|
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 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 74
701
« on: December 06, 2017, 03:32 »
We will end up being chained to the block and the 1% will make the money, it's always thus.
Well, there are a few ways to be in the 1%: Be born in it. Invent the technology. Be an early adopter. The last method is available to most of us.
702
« on: December 05, 2017, 13:02 »
Because YouTube minimum length is 10 minutes.
For 60 minutes of footage it makes much more sense to make 6 videos of 10 minutes
I'm sorry to ruin your thread. You have some beautiful timelapses. I know how much work that goes into it. It's just that you can't just write statements that aren't true. YouTube minimum length is not 10 minutes. It's just the minimum length for MULTIPLE ads. Big difference. Only 9 out of the 20 top trending videos in the UK are over 10 minutes. Just stop saying that "YouTube minimum length is 10 minutes"... It's not.
703
« on: December 02, 2017, 07:30 »
But on YouTube every video must be at least 10 minutes, otherwise you don't get any kind of credit (also you are payed by minutes of watch time, not on views...).
YouTube videos can be any length.
The only reason to stretch beyond 10 minutes is so that they put more ads in the video. So it's purely to potentially make make more money. This makes no sense if that means you put in clips that you don't really want in there just to reach 10 minutes.
And in a video like this, there's nothing more annoying than ads playing in the middle of it...
Of course it is for making money.
What other reason could be? For the glory of planet Mars?
If you can't figure out another reason to put together timelapse videos than to make money, I'm afraid I can't help you. But why didn't you make it 1 hour long? You can fit in even more ads then.
704
« on: December 01, 2017, 13:18 »
2 and 3 of what you currently do are essentially the same thing. Curves can be used for contrast. It's a very versatile tool.
1, 2, 3, and 4 of what you want advice on are all color grading. The tools are all in After Effects. For example, use a solid with a feathered mask for a gradient. Or just use the gradient ramp.
Important to remember is that color grading is very subjective. It's done to taste. No one can tell you exactly what to do, but you can watch countless videos on YouTube with examples of color grading. You can color grade just using curves.
A general tip is that shadows are usually quite desaturated compared to the midtones. So are highlights. That can be something that makes it look more professional.
Color CORRECTION on the other hand is a bit more objective, getting the right exposure and white balance.
You have to make a decision on every shot. Is it a shot that shows natural, everyday life in the city? Then maybe a natural look is best. Just color correction, no or minimal color grading.
Is it a slow motion shot of a tiger jumping through fire, then maybe a cinematic look can look good.
705
« on: December 01, 2017, 02:30 »
Without promising anything I would say that you would probably earn 5 times more if you just stopped being exclusive... Maybe 10 times more. Maybe 100 times more if compared to August... Trust your wife.
706
« on: November 29, 2017, 07:01 »
But on YouTube every video must be at least 10 minutes, otherwise you don't get any kind of credit (also you are payed by minutes of watch time, not on views...).
YouTube videos can be any length. The only reason to stretch beyond 10 minutes is so that they put more ads in the video. So it's purely to potentially make make more money. This makes no sense if that means you put in clips that you don't really want in there just to reach 10 minutes. And in a video like this, there's nothing more annoying than ads playing in the middle of it...
707
« on: November 29, 2017, 03:04 »
I know it is long, but I had no choice: youTube new rules are that a video has to be at least 10 minutes long.
Really? Someone must tell the millions of artists uploading songs every day.
708
« on: November 29, 2017, 02:48 »
exchange rates aren't something that most people concern themselves with
I'm going to wildly assume you're American. Exchange rates aren't something that most US citizens concern themselves with. The rest of the people of the world do. Especially if you do some investing, or, as we all do here, work online to some extent. I get paid in three to four currencies and currency fluctuations can greatly change my spendable income. I've met a worrying amount of people who didn't even understand currency conversion, especially when the value was reasonably close, like the dollar to the euro or pound. They couldn't grasp that pricing also changed.
709
« on: November 28, 2017, 15:35 »
Why do you guys always keep dead threads on trending for so long?
Sorry if we ruined your day. Do you have a usable list of rules that we can obey to better handle ourselves on the internet?
710
« on: November 28, 2017, 12:09 »
Diamonds is quite interesting when you look at the way De Beers basically created a "tradition" of the diamond as an engagement ring and made any man (as it was in those days) feel guilty if he didn't spend a ridiculous portion of his wealth on something totally useless.
Between 1939 and 1979, De Beers's wholesale diamond sales in the United States increased from $23 million to $2.1 billion. Over those four decades, the company's ad budget soared from $200,000 to $10 million a year.
Yes, that is very interesting. A lot of things we grow up with and learn that they are "important" or "valuable" are nothing but very successful marketing campaigns. From "Breakfast is the most important meal of the day", to diamonds, to Valentine's Day (and now Singles Day). When I was in Japan I happened to be there on "Pocky Day" which happens to be a very, very successful marketing campaign for so called Pocky sticks, a type of candy. Everyone were talking about Pocky Day and who knows how much they sold. 
