|
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 - dragonblade
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 33
401
« on: May 15, 2019, 11:52 »
Just now, Ive discovered that one of my videos on Pond 5 has been 'returned.' This is a video that had previously sold through SS. At first, I assumed that 'returned' meant 'rejected' on P5 though then I noticed there was a separate category for rejected content. So what does 'returned' mean within the context of P5 and how is it different to content that is rejected? Additionally, I could find no reason why it was returned.
402
« on: May 12, 2019, 12:47 »
It was some time ago when I signed up to iStock. And at the time, I submitted a display name which I thought would mainly be used on the forums and general interactions within iStock. And it was a bit of a silly name sort of like the one I'm using on this forum. However, it caught me by surprise when I found the same display name used as a credit line on photos sold through iStock. And to be honest, I'm not too happy about it. Is it possible to change my credit line through iStock? I would prefer to use my real name.
403
« on: May 09, 2019, 23:24 »
Woops yes I should have added a smiley. Added now.
Just playing with words.
404
« on: May 08, 2019, 23:33 »
If you're a contributor and looking to get into video acquisition, you'd be silly to purchase anything other than a 4k camera.
Overall true. Though 4k time lapse clips can be shot with cameras that are not capable of 4k video. Just as long as the pixel count of each Raw photo is greater than 4096 x 2160.
405
« on: May 08, 2019, 20:29 »
I wasn't sure about Canon's latest mirrorless model (the M50) though Ive just checked and supposedly, that can shoot 4k video as well. Though once again, you would need to use an adaptor in order to mount your L lenses.
406
« on: May 08, 2019, 19:47 »
Can anybody recommend a Canon 4K camera? "Dirt cheap" would be nice but not expected. 
I don't know of any Canon cameras with 4k video capability off hand. However, I believe some of the current mirrorless options from Sony can accept Canon EF lenses with expensive, specialised adaptors and some of these Sony models do record in 4k video (like the A7sII.) Though I'm not sure if there are comprises in some of the functionality in the adapted Canon lenses.
407
« on: May 08, 2019, 09:36 »
I am not personally interesting
That's just your opinion! 
408
« on: May 08, 2019, 04:12 »
There are conflicting opinions on whether to submit 4k videos to Shutterstock. SS has this weird design implementation in their video search interface. If a customer searches by 'HD only', all 4k videos will become invisible in the search results. Contributors have pointed out this flaw in the SS forum about a year ago but nothing was ever done about it. Ive decided only to submit HD content to SS (that way, the clips are visible to everyone and I know that 4k video sales are rare anyway.) The 4k videos go to the other stock agencies.
Though I'm curious to know how many customers really use that 'HD only' option when searching. I wasn't even aware of that feature until it was pointed out on the forum.
409
« on: May 07, 2019, 01:39 »
Perhaps a "TheNegativeFilm" (kind of, or similar catchy name indicating film usage and scanned images) contributor account with good pricing and the obvious explanation that every frame was shot on original film strips could it be possible to succeed?
Possibly. I'm not sure. Btw, back in 1997, when digital photography was in it's infancy, I remember reading and hearing about one of Canon's very first digital SLR cameras. It was mind bogglingly expensive at around $10,000. May have even been $20,000 (I can't recall exactly.) It was intended for professional use. Many years later, I found out that it was a joint venture between Canon and Kodak. And apparently, it was actually a Canon EOS 35mm film body that had a digital chip / CCD stuck inside it. And for connecting it to a computer, it had some kind of bulky cable / plug kind of thing (before the introduction of usb.) And the inherently low resolution was a joke compared to today's digital cameras.
410
« on: May 05, 2019, 22:52 »
Ive been into photography for over 20 years but only adopted digital fairly recently. I do hear of this issue from time time where peoples' early digital images can only be used in a restricted number of ways due to the low resolution. I guess being an early adopter of technology is not always the best thing as technology tends to improve later on down the track. By contrast, Ive been shooting on film for most of my photography days and it's simple enough to scan any particular image of mine at the resolution I choose. That collage idea posted above seems like a good solution for submitting your insect images to stock agencies. It's not something I would do a lot because as noted above, buyers are getting a whole bunch of images at a bargain price. But as a way of providing a rare insect image to the stock market with few other options, it could be worthwhile.
