MicrostockGroup Sponsors
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - dnavarrojr
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17
276
« on: July 11, 2009, 16:51 »
illustrations are different from videos in that way that as with photos, it is the content present with micro stock agencies for a really long time and illustrators didn't defend the price of their work when they had the opportunity, so subs agencies managed to depreciate it.
Exactly... Photographers and Illustrators let the agencies control the pricing and while they constantly whine about it, money talks and they continue to allow the abuse. Given that most people in the footage side of the business came from the photo side, they're not gonna let it happen so easily this time... I just deleted my 144 clips from Fotolia. Which saddens me because I just started getting sales there.
277
« on: July 11, 2009, 16:47 »
ok, quick question from someone who admittedly has no idea, why is video different to say illustration which can take hours or photography which can also take hours for the right shot (not to mention almost $20000 now in gear, books, workshops etc) ?
(please take this as asking a question by someone who has no idea , not as someone trying to start a fight  Honest truth? Photographers sold out and let stock sites rape them. Since most footage people went through that, they know the signs and will hopefully be more pre-emptive in fighting sites that try this crap.
278
« on: July 11, 2009, 16:43 »
It's a great concept, but too pricey. Especially for footage. I know of an up and coming competitor on the footage side that will offer flat subscription pricing, so I'm waiting on that.
279
« on: May 07, 2009, 12:19 »
As noted, all Digital Camcorders today, no matter what the medium (tape, hard drive, flash memory) store the video in DIGITAL format. Most MiniDV tape camera use the HDV format for compression.
Also noted, image quality has a lot to do with compression. The less compression the fewer artifacts and noise you'll find in the video. HDV compression is notably less than AVCHD compression (AVCHD is the popular format for hard drive and flash memory camera these days).
When AVCHD was initially released there were a LOT of issues with quality and most video camera experts felt that it was not ready for any kind of profession work. Most camera manufacturers valued compression over quality so they could tell consumers (their intended target) about how they could get 4 to 8 hours of video in 16 GB of space. MiniDV is a PITA because you typically can't get more than 45 minutes to an hour of high quality video on a tape. And trust me, when you're recording an event, having to switch tapes in the middle of the action sucks. Even more, having to carry dozens of tapes on you also sucks.
In the past year AVCHD has grown and matured. The Canon Vixia line of camcorders maxes out the AVCHD spec by using the lowest compression and highest possible bitrate in the spec. As a result, the producers of the movie "Crank: High Voltage" bought 10 of the Vixia HF10 camera so that they could shoot every scene from a dozen angles (when you include their 2 higher end primary cameras).
If you visit sites like Camcorderinfo.com, ConsumerReports.com, and the site for Video magazine (I don't remember the domain), they all rank test footage shot on the HF11 and HF20 "higher" than footage from the HV30 and HV40 for both low-light performance and action shots. They note that if you record at 60i and convert to 30p in your NLE the noise and artifacting is nearly non-existent on their test shots because of the maxed bitrate in these new cameras.
280
« on: May 06, 2009, 16:37 »
Supposedly they are very accommodating to submitters. Why not ask them to support the same TITLE field used at every other agency?
281
« on: May 06, 2009, 16:35 »
Yeah, the HV20/HV30 use MiniDV tape instead of SD Flash cards. In fact, the HV30 is probably one of THE most popular HD camcorders for non-professional stock shooters.
The PowerShot you linked only does HD 720 footage, which is still HD and will sell. But it isn't designed for video it and has issues with action/fast movement and low-light. Great for home videos for the family, but not for stock from what I am reading in various forums. Also the H264 compression in the PowerShot has a lot of artifacting in poor lighting conditions.
Bestbuy actually has them in stock at the moment, so if you have one near you, go in and take it for a test drive. That's what I did the last time I was looking for a P&S digital camera. They even let me hook it up to one of their big screen TVs.
282
« on: May 06, 2009, 15:45 »
The review times at Fotolia really suck right now... So I hope you have a lot of patience.
283
« on: May 06, 2009, 15:43 »
The cost of the HF10 and HF11 is coming down. The HF10 was used in the making of the movie "Crank: High Voltage", so you might wanna look at that.
Also, if you don't mind dealing with tape the HV20 and HV30 are excellent choices as well. I noticed the price of the HV30 has dropped to $600 at a few places that are taking pre-orders for the new HV40.
284
« on: May 06, 2009, 15:34 »
Travis,
The HF200 is the upgrade to the HF100/HF11 and is an outstanding camera for stock footage. It has excellent low-light performance for indoor and a nice sharp image. Shooting at 30p (60i) gives you excellent results with fast moving action.
