How are sales?

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 17, 2023, 17:48

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 17, 2023, 09:47

I care about preserving my 10 bits.

The shutterstock website does not show how many bits your video contains. The video can be in prores, but contain 8 bits for example.
Are you rendering in prores 422 or in 422(HQ) ?

The sales team curating those big bucks clips knows the codec quality. It would help if you had understood that, after so many explanations 

Below are my settings: I use the ProRes 422 LT, a codec able to preserve my native 10 bits and bitrate, without making the files too big.

Of course, shutterstock can watch your video and find out its characteristics. Do you think that buyers give shutterstock the task of finding them a 10-bit video? To me this sounds naive.
In my opinion, your video is simply suitable for buyers in terms of plot, color correction, and perhaps also because your video is in the prores codec (some people are immediately comfortable working with prores).
I seriously doubt that buyers generally figure out such an issue as video bit depth.

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 17, 2023, 15:29

The source file is shot in *.mov, but when I render in H.264, the output is *.mp4. How to get *.mov?

Top right, select QuickTime format.

I want to render to H.264 codec. And if you select QuickTime, it will no longer be H.264.
In general, this probably can�t be done on Windows. Or mp4 and H.264 or QuickTime and prores.

Neat Video alone costs $149, while the entire Davinci Studio Version has a perpetual one time cost of $295, including the excellent noise reduction feature.

Money issues don't interest me. I'm only interested in the technical aspect. If Neat Video removes noise no worse than Davinci resolve, then I will remove noise using Neat Video.

Bottom line: having quality clips encoded with quality codecs is increasing your chances to get your clips curated and sold for big bucks to enterprise customers

I think that many authors with good income will disagree with you. Probably a lot depends on the content that is being filmed. If you are shooting something that is later used in films, then the prores codec may be a good solution. Again, it is difficult to render into this prores so that the file is no more than 4 GB.
Do you shoot in 3840x2160 or a larger format?
Nowadays, many authors upload their videos to subscription stock agencies, and the prores codec is not required there.
There is also such a program as Topaz Video Enhance AI. If someone needs it, then you can make high-quality 4K from HD and remove any noise and artifacts. I think that Netflix knows how to use this program.

In any case, I don�t have the content that you probably have. Therefore, for me, loading many gigabytes onto stocks is a waste of time.

Now cameras shoot at 400Mb/s (4:2:2 10 bit ALL-Intra) (H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, LPCM). I am sure that this quality is enough for everyone who wants to make high-quality color correction. You can upload video directly from the camera to stock. This video takes up less space than prores.
 

I have one more thought. Perhaps some customers buy prores not because they need 10 bit and 4:2:2, but because it fits into their production process. These people can only work with prores. This prores is good because it does not require a lot of resources to work with it. But to work with h.264 or h.265 you need powerful computers. I think this is the answer.

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 16:27

Large buyers do not look for videos on microstocks; mostly, this stock contains videos of average quality.

Wrong.
I discovered one of my clips in a Netflix series.
So there's that. 

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 16:38

On the shutterstock website you will not find prices for videos like 1000 or 1500 dollars. There are no such prices.

Wrong again. Big agencies have dedicated sales teams curating on demand requests from for big media buyers, who have big bugets but no time to search the entire database.
Example:
https://www.shutterstock.com/business

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 16, 2023, 14:25

Zero Talent, what does Davinci resolve give you that Adobe Premier cannot give you?

I already told you: the assurance that I will never have to pay $60/month to be able to use the tool, if Adobe decides to cancel the all apps bonus given to succesful contributors.

Technically, Premiere is pretty comparable and it could definitely serve my needs (although I am not sure it can do the same fantastic noise reduction job, for example)

Again, a well-made video and downloaded with a good bitrate in the h.264 and 8bit codec will also be quite suitable for the same Netflix subscription. Here we need clarification from shutterstock about whether they buy videos in the h.264 codec at high prices or not.
That video of yours that you found on Netflix, is it probably also uploaded to prores? 
In any case, this is all a dispute without evidence on both sides. Over the years I have read many forums, and many authors bought videos at high prices and the videos were not uploaded to prores. And some videos generally had a low bitrate.
Regarding noise, is the Neat Video plugin worse than Davinci resolve?

Get a 4k video shot on a decent camera and export it twice. Once at h264 and again at Pro Res. Compare both at 100% and you should notice a difference. H264 is rubbish.

I received $300 commission for video just last week on SS. That buyer would have paid nearly $1000. (We are guaranteed 30% commission on what SS sells video for)

If one is not making decent video sales, even occasionally, then maybe they should change their codec? Big buyers, for example wanting establishing shots for movies, documentaries and tv commercials, want top quality.

The camera natively records at 400Mb/s (4:2:2 10 bit ALL-Intra) (H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, LPCM). If you think this is rubbish, then of course good luck to you.
Do you probably write directly to ProRes on your camera?
If anything, there is no difference between ProRes and 4:2:2 10 bit ALL-Intra.

Just because you got paid $300 doesn't mean it was because you uploaded the video to ProRes.

Large buyers do not look for videos on microstocks; mostly, this stock contains videos of average quality.

So, it�s good that the camera can write in 10 bits, but as I already said, all this is only needed for video color correction. The final video can be rendered in 8 bits and the quality of this video will be good and sufficient for most buyers. Of course, it is no longer possible to do radical color correction with 8-bit video, but the author has already done it with 10-bit video.

It is.
I wrote about how much the customer would pay for it, not about my share of that payment.
Go back and check what you quoted.

You don't know how much the buyer paid for this video. These are just your assumptions. If you had an answer from the stock, it would be accurate data.

Ooh, so when you talk about 4K, the clip quality doesn't matter, but when you talk about FHD it does? 🤔

I'm saying that a well-prepared video rendered in 4K codec h.264 8bit and with a bitrate of 100-150 Mb/sec is of good quality. Your source videos, which have a bitrate of 10 bits and possibly shot in prores or raw, are only needed by you so that you can make high-quality color correction, not lose data, and then render in a quality that is suitable for all buyers. Do you really think that buyers buy videos in order to have them professionally edited?
Yes, HD video must also have quality, at least a bitrate of 50 Mb/sec.

You should know that the agencies are always downsizing 4K videos to FHD, using the same H264 codec settings.

I don't agree. If stocks convert your videos efficiently, they won�t have enough production capacity to do so. I can see from the size of these videos in HD format that they have a very low bitrate, probably 8 or 10 Mb/sec.

I doubt that a 4K H264 clip downsized to FHD H264 would look better than the same clip downsized from 4K ProRes to FHD H264.

It will look the same. And even if you do a high-quality rendering, it will still look the same.

https://support.shutterstock.com/s/article/best-video-format-for-stock-footage

Modern cameras now record in h.264 with the same quality as ProRes. Therefore, there is no point in shooting in ProRes, much less uploading this codec to stock. More precisely, of course, you can upload the video to ProRes, but we will get a large file size and scare off many buyers.

For example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHzkKJkbWtQ

I watched the video and read the comments. But I still don�t understand whether Resolve will give me more options when color grading stock videos than Adobe Premier. Many arguments are not arguments for me. Adobe Premier is not buggy for me.

Why upload 10-bit ProRes to stocks? Why upload ProRes to stocks at all? Files take up a lot of space.
h.264 in 8 bits is quite enough for buyers on stocks.

What does Resolve have for color correction that Adobe Premiere or After Effects don't?

123 accepts video. FTP upload works. But there are problems with loading, they changed the interface.

Does anyone upload videos to an FTP server?