411
« on: May 04, 2019, 19:36 »
There is a very big difference between just speeding up and actually CONVERTING the footage to another frame rate while maintaining the speed of the motion. Yes, I know. Two completely different things. Indeed they are. CONVERTING 24p to 25p will not look too good I never contemplated converting 24p to 25p. Like I mentioned in a previous post, I'd be happy with a 4% increase in speed.
412
« on: May 02, 2019, 09:56 »
After all, footage of course isn't ACTUAL moving imagery, just still images played fast enough.
It appears that way due to the 'persistence of vision.' It's actually a fault in our vision that allows us to still 'see' or retain a previous image with our brain and eyes during a rapid succession of similar images. And the illusion of movement is created. Interestingly, flies (insects) do not possess this 'defect.' If a fly was to watch a TV or movie screen, they would see a series of still images and not movement.
413
« on: May 02, 2019, 02:57 »
There is a very big difference between just speeding up and actually CONVERTING the footage to another frame rate while maintaining the speed of the motion.
Exactly. This guy was referring to converting 25fps to 29.97fps, not speeding it up.
414
« on: May 01, 2019, 23:33 »
Why would it be hard? It seems to me that's just as easy (or hard) as converting from 24fps to 30fps.
Previously, I was under the same impression. After all, 24fps is very close to 25fps. However, this guy claims that there is some visible blur after the conversion. Pretty much every TV show (like Game of Thrones) you see on TV is filmed at 23.976p these days, and 24p for theatrical movies.
Yes very good points. Ive also heard the HBO shows are shot at 24p too. And for years, the top US TV shows like Law & Order, NYPD Blue, Ally McBeal, Prison Break, Scrubs etc were shot on film at 24fps. And the same case for theatrical movies over many decades (since the introduction of sound films during the 1920s.) So it's no surprise that for a long time, they've had a good established system in place for converting 24fps to 29.97fps. And as you say, going from 24fps to 25fps just requires a slight increase in speed. Yea using 24fps for stock seems like a no brainer.
415
« on: May 01, 2019, 11:10 »
For quite a while, I was wondering which frame rate was the most compatible with different international buyers' needs. Sometime back, I read that it's easier to convert 25fps to 30fps than the other way around. Plus I live in a PAL country. So it made sense to me to shoot stock footage at 25fps. And that's what Ive been doing so far until now.
However, recently an American video guy who works with stock footage a lot essentially tells me that what I read is wrong. According to him, it's a real nuisance when he gets hold of 25fps footage because it's hard to convert it to 30fps with acceptable results. Though I'm not too keen on adopting 30fps because I would also like to cater to all the PAL countries out there which outnumber the NTSC countries by a fair margin.
Ive read elsewhere that the cinema standard 24fps can be converted just as easily to 25fps and 30fps. Would everyone agree that this is true? If that's the case, I might shoot my stock footage at 24fps from now on.
416
« on: April 29, 2019, 21:30 »
I've got a similar issue with footage. Do you know if footage can be accepted as illustrative editorial?
Yes it can. - Does the description need to have the brand name? Or can I just mention 'camera' instead of 'canon 5D' for instance? It doesn't need to have the brand name. It's optional. And it's only really possible if the footage is editorial. In the case of editorial footage, including the brand name and model in the description would certainly be beneficial. - I've got visible actors in the footage, and I have model releases for them. Should I upload the model releases or not? (editorial with release is usually rejected).
If the camera is identifiable and you include the brand name / model in the description, it will have to be editorial. And in that case, the model release forms essentially become invalid and can't be used.
