Can't export ProRes 422 HQ since I'm not on a mac.

I'll try with Davinci resolve.

Doesn't HAVE to be ProRes of course, I'm sure other high-quality formats will work just fine.

I've just tried that workflow, but noticed that scrubbing through the timeline and other adjustment take waaaay longer compared to a tiff or jpg export. So I'm not really sure if it's faster. Just previewing a 5 second clip takes more than 5 minutes* to render all the frames (at "quarter" quality).

*Edit: actually 17 minutes

Yes, it takes about as long as it takes to export the tiffs, quite naturally.

Like I mentioned before, the point is to export directly to a .mov file (for example ProRes 422 (HQ), thereby skipping the image sequence export.

Then you work with the ProRes movie file. You will go crazy if you try stabilizing, grading, cutting etc. directly on the RAW images.

Interlaced is extremely outdated. There is no need for it.

If you don't want to purchase other software I'm sure there are many free options:

http://www.techradar.com/news/software/applications/the-best-free-video-editor-1330136

After all, 1080p is the biggest standard.

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on February 15, 2017, 16:40

Oh yes. On some hyperlapses I can spend two full days. It's extremely time consuming (especially if you were a bit lazy when taking the pictures)...

But here's a tip: Skip the tiff images step and work with RAW in After Effects. Saves time and space.

Can I "develop" them in AE like in LR by using camera raw or something similar? I edit most of them heavily, so I'm wondering if I can get those adjustments in AE as well.

Yes, Camera Raw runs in AE.

I edit in Lightroom, save the metadata (Save Metadata to file) and then open the RAW images as an image sequence in AE. They will develop with the Lightroom settings as long as the XMP files are in the same folder as the RAW images.

I usually choose flat settings in Lightroom though and export a ProRes HQ 10-bit mov from that which is much faster to work with when stabilizing etc. Unless I need to do something extreme, I grade in AE on the movie file instead of in Lightroom. Of course you lose some information but it saves many hours if I want to revisit a timelapse/hyperlapse a year later and grade it differently. Then I just pull up the flat movie file. 10-bit HQ is usually enough.

Try importing images (16 bit tiff) for a 30 second 25fps hyperlapse clip --> 750 images. Now stabilize position, rotation, add warp stabilizer once, twice, deflicker footage, add pixel motion blur. If you can get it to render below 15 minutes, you're a magician. It's more like 1h15min. And that's just the render time. 1080p is more than 4x faster in these circumstances.

Oh yes. On some hyperlapses I can spend two full days. It's extremely time consuming (especially if you were a bit lazy when taking the pictures)...

But here's a tip: Skip the tiff images step and work with RAW in After Effects. Saves time and space.

Pricing should have very little to do with resolution and very much to do with the content of the clip. It's ridiculous to price a 4k tripod clip of a rose in your backyard at $199 just because it's 4k...

On the other hand, a 720p clip of flowing lava splashing on top of an eagle in super slow motion could be priced at $999.

Yes, Videoblocks varies more than the other sites for me too. December was nice, January and February very slow...

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on February 12, 2017, 07:13

I appreciate the fun in estimates but at the end of the day, it's just completely useless. No one sells the exact same images with the same keywords and results will always be very, very different for each individual.

However, if you're making less than $3 per image per year, you're doing something seriously wrong and need to come up with some changes. That could be OK for ONE site, but in total $5 should absolutely be minimum if you're thinking about this stuff seriously.

I disagree. I earned less than $3 per image per year in 2016, but over 5$ in 2015. It's because I uploaded many similar images and my portfolio rose by more than 100%, and my earnings by around 10%.

And my portfolio is in 5 digit numbers, so it's not a statistical fluke or a newb guy posting who increased his portfolio from 100 to 200 images.

However, due to the fact that those are similars, the cost of producing them and uploading them is extremely small. So even though the RPI is lower, I don't care, I still make more money in total. The cost is negligible. Now, I understand that's not the case for everyone, just explaining why it doesn't work for me.

Fair point. Maybe change it to about $5 per "image idea" or image series if there are many very similar shots.

That's 67 per day.

With photos? Absolutely, if you work hard. Can I do it? No, I work too slowly.

For vectors? I suppose if you make 20 similar variations of each one...

Look at any top list of bestsellers, and they are all graded and ready to go. But yes, there is a market for ungraded, flat clips as well, but you won't clean up with volume sales.

Yes, it's possible, but like most jobs only if you put in hard work and time (8-10 hours per day like a normal job).

So many people start out by uploading 100 photos and then sit back and wait, wondering why they aren't rich yet...

How many microstockers here can honestly say they put in 40 quality hours of microstock work every week?

You get what you pay for when it comes to good tripods/heads for the most part. If you want something really smooth for BBC Life panning it's going to cost you some $$$...