711
« on: November 28, 2017, 11:16 »
It's more that anytime I tend to buy something, it drops.
Haha, gotcha. When I first bought Bitcoin it dropped 26% right after over a few days. It's back up way above that now. I'm in it for the long run.
712
« on: November 28, 2017, 10:49 »
Now's your time to short Bitcoin. I bought a share of GBTC yesterday for fun, and it's up $225 already today, lol.
Go ahead. Bitcoin is highly volatile so at some point you could make a lot of money. Or go into debt for the rest of your life. Shorting is dangerous. Shorting something extremely volatile with an incredible momentum up is unreasonably dangerous. I wouldn't short Bitcoin.
713
« on: November 28, 2017, 10:47 »
Kind of math tricks to pick a date that gold is down, based on the year it was at all time high 2011-2012. I'll pick since 2000 when it was $272.65 and now up 390% to $1060. That's an ounce and yes people do hold precious metals, in bars and coins, not all is certificates. Doesn't matter, Bitcoin is a valued way to hold money and it works, it's just another way. Same goes for silver, platinum, gold, dollars, euros and anything else. Crypto currency isn't the end, it's just another source.
Gold has a different value than currency or traded bitcoin because it's also a product that's used and can be consumed or reclaimed. Contacts in computer memory, jewelry, teeth, bling. You can't wear a bitcoin, but being non-physical makes it easy to move around and store. You want something useless look at diamonds, where the market is manipulated and supply controlled, highly inflated for the people who sell them and almost never an increase in value. Now that's a bad investment.
Yes, it was to show that gold isn't the water-proof investment people seem to think. It's quite volatile. Bitcoin is of course even more volatile, but it wasn't around in 2000. Maybe the gold price decline has something to do with people moving money to Bitcoin for store of value?
714
« on: November 28, 2017, 04:03 »
Why would you make that assumption? where did I ever say abstract entities have zero value? I just said that they are physically different.
Yes, they are physically different. But the difference in value is only created by human imagination. All value is, except food, water, and other things that are directly related to us surviving another day. -- By the way - NASDAQ is up 159% since 2011. Gold is down 21%. Not everything is as it "always was".
715
« on: November 28, 2017, 03:56 »
H'mm a picasso I project on a screen isn't really the same as a picasso original
The value of a Picasso original also only exists in human imagination. If you don't know you have a replica on your wall it's as valuable to you as the original. I assume you also think computer software has zero value? A brush and a piece of paper should cost more than Photoshop.
716
« on: November 28, 2017, 03:48 »
Gold is physical because it exists independently of human imagination though I guess that's delving into philosophy. The second point is true but it has a pretty impressive track record in that which is why most people consider it a relatively low risk investment.
The value of gold only exists in human imagination. That is what's important. Bitcoin is as real as the images you sell every day. There is an awful lot of talk of "valuing yourself" here on this forum, while all images only exist in the digital world...
717
« on: November 28, 2017, 03:43 »
I agree with that I just don't agree that Bitcoin is "like" gold. The only similarity is that some people use it as a "store" of value. The differences are bigger in my view in particular Gold is a physical thing.
Gold is physical because the technology we have today wasn't invented thousands of years ago. Do you still write letters? Do you still start up your projector and load a roll of film to watch a movie? Gold only has value because enough people say it has value. Just like Bitcoin. Just like money. Just like a gemstone. Just like a piece of art.
718
« on: November 28, 2017, 03:30 »
Keep investing in gold and don't put a single dollar into crypto - problem solved.
There isn't a war between gold and Bitcoin. I said that today, Bitcoin is used like gold. A store of value. As opposed to a currency, which was the original intent.
Bitcoin has been traded at 50-80% premiums in Zimbabwe. There is a Bitcoin rush there because of the disastrous economic situation.
719
« on: November 28, 2017, 03:26 »
What else should i be doing to get a good shot? Do i incorporate movement into shots? Do i keep locked on shots? How do i become a better videographer?
What should you do to create a good song? About a million things. The short answer is: it depends. Any movie you see uses a combination of shots, locked down, push, pull, aerial, handheld etc. for variation and expression of emotion. How do you become a better videographer? By filming every day and studying people you look up to. Analyze films, commercials, good YouTube videos. A slow-paced movie may use mostly tripod shots. A fast action movie may use a lot of handheld shots.
720
« on: November 28, 2017, 03:09 »
And that's the thing... all these comparisons are to Bitcoin, which is all fine and dandy, but we're on about a coin that doesn't even exist yet. If there's 1324, and we say that this new coin is better than 99% of the other coins, coming in at the 13th best cryptocurrency... it'll be worth about $105, almost 100 times less than Bitcoin. If it comes in the top 10% which is a lot more likely, but still very optimistic... it'll be worth less than one tenth of a cent. You'll need thousands of them just to buy one image.
