|
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 - increasingdifficulty
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 74
476
« on: April 19, 2018, 16:08 »
I have the feeling that their re branding from Videoblock to Storyblock has been a total disaster, not surprising.
They had managed to get a decent position on the extremely difficult video market and they lost their name for the sake of running behind a media that is way overcrowded (photo)..
Fully agree. That must have been one of the most idiotic moves ever. Just, why? Oh, why... Why, indeed...  Not only is a name change a terrible idea after being successful - changing it to a terrible name like Storyblocks is even more terrible. I still won't call it Storyblocks. It just sounds silly. In a bad way.
477
« on: April 19, 2018, 15:20 »
So does this have any effect on buyers? If all my videos are in photojpeg are people less likely to download them?
I wouldn't touch them with gloves on... 
So basically what you are saying is that if I would upload all my videos in ProRes I would have much more sales??
Now that's a frustrating thought after 5 years in the business... 😮
Haha, no. It was just a joke.  I don't believe buyers care too much about framerates and codecs if the clip is right. That being said, editors like ProRes, so I provide ProRes.
478
« on: April 19, 2018, 08:45 »
Not complicated at all, very simple, but it looks like it was designed by a designer, and it looks modern
Maybe my own site in the footer looks modern as well - of course it doesn't sell very much, unfortunately!! OK, correct that, it sells virtually nothing!
Steve
You mean this one? https://www.backyardstockphotos.comYeah, it looks good! Nice, clean, modern, simple.
479
« on: April 19, 2018, 06:14 »
If you are used to working in Photoshop using layers you'll love the node system which is very similar.
It is more like the opposite of layers.
480
« on: April 19, 2018, 05:52 »
Hello increasingdifficulty,
Still using tables in 2018?
I do not understand the question.
Do you mean the mobile use of the website?
We're thinking about a new version of Swoozo.
Maybe also based on Blockchain Technology.
But at the moment it's just an idea ...
In any case, we are constantly developing the website!
Best regards,
Raykl
I meant like on this page for example (the price information): https://www.swoozo.com/en/selling/prices/I really mean it when I say that you need to look at the web design first and foremost, before doing anything else. I would say that it needs to be completely changed. Right now it doesn't look like a site made in the last 10-20 years. I think this is where your focus should be first and foremost. Most buyers are designers themselves, and the look and design of a site is extremely important, especially if your target audience is designers. It doesn't have to be complicated design. Just clean and modern. And don't even think about blockchain before the design is spot on. --- This is clean, modern design: https://stock.adobe.comNot complicated at all, very simple, but it looks like it was designed by a designer, and it looks modern.
481
« on: April 19, 2018, 03:51 »
Hello steheap,
it's a little bit more ... The website is already financed by itself.
It was very hard to get there.
There are really few sales. But it gets better and better.
We depend on sellers who still want to support small agencies.
Imagine a world where big websites exist without competition.
For large portfolios we take over the work for them. This will save you a lot of time.
But there must be IPTC keywords and IPTC titles.
Best regards,
Rayk
Hi Rayk! I like small sites, because you never know what they will become in the future, and you can have direct discussions with the owners. But I strongly believe that the website design needs to be completely redone. If you can't make a modern, 2018 style website yourself, you need to hire someone to do it. I know it's a lot of hard work, but right now it looks like a site from the late 1990's. Very few serious contributors and buyers would take that seriously. I don't believe you need to have a huge library in the millions to be successful, but your website needs to look and feel top notch. It needs to feel modern and professional. Still using tables in 2018? That instantly dates the site back 10-20 years I'm afraid, and is just one example. I wish you the best of luck, but the web design needs to be completely remodeled before anything can seriously take off. It just needs to look good.
482
« on: April 19, 2018, 03:44 »
Nobody in the real world knows what a stock photographer is.
So just say you are a commercial photographer
I'm always very curious about this fake world we're all apparently living in.
483
« on: April 19, 2018, 03:42 »
So does this have any effect on buyers? If all my videos are in photojpeg are people less likely to download them?
I wouldn't touch them with gloves on...
484
« on: April 18, 2018, 15:44 »
Isn't After Effects the same as motion graphics, or does motion graphics refer to apple motion 5?
Motion graphics refers to rendered clips, with any software. After Effects means AE projects that the buyer renders, after customization.
485
« on: April 17, 2018, 08:52 »
486
« on: April 17, 2018, 08:31 »
...and yet you all keep posting that Shutterstock is where it's at, bringing in 100 million more images. Oh, how ironic.
487
« on: April 15, 2018, 09:30 »
Theoretically, yes. But the tricky thing for me is working out how to do this with software. Like I said, it's so much easier with film (at least for me.) Dead easy. Run that 54fps footage through a projector and it's instant slow motion!
