And at the end of all of that you made 28 cents.

Quote from: Zeus on September 09, 2015, 14:02

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on September 09, 2015, 13:39

Quote from: Zeus on September 09, 2015, 13:19

No, what they are saying is you must be the one to issue the usage license terms. i.e. set the terms under which the buyer can use the image or clip.

No, what they are saying is that technically, you need permission to use the codec for professional work.  In reality, it isn't going to happen.  But if it doesn't, it isn't their fault.

It would help to read the whole thing. 

The entire thing is about licensing the H.264 codec.  Am I missing something?

Not at all. It's I who somehow interpreted the text in green to refer to issuing licenses to buyers.

No, what they are saying is you must be the one to issue the usage license terms. i.e. set the terms under which the buyer can use the image or clip.

At 24p the video is jittery but the light is smooth. At 29.9 frame rate the video is smooth but the lighting in the video flickers randomly. I am going to test shutter speed based on the info zeus provided in a few days. Hopefully that respoves things but we will see. I will try to post a link to my drop box so you can see what it looks like.

Mantis, search on Beat Frequencies and you'll see plenty written on the physics of what's happening. The clock in the camera is slightly different to the frequency of the line voltage, which determines the pulse rate of the LED lights.

Quote

So I switched the frequency on the GH4 to 24 hertz and the flickering stopped, but the output of rotating food was jittery.

Lights aside can you explain the above in more detail?24p (and not 23.98 i suppose) with 1/48 shutter is what you used?Same setting in your nle?How do you mean jittery?

24P is known for jutter. Do a Google search and there is lot written about this. Plus for some reason the GH4 has a greater propensity for rolling shutter at 24P.

You can also change the frequency refresh rate of the monitor.

Quote from: Zeus on September 07, 2015, 09:54

Best I've seen so far is Photodeck.

Do u know any website built on Photodeck ? I'm curious to see how well it integrates clips, response times....etc
I would like to build one to support around 5000 clips.

They have some samples there and I know of one guy who's using it successfully for video. Like anything though, it depends on what you are selling. It appears to be automatic and does clip resizing as necessary, along with delivery and billing via PayPal. You will have to drive traffic there. So there has to be a reason for a customer to go to your site instead of a much much larger, probably easier and cheaper alternative. 5000 clips is a lot, check the monthly data limits and total storage costs for your collection. But at $79 per month for basic video package, that's only one or maybe two sales on P5 in commission. Not expensive. I do think though that the collection has to be somewhat unique and with a potential market. Then prices can go to $200 to $400 per clip and achieve sales.

That's a tough one. If it were a long term relationship, where the value in the images is derived from the shoot and print sales and not future stock, it might be worth considering. If either of you are distinctly different in the style you produce or are a better photographer, I wouldn't. It's not at all uncommon to freelance to busy studios for wedding work or portraits but that's usually hired out on a per shoot basis. I used to do this for busy studios. But to partner in a shoot? Hmmm. If you ran a really busy studio then you would both work the busy season but get time off without worrying about shutting down for the off season. You could go travelling or take time off and still see your studio operating. A big plus.

I'm not sure what the solution is, but like so many of you, I am tired of giving the bulk of the sale to an entity that provides the front door for customers. I'm equally tired of listening to excuses as to why clips and images need to be priced as low as they are. Getting 100% of $49 is as bad as getting 30% of $79. Not like I don't take the money, I need it, but it doesn't mean either is a good deal. It's just as easy to change the $49 at VB to $29 or $19 or $9 as it was to change $79 to $49 at Dv. You have nothing to say about it that will make them understand.

I don't think they are taking video seriously, no idea why they haven't opened it up for everyone like they have with stills?  So I can't be bothered with them for video until they fully comit to it because it seems more likely that they will scrap video than be a big player at the moment.

See my last message

Quote from: StanRohrer on August 28, 2015, 19:32

The current link for the Adobe Creative Cloud Photography plan promotion. Only $7.99 a month. Save $2 per month. Ends Sept 30, 2015.

https://creative.adobe.com/promo/CreativeLiveCCPP

Anybody know if a current subscriber can switch to the new price? Perhaps by canceling the service and resubscribing?

If this is a "forever" deal, it would be worth making the switch.

Did I read it right? Worth making the switch to save $2 per month?

Actualy they did ask me to send my footage. But i dont know if they eorrh the effort.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

This is always difficult even if you had several responses here. You'd never know if you made the right choice until you try. Alamy has long history and for the most part has been fair to their contributors. Video sales there may be 2 months from going gangbusters -- or not. You can wait until everyone here has started the Great Stock Shooters Migration -- again, like you so often see, or you can already be kicking back by the pool, watching the hordes trying to get a spot next to you.

http://calgaryherald.com/technology/startup-of-the-week-dissolve

They bragged about "The average HD clip at Dissolve costs $5, where the exact same clip can sell for as much as $450 on competing sites."

and now the debacle. 

Enough is enough.

I read that and scratched my already sore forehead some more. So might the reduction to $49 not have been a reaction to something but rather a plan to reduce prices and a excuse was needed? The plot thickens.