What I personally like about it is the tapeless workflow using AVCHD. Canon is the only company which has maxed out the spec at a full 24 mbits which is why it does so well with the conditions listed above. The lack of moving parts is also desirable because I've heard too many horror stories about the tape mechanism in the HV20/HV30 wearing out from overuse.
I don't actually have one yet, I'm ordering mine in a couple of weeks, but I have spent almost a solid month doing research and from what I gather, the Vixia line is the best for consumer HD camcorders right now.
285
« on: May 06, 2009, 14:15 »
One major issue that is not addressed by the existing agencies and would be a huge benefit of a coop is REVIEWS.
When you upload to an agency you are at their mercy as far as both review times and acceptance. Review times on many sites are out of control taking weeks to months in some cases. It's hard to be timely and current when it takes that long to get something reviewed.
More importantly, the review criteria between the sites is not uniform. Some sites reject images that are best sellers on another site. And the rejections are, more often then not, very arbitrary based on opinion of the reviewer as opposed to technical details.
By creating your own site and linking it to a common search engine, YOU CONTROL your own content. Not some unknown person who may or may not know what they are doing.
---
BTW, getting an agency such as Zymm, FP or CutCaster involved is not a bad idea. Since they already have an existing infrastructure, they could easily build the central search site, provide artists with an API to hook into the searches, handle the transactions and pay the artists taking a small cut to handle transaction fees and a profit for themselves.
Question is... Would any agency be willing to do that?
286
« on: May 06, 2009, 13:59 »
They must be having issues... They haven't added any new clips in over a week (still at 8600).
287
« on: May 06, 2009, 13:55 »
Good news.
Also, I successfully uploaded a clip using the Quicktime PNG codec. Many thanks for supporting it. Makes it easier to provide pre-keyed footage.
288
« on: May 06, 2009, 13:53 »
Interesting... Maybe he can do something to increase their bandwidth, decrease the long review times and fix a number of bugs on the site.
289
« on: May 06, 2009, 11:57 »
Set the time-out to zero and that may force the server to keep the control connection open. (Edit->settings->transfers).
My control connections drop regularly during upload but I don't get a transfer failure at the end of the upload. I assume you are using Passive?
Yup, passive mode. I'll give that a try, but on many sites keep-alives don't work because the server closes any control connection that does not initiate a transfer within 3 to 5 minutes. So, if I am uploading a file that takes 30 minutes to upload and FZ (or my own test program) is sending keep-alive commands the control connection is still closed because it doesn't initiate a new transfer. For the moment I am just using my own program that I wrote and having it ignore the connection error. That pretty much works, but I wrote it as a command line utility, so I have to stick a GUI on it to make it more useful. In the meantime, I'm still hopeful of finding something else that works.
290
« on: May 06, 2009, 11:38 »
Have you tried the 'keep-alive' option in Filezilla->Edit->Settings->FTP?
The problem with FileZilla (and CuteFTP and a half-dozen other programs I tried) is that it does FTP transfers multi-threaded. So keep-alives work in the primary thread on some servers (not all) but in the data thread the control connection is still closed and it still causes FZ to re-upload the file. I have tried to bring this to the attention of the FZ author but because the underlying issue is a bug or misconfiguration of the server software, he refuses to do anything about it. He's a brilliant programmer, but an incredible ass with very poor social skills.
291
« on: May 06, 2009, 11:34 »
What if you just open the terminal application and use ftp direct from the bash command line ?
Same basic problem.. The control connection is closed by the server and the FTP utility closes with an error after uploading the first file. The good news is that duplicates aren't uploaded, but you have to write a script (or batch file as the case may be) to upload batches to account for the error.
292
« on: May 06, 2009, 11:01 »
duplicate post
293
« on: May 06, 2009, 11:00 »
I am running into major upload issues with most of the stock video sites. Because video files are so large, they can take a VERY long time to upload depending on your connection speed.
Using CuteFTP or FileZilla, I run into an issue that if left unattended, they will think that a file has not been successfully uploaded and will attempt to re-upload the file. On a number of sites (such as Shutterstock) this results in many duplicate copies uploaded of the same file.
Since I am a programmer, I decided to write my own FTP program to try and diagnose the issue. And what I discovered is that on those sites where I have the problem, the FTP server closes the control connection while the file is uploading. So when the upload is done, the client software gets a time-out error trying to talk to the FTP server through the closed connection. Most FTP clients assume this means the file was not successfully uploaded and attempt to upload the file again.