In After Effects and Final Cut Pro X it's two-three clicks. Maybe 5 seconds. Should be easy in Premiere Elements too, although I haven't tried it there. Copied from Google for Premiere: "Interpret footage In the Project panel, right-click (Windows) or Ctrl-click (Mac OS) the clip for which you want to change a property. Select Modify > Interpret Footage. Select the options desired, and click OK."
488
« on: April 15, 2018, 03:04 »
I wish digital was easy..... It is easy. You just have to push the right buttons.  I once shot some 50p footage with my Panasonic G6 with the intention of producing slow-mo footage. I output it as 25p with Sony Movie Studio but the footage came out at normal speed (no slow motion.)
Then you just threw away half of the frames. You need to find an option called "interpret footage" or something similar in your software. All you're telling the computer to do is change the playback speed, just like with film. If you have filmed 50 frames per second, it will play back at half the original speed played back at 25 fps. Instant slow motion.
489
« on: April 13, 2018, 16:13 »
Ha, yes, JPG images sequences as in-betweens I use only after I've done all grading towards a ProRes444 archival file.
Mainly for doing many multi-layered VFX in AE, not for landscape work.
With doing 24 <--> 25 fps conversions I've had problems in the past like skipped or doubled frames so when I doubt I go from a ProRes 25fps to a ProRes24 fps file through single frame sequences.
Perhaps I'm doing something wrong? Interpret frame rate doesn't always work for me.
Actually, I have also had the 25 to 24 double frame problem before, but only in Final Cut Pro X. A strange bug that never happened when going from 30 to 25, 30 to 24 or vice versa. In After Effects (Interpret Footage) it always works perfectly, so that's what I use now. No double or skipped frames in the last 2 years.
490
« on: April 11, 2018, 06:19 »
In my opinion, pricing ALL 4k clips at $199 in 2018 is beyond ridiculous.
Notice this part in my post? Keyword: ALL. My point is that a clip of clouds costs $199, and a clip of a volcanic eruption also costs $199. No one in their right mind is going to pay $199 for clouds, even if they need clouds. Almost every project uses clouds by the way, as it's one of the most sold subject matters in stock. But 4k clouds is fixed at $199, so they will simply go somewhere else. --- And of course it would depend on the project whether 50 clips was doable in a week or not. It was an example, as I'm sure you understood. I know how long it takes to make an 8-second hyperlapse. I do it all the time. They could sell for $199. I also know that I can make 10 cloud timelapses in a day, and anyone can make them, so they aren't worth more than $40 for 4k. By the way, $10,000 would be a pretty decent full-time pay for 2 months for most filmers. Let's say 1 month with taxes and expenses.
491
« on: April 11, 2018, 04:11 »
I have sold a couple of 4k clips at VB (a couple of hundred clips in my portfolio there), but it's been more than a year since the last one.
They market to a crowd of buyers that want, and get, unlimited clips for $199. They aren't too keen on paying $199 for a single clip... Which makes perfect sense.
Would you rather buy your own GH5 or get 10 4k clips? In my opinion, pricing ALL 4k clips at $199 in 2018 is beyond ridiculous.
Let's say I need 50 clips for a 4k project. A nice $9,950. I could just buy TWO GH5s, pay someone to fly around and shoot for a week, including nice hotels, and still save money.
492
« on: April 11, 2018, 01:15 »
Well, for me anyway, if I apply warp and/or noise reduction it's faster to recall the ready file for another or new agency than having to restore the project and wait to export again.
Yes, of course you keep a backup of the finished file. But only ONE backup of the least compressed version (DNx in this case). You don't need a backup of the h264, especially if Shutterstock is the only site you upload that too. If ever you should need a more compressed file, you take 5 seconds and compress the DNx. So, no more space wasted compared to if Shutterstock accepted DNx. That's what I meant.
493
« on: April 10, 2018, 11:15 »
take double the space to backup
pay more to keep a copy at an online cloud drive?
Why would you have to keep extra backup copies of the more compressed files? That makes no sense. I do agree the rest seems like a hassle, but it won't waste more storage space.
494
« on: April 08, 2018, 13:51 »
I've started to uses uncompressed JPEGs as intermediate files a lot though, when converting from 25fps to 24fps ProRes files, and found out that they work fine also when doing things like time stretching through multiple layers.
This makes no sense to me. Can you explain further what you mean? If you want to convert from 25 to 24 you just choose Interpret Footage in AE and export again. Takes a few seconds.
