty video is in the 175-575 dollar range, 4k and HD is $575.

That may be the list price on the website but more often than not the actual sale price is MUCH lower!

ShadySue

  • There is a crack in everything
« Reply #10 on: July 10, 2015, 13:43 »
+3
Getty video is in the 175-575 dollar range, 4k and HD is $575.
That may be the list price on the website but more often than not the actual sale price is MUCH lower!
Same as stills there, way below list price a lot of the time.  :(

« Reply #11 on: July 10, 2015, 15:45 »
+7
Just got word on the forum that 4k is not at a different price point then HD! It is the same as now. They said they would not get into a price war but they just did for video! They are undercutting SS and most other places now!

I expected a low price, but certainly not this! They never cease to amaze me. That means $7-$10 for a 4K footage sale, unbelievable.

I wouldn't worry about them undercutting other sites, though. They're no threat anymore. Their regular buyers and traffic are long gone.


« Reply #12 on: July 10, 2015, 16:13 »
+15
Typical istock, when you think they have run out of stupid things to do, they find something else.  I'm pleased really, it would be too much of a shock to the system if they offered a reasonable commission for 4k.  At least I wont feel like I am missing something by not uploading there.

« Reply #13 on: July 11, 2015, 13:07 »
+5
Just got word on the forum that 4k is not at a different price point then HD! It is the same as now. They said they would not get into a price war but they just did for video! They are undercutting SS and most other places now!
It would behoove all video producers to not upload to this site.

« Reply #14 on: July 11, 2015, 16:21 »
+12
Stop wasting time uploading your precious video files to iStock!!!  They sell you cheap and don't sell much either!!

« Reply #15 on: July 12, 2015, 07:47 »
+5
So i will get 7 dollars for 4k? Um, no, not attractive.

« Reply #16 on: July 12, 2015, 09:01 »
+6
I really don't understand the logic behind not offering higher pricing for 4K.  It's in their OWN BEST INTEREST to sell 4K at a higher price. Why?

1. People will simply NOT UPLOAD ANY CONTENT (no content means $0 in sales)

2. They claim they don't want to get into a price war. Fine. "IF" they do happen to get a decent collection they will be the company who destroys video altogether, forcing the DISSOLVES of the world to match 4K at $69, or whatever.

3. Will exclusive 4K be higher priced than exclusive HD? If so, there is one answer....a push to offer incentives to become exclusive.  If not then this is another way to erode the value of exclusivity, at least on the video side. 

Really, who will invest in 4K equipment, storage, processing power, etc. in pursuit of HD pricing for their 4K work? NOBODY in their right mind should, even Istock exclusives like JJNEFF. This is a slap in the face for exclusive video contributors if in fact their pricing will also only be at HD rates. How would one possibly grow their business under these conditions? That's not a partnership by any means.
« Last Edit: July 12, 2015, 09:04 by Mantis »

« Reply #17 on: July 12, 2015, 09:59 »
+7
I stopped uploading video to istock when the HD price was cut.  The 4K pricing reinforces that decision. 

« Reply #18 on: July 12, 2015, 14:29 »
+6
This is a pure power play at the expense of the video artist! There is no reason they can not offer 4k at $199.00 for exclusive and non-exclusive! I just started with the ability to do 4k with my drone. Now the other side is Getty, will this make up the lost income from iStock? Because I do this to eat I have to proceed with caution it may work for them it may not. I hate all of this, why can't companies just do the right thing for all involved! It's not that hard!!!

« Reply #19 on: July 12, 2015, 15:27 »
+1
If its true that 4k buyers are put off by low prices because they associate it with low quality, istock wont be selling many anyway.

« Reply #20 on: July 12, 2015, 17:52 »
0
It is true but I don't think buyers will be put off from Getty, that is the wild card here for earnings for me.

« Reply #21 on: July 13, 2015, 07:28 »
0
I really don't understand the logic behind not offering higher pricing for 4K.  It's in their OWN BEST INTEREST to sell 4K at a higher price. Why?

1. People will simply NOT UPLOAD ANY CONTENT (no content means $0 in sales)

2. They claim they don't want to get into a price war. Fine. "IF" they do happen to get a decent collection they will be the company who destroys video altogether, forcing the DISSOLVES of the world to match 4K at $69, or whatever.

3. Will exclusive 4K be higher priced than exclusive HD? If so, there is one answer....a push to offer incentives to become exclusive.  If not then this is another way to erode the value of exclusivity, at least on the video side. 