The root of the problem is actually the fault of the Stock Sites. FTP servers are NEVER supposed to close a control connection if there is an active data connection. The stock sites are not enabling (or disabling) this feature in their FTP servers.
I have tried to discuss this with the sites I have these issues with: Shutterstock, Fotolia, Clip Canvas, Can Stock and Dreamstime with little success. Either they don't understand what I am talking about, or they don't care.
So my only solution is to try and find a client program that does not attempt to re-upload files.
Does anyone have any suggestions? This is not so much an issue with photos as they are smaller and can be uploaded before the control connection is closed. Only when you start uploading 200 megabyte files and larger does this issue rear its ugly head.
294
« on: May 06, 2009, 09:32 »
Do you plan to update the web site to make it easier to find footage? Give video their own section and categories on the site? More importantly, offering the ability to search only video (I hate that Fotolia's search is broken and you can't separate video from images).
295
« on: May 06, 2009, 09:30 »
The frustration is that is takes weeks for anything to get reviewed on Fotolia...
296
« on: May 06, 2009, 09:16 »
One of the primary problems in partnering with any existing agency is that they STILL DECIDE what images they want to sell and what the overall rules are. And in many cases, their decisions are arbitrary as they rely on "human beings" to handle the review process. And human beings are fallible.
With a coop system where each artist runs their own image site but where a central site handles searching through all of them, the artists themselves decide what they want to sell. And if their stuff is crap then it won't sell. But it's the BUYERS who decide what is crap and what isn't, not someone being paid 10 cents an image trying to get through as many images as possible to earn a decent paycheck.
Also, there is an issue of transparency. Existing agencies hide a lot of information from contributors. If a coop is formed the whole process can be open and available for review by all coop members.
As for how to attract buyers from existing established agencies... That's done through content. If coop members are willing to stop updating their portfolios on other sites (not remove them, just stop uploading to them) and the coop becomes the #1 location for fresh images, the buyers will come. Either that or they just keep buying from old collections at other sites.
It's a test of will, though. Ultimately this is all about money and MOST artists won't have the willpower to stop contributing to the main players they despise because they don't want to give up what little they are getting now.
297
« on: May 05, 2009, 20:51 »
After two solid weeks of research, I have decided on the Canon Vixia HF11. It's flash based, so no moving parts to break down and has higher marks on many review sites for low-light, fast action, and compression artifacts than it's HV30 cousin. Has 32 GB flash memory built-in plus an SD slot that supports up to 32 GB more. And the final nail for me was the lens adapters than let you use Canon and Nikon lenses/filters.
Just waiting on a payout and I'm ordering from B&H.
298
« on: May 05, 2009, 20:30 »
One primary problem you're gonna run into is the same problem all the existing sites have... Creating a set of guidelines everyone is willing to follow. I guarantee that every single guideline will have someone who thinks it's a bad idea.
The idea of each artist creating their own web site and then somehow linking them together is the right direction, in my opinion. Each artist can charge what they like on their own site and create whatever type of license they want. What's needed is the ability for buyers to locate what they are looking for across all of the contributing sites.
What is needed is a web software package that easily allows an artist to quickly set up a web site, upload their content, set their prices, etc... Then the meta-data for each image is exported to a "central" site where buyers go to do their search.
The web software would have an API that allowed the search site to interact with it, allowing buyers to create a shopping cart, and handling the monetary transaction. A committee runs the central search site and charges a small per-transaction fee to cover costs and build revenue for maintenance and upgrades. A service can be used to handle automated payouts.
Charge a fee for the web software to cover initial costs.
299
« on: May 05, 2009, 20:10 »
Thanks, I got a few files to upload and am dipping my toe into the waters.
Will the clips only be visible on Fotosearch or also on Can Stock?
300
« on: May 05, 2009, 19:50 »
If Getty is merging the databases from all of their sites into Photos.com which sells cheap subscriptions. Why would buyers go anywhere but Photos.com in the future? The only thing that would get them to look at other sites would be exclusive unique content that isn't on Photos.com
Look at the threads on the StockXpert forums where the programmers there ADMIT they are spending most of their time working on updates on Photos.com which is why they don't have time to fix bugs on the StockXpert site.
IS will suffer the same fate with Getty pulling human resources from IS to make Photos.com more friendly and attractive for buyers.
In the end, they'll say that there isn't enough unique content or sales on IS or StockXpert to justify maintaining them separately and they'll be merged into Photos.com completely. And by then they will have enough of a customer base that submitters will have no choice but to stay with them and accept further cuts in payouts.
Pages: 1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|