495
« on: April 08, 2018, 10:59 »
I've started to uses uncompressed JPEGs as intermediate files a lot though, when converting from 25fps to 24fps ProRes files, and found out that they work fine also when doing things like time stretching through multiple layers.
But then you're throwing away lots of information that you won't ever get back... 8-bit JPEGs.
496
« on: April 08, 2018, 10:56 »
I didn't know TIFF16 is actually 14bit but why not, thanks!
Well, TIFF16 CAN be 16-bit, but not when the source is single RAW files, which are 12-bit or 14-bit from your camera, depending on what you use. I can recommend denoising in After Effects with Neat Video or one of their competitors. That way you can use time-based noise reduction and also spot any banding issues before printing the noise reduction.
497
« on: April 08, 2018, 10:02 »
Just to confirm, I ran a couple of tests in After Effects. I could just not believe there was any way a TIFF sequence was faster to work with than ProRes... A short clip (5760x3840) with some basic color correction effects applied. I purged all memory and RAM between each test. I ran each test twice. Only After Effects was running (on macOS High Sierra). They are in the same composition with the same adjustment layer. The layers that weren't used were deleted. ProRes (HQ) Export - 48 seconds the first time, 45 seconds the second time. JPG Export - 57 seconds the first time, 58 seconds the second time. TIFF 16-bit uncompressed Export - 1 min 28 seconds the first time, 1 min 29 seconds the second time. I also had to test TIFF 16-bit compressed - 1 min 26 seconds. There is no question what's faster on my system. I encourage you to do the same tests. They may differ, especially if it's on a PC. Quarter RAM previews were faster of course, with ProRes #1, TIFF not long after, and JPG being much slower. And of course, a TIFF 16-bit uncompressed sequence takes up 13.5 times more space than ProRes (HQ). The only advantage with TIFF is of course 16-bit (which is really 14-bit or 12-bit in this case) instead of 10-bit. But why work with TIFF at all when you can work directly with RAW then? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These first tests were done from the harddrives I normally work with, so that they would be real-life situation tests for me. I also did the same tests from my internal SSD, and these were the results: 1. ProRes (HQ) - 45 seconds. 2. TIFF 16-bit Uncompressed - 54 seconds. 3. JPG 100% - 56 seconds. I added RAW and DNG, both from SSD: 4. RAW - 1 min 29 seconds. 5. DNG - 1 min 17 seconds. Smaller difference without the slower disk bottleneck. But still, ProRes (HQ) is significantly faster for me.
498
« on: April 08, 2018, 09:15 »
From VJ-ing with Resolume Arena I learned that decoding compressed files takes a lot of processor power while working real time.
On a MAC working with ProRes files you might notice that there are one or more other programs like "Adobe helper" eating your RAM and processing power.
These programs do the decoding of the Quicktime files, AE doesn't do the decoding itself.
That's why I often use TIFF sequences or even JPEG sequences (!) uncompressed when working with large images, pingponging between two external harddisks.
Manual purging RAM helps a lot too and I'm glad you solved the primary problem by rolling back to a previous version of After Effects.
ProRes is very easy to handle compared to most formats. That's why it's used. With JPEG you're forced to work in 8-bit, and TIFF sequences take up enormous space, and are not at all faster than ProRes. In FCP X, ProRes is even real-time. It's just that After Effects has very old and ineffective coding that is too late to change now I suppose... The new AE didn't crash because the system was overloaded. It crashed because of a bug. It crashed on any export.
499
« on: April 08, 2018, 04:15 »
Thats essentially why i asked. I've been learning through a ton of photography courses on youtube and others but can't seem to find stuff on stock.
Do shaare if someone is posting good stuff. The best ones I've found are backyardsilver and hunterbliss
Well, what do you expect to be so different from "regular" photography? Aside from sometimes looking for conceptual ideas instead of just a pretty picture, it should mostly be the same. Filming an establishing shot for a movie is the same as filming it for stock. Filming nature and wildlife for a nature documentary is the same as filming it for stock. No successful (still active) stock professional in their right mind is going to make such a course, so you're left with the amateurs and people who don't really make enough money doing stock in the first place.
500
« on: April 07, 2018, 03:34 »
Working on raw footage can be processor consuming indeed.
I always convert my raw NEFs to TIFF16 sequences first before doing image transformations on them.
Works a lot faster on my 2014 MacMini with AE CS6.5 and I don't need to upgrade anything.
From raw to tiff I make the image very dull so both the foreground and sky have all the greys that I need for masking etcetera.
Yes, this is pretty much exactly what I do, but I make a HQ video file (tiff takes so much space) directly from the RAW images and then work from there. The problem was converting the RAW files with CC 2018 in the first place.
Pages: 1 ... 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 21 22 23 24 25 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