Just a comment here. The value of one coin is not what's important, you need to look at market cap. Just like the value of one share in a company doesn't say much without the number of shares (i.e. market cap). When it reaches high values a split is often performed.
721
« on: November 28, 2017, 02:52 »
There are a potentially infinite number of crypto currencies ...you really think Bitcoins as used now will exist in say 50 years let alone the 5,000 or so years that Gold has been used by humans? Gold is normally a hedge against riskier investments Bitcoin is about the riskiest investment out there which also means of course there will be high returns.....maybe. I'm intrigued by your comment about not needing a computer....how do you validate any random number string?
"The number of cryptocurrencies available over the internet as of 27 November 2017 is over 1324 and growing.[1] A new cryptocurrency can be created at any time"
There are many different metals and you can make new alloys. We're comparing Bitcoin to gold now. Not Ethereum to Cobalt. No one knows what people will use in 50 years, and I don't think you'll see many people running around with gold coins, paying for horses, right? All forms of money is imaginary, it's a language. A language that enables humans to trade outside their village. All it takes is consensus, an agreement. Right now, the crypto market is worth $300 billion dollars, which means quite a lot of people agree. "Gold is normally a hedge". If you put a million dollars in savings in gold in 1980, it was worth $169,000, adjusted for inflation, in 2001. Would you be happy about that? Nothing just "is". You need to read up on economic history. --- Regarding the "not needing a computer". You don't need a computer to store Bitcoin. To make a transaction, you would need one (or a phone, any other device). I don't think you can go to the grocery store today and pay with a grain of gold. Or, for that matter, with a gold certificate which is what 99% of people who use gold actually own.
722
« on: November 28, 2017, 02:37 »
I still think gold is more reliable after, say, an EMP attack.
To destroy Bitcoin, you would need an attack that destroys every computer, harddrive, USB memory, etc. etc. in world. Even the Internet can go down if there is just one full node left. If every computer in the world is destroyed, all banking, and also ownership proof of gold is destroyed. Do you think people that put their money in gold have a pile of gold sitting in their basement? No, they own certificates, and it has been this way for over 100 years. If something bad enough happens to destroy every computer, harddrive, USB memory, flash drive, etc. in existence in the world, I believe humans would be more worried about finding food for the day instead of store of value.
723
« on: November 27, 2017, 13:45 »
I'm not sure Gold is a particularly valid comparison a lump of gold can survive wars and has a physical existence and is even valued by those without a computer. Cyrpto currencies are not hard to find, durable or shiny.
It's a very valid comparison as Bitcoin is used exactly like gold today - as a store of value. Bitcoin is very hard to mine, extremely durable (as long as humans use math), limited supply. But not shiny, that one you got right. Gold is not hard to find either. I can walk 10 minutes to the nearest jewellery store and I will find some. But NEW gold is hard to find. NEW Bitcoin is very hard to mine/find, and in a few years it won't be possible at all. You don't need a computer to hold Bitcoin. At the very least you need a brain (yes, you can store a Bitcoin wallet only in your memory, but risky if you're forgetful).
724
« on: November 27, 2017, 11:02 »
It's close to $10,000 now, and it will probably break it within a week. Big banks are moving in, offering futures and other financial instruments, bringing in more capital. Of course it's impossible to know what will happen in the future. Amazon was a great investment in 1997. Many other "promising" companies weren't. Anyway - something that is relatively rare that people want = valuable. Remember, gold was used because it was pretty, hard to find and durable. Not because it was usable. In later years we've found use for it in technology, but it gets its value from being shiny.
725
« on: November 25, 2017, 12:21 »
thanks all on detail answers...
c200 is out of my plans now 
from my perspective, correct me if i am wrong, what i see like a main benefit od gh5 FOR STOCK is really good video at high FPS (4k/60fps and 1080/180fps)... i notice that slow motion footage is really popular on stock.
On the another side, video from Canon 5dIV looks really good, color an contrast are really nice. And canon Dual pixel AF work really good (i own 70D). And from my postion, all my high quality canon lenses will work without any kind of additions of convertors.
I think that i can survive that old codec on canon 5dIV, but, from my point of view again, lower FPS is main disadvantage of Canon when we speak about STOCK....and main reason why i think about GH5.
Maybe I'm not familiar with the footage stock market, but that is what i think.
And Again, please correct me if i am wrong 
Slow motion is extremely useful, but just keep in mind that you lose A LOT of detail when you use 180fps. It's more like 720p. A round balloon flying close to the camera will look fine, but palm tree leaves will look like crap... But 4k 60p is incredible and, for me, worth it alone if I had to choose between 5D mk IV and GH5.
Pages: 1 ... 24 25 26 27 28 [29] 30 31 32 33 34 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
