What seems REALLY odd to me is 10,000 views on a small site like that.

I think the numbers are simply incorrect, or the site has been crawled by search engines that count as views. I don't believe you've had 10,000 real human views and 3,200 real human preview downloads.

True, but Chipotle is also a much, much bigger company than Lindahls (70 times higher revenue).

Do you seriously think you have to lose your job, get kicked out of your apartment etc. for it to be considered damages?

She was made the face of Chipotle without consent - that's the damage! Just because she didn't lose her job it doesn't make it right. And regarding the enormous amount, sure it's ridiculous, but the only thing that these companies understand is money. You can only hurt them with money. It's the one and only way to prevent unethical behavior.

Some (most) people don't want to be models and seen in advertising. Saying they should just be given a model payment is just ridiculous and an insult...

---

Extreme example: A company has placed a GPS tag on you without you knowing and they are using the (anonymous) data to create an app to predict movements. 10 years later you find out and all they offer is 10 years worth standard salary for a voluntary test person... That is not how things work.

---

Here's another good example of using a picture in advertising without consent: http://petapixel.com/2010/04/10/greek-man-sues-swedish-company-over-turkish-yogurt/

Thankfully, the man was awarded more than a model fee...

In a fair world I'd agree id award her model fees at best......

In what way is that fair? If the only punishment for doing stuff without permission would be to pay what it would cost to get permission no one in the entire world would pay for anything...

Anyway, of course she won't get $2 billion - you always aim incredibly high to get headlines and a nice settlement. She could get $1 million or so.

Every stock photo company is going to use the same algorithm for search results.

Absolutely not.

Does Payoneer really let you withdraw US dollars? I've been looking for an alternative to PayPal (I lose way too much per year compared to if my bank would do the conversion at 0.5%)...

Shoot 24 / 23.976.

Plus, by shooing 6 fewer frames per second gives each frame about 20% more bandwidth (when shooting at a constant bit rate).

I agree with you, and I do 90% 23.976, but this statement doesn't automatically mean better quality. Only if you're using intra-frame codecs (like ProRes). If you're shooting in the more common h264 (inter-frame codec) there will be more movement between each frame in 24p, and since inter-frame codecs compare frames that 20% extra bitrate could just about make up for the increased change from the previous frame. Or in the case of very fast movements, decrease the quality.

For aerials, for example, it can make sense to film in 29.97p since everything in the frame is moving constantly.

Nitpicking here, but just to be clear. 

Even music!

Haha, "Even music"?

Music runs circles around image sales (in $$$) I assure you. 

Anything that takes time and skill will be worth much more. Great studio photography takes great skill and time, but it definitely is possible to get lucky with images if you happen to own a camera. This is not the case with advanced footage (like well-done hyper lapses for example) and music. There aren't any "lucky" people posting that kind of material. You HAVE to put the time and the skill in, and if you do, you don't have that much competition.

Thanks Increasingdifficulty :-)

We are pretty new to video. Only been doing it for 3 mont�s time or so. I don�t have enough data yet to compare framerates, I can say that we shot the last shoot in 25, just to try it out.

The reason we go for the 23.98 is for two reasons.

1)  I talked to some TV/Broadcast people, who said the mainly worked in that framerate. That�s the clients we try to target as they will buy the more expensive quality.

2) I like the 23.98 look better than 30 fps look because it looks more real. At least to my eye :-)

We do sell the 23.98 clips, that I can say.

Good reasons. I sell plenty of 23.98 clips too, but I suppose it's only natural to wonder, "what if?". Would I have sold even more using 25p, 29.97p? Questions that haunt me at night... 

Thanks everyone good information.  As far as price these cameras are all similar, the URSA is about $3,000 which is not even close to the cost of a RED or Arri.   I have a few more follow ups:  Considering the GH4 or GH5 are the improvements worth the wait?  Does the metabones adapter work well, any issues to know about first?  With the URSA I see it shoots in CinemaDNG Raw (265mbps), how is that for editing?  I've done some 4k editing with XAVC S (I think 100mbps) and I know my computer can handle that pretty well.

1. Yes, the Metabones adapters work well but are expensive for an adapter... Auto-focus will be slower and not as good as a native lens or a Canon lens on a Canon body but it works. If you will just use it for filming I suppose auto-focus isn't that important. Issues: The lenses stick out a bit longer meaning the GH4 will often be a bit front heavy, especially with Sigma Art lenses (the 18-35 1.8 is really popular to pair with the GH4).

2. CinemaDNG Raw is not 265mbps, it's 265 MEGABYTES (MB) per second which is 8 times more (over 2gbps). It's an incredibly high bitrate and without a big SSD drive you stand no chance.

But you can of course record directly in 10-bit ProRes (HQ) at around 800mbps which is really really nice. Needless to say, the quality of the URSA will be better than the GH4, but it's quite a bit bigger.

You can record 10-bit with the GH4 with an extra device that's quite expensive (Atomos Shogun for example, extra $2,000). The GH4's internal 4k records at 100mbit/sec bitrate. That's 12.5MB per second.

It seems that the GH5 will be able to shoot 10-bit internally which is a big deal. Editing 10-bit ProRes is a different world compared to 8-bit footage from the GH4 (even if that footage can be very, very good).

So, if you want the GH4 to get close to the functionality of the URSA you would have to spend at least $2,400 extra (adapter + 10-bit recorder). If you don't need a camera right now, the GH5 would probably be worth the wait since it seems to be able to handle 10-bit 4:2:2 4k internally. And 4k 60p.

As with most cameras, it depends on:

1. Budget.
2. Size/portability requirements.
3. What you film the most.

Naturally, the URSA mini (or Red/Arri) will be the BEST in terms of quality, but not for portability and price. How is single frame stuff (time lapses) with the URSA? I've never tried...

This is what I currently use (with Canon lenses): Panasonic GH4 with Metabones adapter and a Canon 5D mk III. I mainly film wildlife, nature and cityscapes (time lapses) and I need to be able to carry my gear while walking in difficult terrain for 5 hours (along with motorized slider, various lenses, two tripods etc.).

For filming, I almost always use the GH4. For time lapse, standard photography and low light filming I use the 5D.

The GH4 is miles ahead of the 5D mk III (and IV) when it comes to handling while filming. Just not having a foldout screen means you have to lie in the mud if you film wildlife since you usually want to get down to eye level of smaller animals. That's a big deal-breaker for me... It's a pain when I do time lapses as well (often odd angles like straight up in the sky) but the difference in RAW quality from the 5D is enough to stand it.

The GH4 produces extremely good 4k footage with plenty of light up to ISO 800. After that it's not as fun anymore and the 5D will have to work. I film in RAW HD with Magic Lantern (kind of a pain but quality is great).

I use a 600mm lens with the GH4 (1380mm equivalent!!!) which is really awesome when filming wildlife. Heat and air density becomes more of a problem than filling the frame...

Yes, in the submission guidelines they say that any progressive frame rate will be converted to 23.98p.

I often film in 29.97p with a 1/50th shutter and then slow it down to 80% and deliver 23.976p. It's a decent way to get dreamy looking 4k footage with a camera that can't shoot 4k60p.

usually who writes BME lately is just because he/she has 300/400 pics and 15$ per month

...or that they work hard on every aspect of stock (new opportunities, SEO, subject, quality etc.) and continue to improve.