I would recommend using manual exposure when shooting video. Auto exposure can have some undesirable results. For example, if you're panning past something that is fairly dark like a cave, auto exposure will open up the aperture to compensate, overexposing the footage temporarily and then resuming normal exposure after the cave has passed. As you could imagine, this would be very distracting. Likewise - suppose you're recording a static scene and all of a sudden, a shiney white car moves past the camera. If left on auto exposure, the camera will close down the aperture to compensate, temporarily darkening the scene. The same thing will happen if you tilt the camera from ground level to a higher point to film a building or other tall structure. The inclusion of the sky in the frame will darken the footage somewhat. If you set the camera to manual exposure mode (if your OMD has one) you won't have these issues.

Any updates?

Ive had one magazine editor tell me in his own words: "It's a good photo" but they're not interested. And another editor in another magazine who said they only accept free content (no payment.)

There's also my previous update.

One of the publications that I submitted to was not a science magazine as such. They cover all sorts of themes and topics - mostly nature related but also cultural as well. They informed me that they don't have any immediate use for my image though they did state that if they ever need to demonstrate this aspect of physics, they will be in touch with me. I'm also going to contact some publishers of science / physics textbooks with the aim of getting a rights managed deal.

One night, I was doing a hyperlapse of a church in my city. This church was illuminated by flood lighting. I had been shooting away for what seemed like hours - carefully moving the tripod step by step. Each individual shot was a long exposure so that it extended the duration of the shoot by quite a significant degree. When I was less than half way through shooting, the church's lighting was turned off. Woops - I didn't see that coming (I just assumed it would stay lit all night.) At that point, the only thing I could do was pack up and go home.

Some very nice work there. I liked the aerial view of the winding road by the sea.

I would say a movement longer than 10-20 meters or so qualifies as a hyperlapse. And it could still be done on a dolly, but that's just not practical in most places.

There's some guy who has a very nice time lapse video of an airport at night on SS. It's a completely static shot (no camera movement) and yet he keeps insisting that it's a hyperlapse and not time lapse. I'm always puzzled as to why he holds that belief.

Actually, unless there are massive waves, boats are very easy to shoot hyperlapses from. Right after trains, and maybe cars, probably the easiest. Ferries, even better.

I once tried to shoot a hyperlapse from a ferry but I had trouble keeping stable - can't remember why but I didn't have the luxury of leaning against the side railing.

It is possible that the presenter will want an exclusive use with the possibility to transfer copyrights to a journal where a scientific review on the subject will be published.

Yea I certainly wouldn't want to hand over exclusive rights. I'm hoping there are some other options with regards to presentations.

..and publishers should consider themselves lucky to get the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity of publishing your very unique image.

I wouldn't say this image is unique. And I admit that earlier, I was wrong for calling it rare. Though on the other hand, it's not overly common.

you should already have done something with it

Ive been submitting the image to various publications along with a proposed article. The last e-mail was sent several minutes ago to an Australian magazine.

Out of curiosity, why are you uploading videos to iStockphoto? Don't they pay something like $5-$7 for HD video clips?

Ah thanks for the tip. I'll give mine a good clean.

Edit: That seems to have done the job. Charging light is now solid green. Thanks again.

I wouldn't normally correct anyone on a forum but too meaning also has a double 'o'. Sorry, just couldn't help myself 😂😂😂

Well spotted! Yes, I am well aware of that 'double o' rule (a silly unintentional typo on my part.) Just goes to show we all make mistakes.

If you were born and raised in Canada, English is not necessarily your mother tongue. You could very well not speak it at all, because Canada is an officially bilingual country, the second official language being French.

Good point. I visited Canada a number of years ago. I remember travelling on a train there from BC to Alberta and an onboard announcement being made in both French and English. Plus I thought it was interesting how a lot of products being sold in shops had both French and English text.

By the way, English is not my native language, I only started learning it at about 30 yo. Is it obvious?

Not obvious at all. Sounds like you have a degree of competency in the language.

Those are typically people who do not have an experience of speaking a foreign language with natives. It is, of course, understandable, people only understand well what they experience first hand.

I'm learning Korean at the moment. Occasionally, I practise my Korean with the staff of Korean snack shops and restaurants when ordering food. Sometimes they understand me but other times they don't - likely due to my pronunciation.

Most of my recent editorial submissions were accepted by SS without issue. What did they specifically state was the issue with your submissions? Was it just a general "Needs proper caption" response?

A lot of contributors here don't have English as their first language cut them some slack ;-).

Very true. Will do. Though I have noticed on some other microstock forums that some native English users make the same "mistake" (just an observation.)