417
« on: April 26, 2019, 01:08 »
I just deleted 2700 clips off Shutterstock and terminated my account with them, $1000 a month that will hopefully shift over to other agencies.
I believe that would have been an extremely difficult decision to make but it's understandable. It's pretty sickening how sometimes, it can appear like SS are protecting their thieves. Would be good if you share your account of what happened on more public platforms like facebook and youtube. Or maybe even get the press involved. Would be good to cast a big spotlight over SS' sinful practices for the world to see.
418
« on: April 25, 2019, 10:46 »
i started in stock in the 70s - in those days you would send your slides to the agency. clients would submit a request and the agency would physically go to their files to select slides that might work and send those to the client. each agency had their own filing system and most of the knowledge was what the staff remembered.
Gosh, that system is so different to what I expected. Seems kind of risky too with a lot of trust placed in the postage / courier services and the clients themselves who got to inspect the slides and hand them back. In around the late 90s / early 2000s, I was considering submitting some slides to physical stock agencies. At the time, I wasn't aware of the online agencies like iStock etc. I was reluctant because it meant someone else would have possession of my valued slides.
419
« on: April 25, 2019, 08:57 »
Out of curiosity, how did people conduct searches at physical stock photography agencies decades ago before the days of the internet? I guess it would have been similar to libraries? I vaguely remember those index cards at libraries - perhaps stock agencies used a similar system. And for footage (particularly film footage like 16mm etc) - how did clients make selections about which clip to choose? Was there like a projector room for film screenings? I'm quite intrigued by this.
420
« on: April 25, 2019, 08:02 »
You need a hundred clips online before you'll sell 1. You'll need several hundred before you sell 1 on a regular basis. You need THOUSANDS of clips online before you generate any kind of significant revenue.
Hmmm.....I sold three clips when I had about 35 videos online. Ive almost doubled my video portfolio recently but haven't seen any more sales since. And yea I admit that is still a really tiny port. Oh well - I'll keep on submitting and adding to my port over time. Edit: Looks like I spoke too soon. I just got another video sale. So that's a total of four video sales with less than 100 videos. Though I admit it was many months between the latest sale and the last. And so far, Ive only sold videos through SS. No sales on Pond 5 yet. Hopefully, that will change one day as I add more.
421
« on: April 24, 2019, 09:49 »
Would anyone know how much the average sale is for this new subscription program that Storyblocks have implemented? I can't find any information about such details. Ive only just recently joined SB myself so I missed out on the so-called good old days. If these new commissions are going to be painfully low, I'm going to have to remove my small port and head elsewhere. I regret not joining earlier when the goings were good.
422
« on: April 23, 2019, 03:35 »
Oh yea it's one of the few skateboard parks Ive seen with no graffiti.
423
« on: April 23, 2019, 02:21 »
Usually, it's pretty clear with the subject in your images / footage whether the content can be submitted as commercial or editorial. However, I'm unsure about skateboard parks. I have some images of an empty skateboard park so no people present. And there are no logos or brand names visible. However, it is a concrete skateboard park and a bit of creativity would have had to be involved to come up with the various shapes and slopes depicted with the skateable surfaces. Though obviously, it's not built as a work of art. It has a functional purpose - to be skated on. So I'm guessing commercial would be the appropriate category?
424
« on: March 24, 2019, 07:30 »
Yea the GoPro that I was using was quite an old model. I believe that later GoPro models have some degree of control over exposure but I don't know how much.
I do know that many people mount cheap action cameras and GoPro clones to their quadcopters for budget based aerial videography and unfortunately, just about all of those cameras rely on auto exposure.
425
« on: March 24, 2019, 05:03 »
My troubles with Pond 5 are never ending. This morning, I started up Stocksubmitter again and two of the five video files were submitted really quickly. The other three video files have merely been uploaded. Many, many hours later (it's evening now) the status is exactly the same - three uploaded, two submitted. That's a crazy long time with no end in sight. Would another reboot fix this?
Pages: 1 ... 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 ... 33
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