Really, who will invest in 4K equipment, storage, processing power, etc. in pursuit of HD pricing for their 4K work? NOBODY in their right mind should, even Istock exclusives like JJNEFF. This is a slap in the face for exclusive video contributors if in fact their pricing will also only be at HD rates. How would one possibly grow their business under these conditions? That's not a partnership by any means.
Aren't you already selling your 4k work for $75? 
« Last Edit: July 13, 2015, 07:31 by tickstock »

« Reply #22 on: July 13, 2015, 08:18 »
+3
I really don't understand the logic behind not offering higher pricing for 4K.  It's in their OWN BEST INTEREST to sell 4K at a higher price. Why?

1. People will simply NOT UPLOAD ANY CONTENT (no content means $0 in sales)

2. They claim they don't want to get into a price war. Fine. "IF" they do happen to get a decent collection they will be the company who destroys video altogether, forcing the DISSOLVES of the world to match 4K at $69, or whatever.

3. Will exclusive 4K be higher priced than exclusive HD? If so, there is one answer....a push to offer incentives to become exclusive.  If not then this is another way to erode the value of exclusivity, at least on the video side. 

Really, who will invest in 4K equipment, storage, processing power, etc. in pursuit of HD pricing for their 4K work? NOBODY in their right mind should, even Istock exclusives like JJNEFF. This is a slap in the face for exclusive video contributors if in fact their pricing will also only be at HD rates. How would one possibly grow their business under these conditions? That's not a partnership by any means.
Aren't you already selling your 4k work for $75?

Even if I were, getting $6-$8 commissions for that is silly.

« Reply #23 on: July 13, 2015, 08:20 »
0
I really don't understand the logic behind not offering higher pricing for 4K.  It's in their OWN BEST INTEREST to sell 4K at a higher price. Why?

1. People will simply NOT UPLOAD ANY CONTENT (no content means $0 in sales)

2. They claim they don't want to get into a price war. Fine. "IF" they do happen to get a decent collection they will be the company who destroys video altogether, forcing the DISSOLVES of the world to match 4K at $69, or whatever.

3. Will exclusive 4K be higher priced than exclusive HD? If so, there is one answer....a push to offer incentives to become exclusive.  If not then this is another way to erode the value of exclusivity, at least on the video side. 

Really, who will invest in 4K equipment, storage, processing power, etc. in pursuit of HD pricing for their 4K work? NOBODY in their right mind should, even Istock exclusives like JJNEFF. This is a slap in the face for exclusive video contributors if in fact their pricing will also only be at HD rates. How would one possibly grow their business under these conditions? That's not a partnership by any means.
Aren't you already selling your 4k work for $75?

Nope
Someone is using your name and face to sell it for $75, https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/49866308/dungeness-crabs-tank-water.html

« Reply #24 on: July 13, 2015, 08:31 »
+3
I really don't understand the logic behind not offering higher pricing for 4K.  It's in their OWN BEST INTEREST to sell 4K at a higher price. Why?

1. People will simply NOT UPLOAD ANY CONTENT (no content means $0 in sales)

2. They claim they don't want to get into a price war. Fine. "IF" they do happen to get a decent collection they will be the company who destroys video altogether, forcing the DISSOLVES of the world to match 4K at $69, or whatever.

3. Will exclusive 4K be higher priced than exclusive HD? If so, there is one answer....a push to offer incentives to become exclusive.  If not then this is another way to erode the value of exclusivity, at least on the video side. 

Really, who will invest in 4K equipment, storage, processing power, etc. in pursuit of HD pricing for their 4K work? NOBODY in their right mind should, even Istock exclusives like JJNEFF. This is a slap in the face for exclusive video contributors if in fact their pricing will also only be at HD rates. How would one possibly grow their business under these conditions? That's not a partnership by any means.
Aren't you already selling your 4k work for $75?

Nope
Someone is using your name and face to sell it for $75, https://www.pond5.com/stock-footage/49866308/dungeness-crabs-tank-water.html


Ha, you beat me to it. When I started uploading my 4K to P5 I priced at that range based on what other clips were selling....see edited post above.  So, yes. I recall having a pricing conundrum for "saturated" 4K clips, which is what these are and priced them accordingly. But I get 50% not $6-$8. As my work gets more unique (say, underwater 4K) it will be priced much, much higher as will some of my new footage.  When you upload to sites like P5 I believe that it is smart to see what the sales history iOS for similar clips and that is the strategy I used.  But I get 50% of that $75 not $6-$8 like I would at Istock.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
2 Replies
7847 Views
Last post March 30, 2010, 17:11
by MicrostockExp
21 Replies
19716 Views
Last post February 17, 2011, 14:54
by jbarber873
6 Replies
14359 Views
Last post March 08, 2011, 11:50
by Niakris
0 Replies
2187 Views
Last post March 10, 2014, 17:50
by Mantis
2 Replies
2697 Views
Last post January 20, 2015, 18:30
by Stephan

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors