Quote from: StockStudio on April 19, 2018, 16:12

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on April 19, 2018, 09:42

Quote from: suz7 on April 19, 2018, 07:38
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... 😮

Right, that is good question. How many buyers will not buy unless its in ProRes. I've always suspected there have been sales lost depending on what codec you upload in. What about broadcasters, don't they need 10 bit and a high mbps? I've heard DNxHR is as good as ProRes, so that would be a nice option as a standard for windows users.

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on April 19, 2018, 12:14

Quote from: cdwheatley on April 19, 2018, 11:58
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. 

What ever it is, it just works I wasn't happy about having to learn resolve, pissed off at adobe really for dragging their feet on camera support. But, after watching this tutorial https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HcFPJOLTFP0&t=3s a few times it all made sense and was able to put together a basic grading workflow for resolve. My biggest issue with Premiere is skin tones, much harder to isolate skin on a moving image, I never liked the secondary tools in Lumetri. Being able to do a skin node and control how much of the rest of the grade affects the skin tone is huge. Guess I'm a fan now, if I didn't need photoshop I would drop my adobe subscription...lol.

Quote from: StockStudio on April 19, 2018, 06:40
After looking into all the options I guess switching to Resolve for simple editing and color correcting is the best option for now.
Considering the fact that sometimes today I use resolve to create LUT's for Premiere Pro, it might even speed up the whole process.

BTW - how is Resolve in terms of encoding speed?

If you have a decent graphics card it is really fast. In my experience everything is faster in resolve. If you are used to working in Photoshop using layers you'll love the node system which is very similar.

Quote from: steheap on April 18, 2018, 15:59
There are certainly workarounds to get PhotoJpeg files if you use Premiere Pro. I use MPEG_Streamclip and that works fine.

However, the latest requirements page on the Adobe Stock site say that they accept these codecs:

QuoteIf you are processing your footage, use these codecs:
4K/UHD: ProRes HQ 422, DNxHD/HR
HD: ProRes HQ422, DNxHD/HR

Basically, they accept the DNxHR codec if you are a windows user. Shutterstock doesn't.

I tried to get an answer out of Adobe Stock on when they will discontinue accepting PhotoJpeg, but no response so far (it has only been a week!!!)

Steve

Right, I can confirm Adobe and Pond 5 just approved some 4k files uploaded DNxHR, but not shutterstock. Photo jpg for shutterstock.

Resolve supports photo jpg renders. It's free unless you want export 4k dci, then it's $299 for studio version. I was forced to switch to resolve from premiere because they took 8 months to support my camera. Best thing that ever happened to me, come to find out resolve is a much better program to edit for stock if you are just grading clips. Much more control, much better layout for stock, super easy to bounce grades from one clip to the next, or portions of grades. Resolve's engine also handles files much better, playing graded 4k raw files full resolution no problem, same file in premiere maybe only play in half resolution or one quarter and still stutters. There is a learning curve switching, but tons of great tutorials out there. I would say premiere is better for putting movies together, but that's it. Getty took a year to even think about supporting 4k for windows users, guessing its going to be a while before they find another codec. I vote for dnxhr.

Quote from: steheap on April 13, 2018, 01:15
Interesting that Pond5 accepted it. I checked their contributor list of codecs just today and it still says they don't support that codec.

Friends of mine have also sent a tweet to Jon Oringer to ask about codecs at Shutterstock now that Adobe Premiere has dropped PhotoJpeg. Would be nice if the main stock video sites would get together to agree one list of acceptable codecs between themselves!

Steve

Absolutely, would be really nice if everyone on same page. Maybe Pond 5 list is dated? I'll repost here if the files get rejected for codec on other side. They are twice the size of photo jpg. Only real bummer about the DNX files is I can't see them on my windows 10 computer unless I open in adobe bridge.

Quote from: steheap on April 11, 2018, 14:44
This codec issue is getting one step worse. I just tried to export one of my 4K masterpieces ready for upload and chose the Avid DNxHD/HR codecs in Premiere. The only ones that support 4K are the HR ones, and of course, that is the codec that Pond5 say that they currently don't support. So we need something different for Shutterstock and Pond5.

I eventually decided to export as an uncompressed file (all 8G of it) and then used MpegStreamclip to create a PhotoJpeg version for upload. As long as Adobe continues to accept that, we should be OK although it is an extra step for each video.

Now how long will Adobe accept Photojpeg?

Steve

I just uploaded 4k DCI, (DNxHR HQX 10 Bit) rendered from Resolve. (2gb for 22 sec clip) Shutterstock blocked it, Fotolia went through and so did Pond 5. They haven't been submitted, or approved yet, but thumbs are there to be keyworded. Resolve also still supports photo jpg. I don't understand why adobe stopped photo jpg support, not good.

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on March 13, 2018, 19:51
It's the same in all browsers. And keep in mind, it's just this movie, not the others.

Clearly someone messed up big time and sent the wrong copy to Netflix, or they messed up encoding it.

I have never seen changes this big with video in any browser, or any site.

Right, i agree, netflix usually looks pretty good. Bet there are a few people pissed off about that...lol.

Video is just nuts, I see differences on every player, browser, software. The stock sites all display different, some washed out, some with more contrast, color shifts. Be nice if they could come up with a universal codec and player

I didn't see it and this is just a guess, but it could be something went wrong if they had to change codec for streaming. Maybe file was done with data levels with 0-1023 then converted to video levels 60-960 for streaming and the conversion did not go well, which would leave highlights blown and blacks crushed. Or maybe this is just how the Netflix player views that codec. Try different browsers and see if its the same. Take a screen shot of the Netflix clip and put it on the scopes in software and see what it reads.  I get this same effect when I play any renders done to photo jpg and played on windows 10 media player, they look terrible.

Quote from: derek on November 25, 2017, 10:21

Quote from: namussi on November 25, 2017, 09:38

Quote from: derek on November 25, 2017, 07:31
All this is very well but the C200 is just about 1000 times easier to work with moving, panning following subjects. A dslr shooting video is a major hassle in comparison using various contraptions follow-focus etc etc. The only real advantage is a full frame sensor at a good price.

I'm sure the C200 is much better than a dSLR. But the capital expenditure is much much higher too.

Think of the thousands upon thousands of extra downloads needed to pay for the C200.

Do you really think customers will notice the difference in quality enough to boost your sales accordingly?

Probably not in quality but you will be able to shoot a hell of a lot more and much quicker. I work on commissiones a lot and what took me 3 days of footage using a dslr takes me less then one day with the C200. Time is money!

For just stock-footage I suppose it doesnt matter all that but its still a huge difference.

Right, this is what I'm loving the most about this camera, image quality aside, being able to get the shot the first time is priceless. The other day I had one chance to catch this particular utility truck coming over a hill straight at me. I was able to get an auto focus lock right as he was coming over the hill and a smooth pan as he passed me and still locked as it was driving away. Never losing focus throughout the shot, at a 2.8 aperture..lol. I would have certainly screwed this shot with my dslr's.

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on November 24, 2017, 22:29

Quote from: cdwheatley on November 24, 2017, 22:14
Raw stills are very mediocre to my eye on a micro four thirds sensor. So, I really only see it as a video only camera.

Definitely agree, which is why I carry two cameras (full-frame for stills and timelapse)... Haha, so much for the small size then. Oh, the irony.  Good to be able to film while shooting a timelapse though.

Quote from: cdwheatley on November 24, 2017, 22:14Files end up 18gb for 20 second clip when converting from canon's software and they are only have option for 10bit converted if you are on a windows machine.

Wow, that's pretty substantial. 4k RAW is definitely not enjoyable... I think HD RAW is bad enough...

Yes, that all in one cam still not out there..lol. Its funny because a year ago I was all about going light, I had drone micro four thirds cam on gimbal, phone for monitor, it was an easy convenient lightweight setup. Over time though I wanted a better image.  I do the same with shoots, try to take 2 cams, put everything in Pelican suitcase, but hopefully not too far to walk. Bought a backpack for c200, but I'm getting older and its really heavy to carry c200 and extra lens, audio gear, tripod on anything longer than a short hike. Hoping the raw workflow gets a lot easier when you can just drop the raw file in premiere, or after effects and edit away. I know red cameras have a great codec system where you can select the compression on your raw file from 20 to 1 or something like that. So the files don't have to be massive and still are workable in post. Canon raw lite is 5 to 1 compression I think, but its a new codec and no one but Resolve supports it. Couldn't even imagine dealing with an uncompressed 4k raw file, the computer alone needed to process files would be costly I think unless you did everything with proxy files. That sounds like extra work too.

Another thing, you made a great point about the dynamic range being the difference. I think this is true for all the higher end cameras, red, arri, even ursa mini, they all have that dynamic range which ends up looking more like film. I've noticed big differences in how the c200 handles something like shooting into the sun, the way the transitions are handled is much smoother than my other cameras, not to mention you might be able to get a face not to silhouette without using any extra light.

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on November 24, 2017, 19:53

Quote from: cdwheatley on November 24, 2017, 19:40
No doubt if you are hiking around the extra weight is a burden, so big cam not an option. I have a Gh4 with metabones and also another micro four thirds camera dji x5 for drone. I'm really not happy with either camera and don't think I would buy another micro four thirds sensor camera. Even dji is getting into super 35 for drones. The images from micro four thirds is more video like, less natural if that makes sense and colors are always not what I was hoping for. Perhaps I'm not getting the most from those cameras with settings. I prefer the look of a canon 5d2 over the gh4, haven't tried gh5. I think its just the limitations of the sensor. A cellphone can probably take a nice video, but it looks very crunchy and video like. So yeah, I would still take a c100 over the Panasonic just for the way the file looks and all the bonuses that come with a video only camera if you are shooting a lot of video. If you are shooting a lot of stills then get a stills camera. There is no perfect stills and video combination. I remember watching a review of gh4 against c100 after I already bought the gh4 a few years ago, they were comparing sharpness and boasting about gh4, but too my eye the c100 image just looked way more pleasing to the eye. I had a lot of shoots with gh4 where I just couldn't get color right. The image straight out camera of a c200 is way different than any of my other cameras. It might even be tough to match them up to blend in a timeline. As far as 4k goes, I'm not selling much, but I hear you on future proofing.

I also have a Canon 5D mk III that I sometimes film with, and yes, Canon color science is great. Maybe the best. However, in terms of overall quality I feel you have to shoot RAW to get anywhere close to the GH4, once you've gotten used to 4k details. Had I never seen 4k, the built-in codec might have been fine. I film a lot of nature/wildlife, so details are a big, big part. For people, I suppose less details is often a good thing. 

Anyway, shooting RAW is a pain in the behind, and while the files look great, it's not a practical solution.

I have seen some C100/C200 footage and what I like the most I believe is the dynamic range, the way light goes to dark and the general colors. It is, as you say, very pleasing to the eye.

But I also think you can get GREAT, stellar even, footage with the GH4, and even more so with the GH5 (10-bit). There are lots of settings to play around with, and I've found that Cine-D misses on the colors quite a bit. I like to use the natural profile with low contrast and saturation to preserve the dynamic range. And expose to the right. I don't think it looks "video" at all if the settings are spot on.

Anyway, the C200 is surely a better film camera than the GH5 in terms of pure quality, but size and price are not ideal (for me).

Filming spontaneously becomes very hard with a less-than-convenient setup.

Right, I totally understand where you are coming from. Landscape photography/videography is great in 4k with max detail, don't like as much once you add a person.  I shoot with a 5dsr for landscape stills and I'm really happy with that camera. I wanted to get 5dmk4 for stills/video combo, but was disappointed that it didn't do anything really well. I tried the gh4 in cine D for a while and didn't like the results at all. Ended up switching to a standard profile I think "natural" and liked it better, but still not huge fan of that camera and the Raw stills are very mediocre to my eye on a micro four thirds sensor. So, I really only see it as a video only camera. C200 shoots in Raw 12bit 4k, but I haven't even got into it that much yet because adobe is not supporting the raw lite codec, they said next CC update hopefully. Round tripping workflow is just ridiculous for raw with c200 right now. Files end up 18gb for 20 second clip when converting from canon's software and they are only have option for 10bit converted if you are on a windows machine. It's definitely not a one size fits all with video, I guess as long as your happy and producing the stuff you like, it doesn't really matter what you are using.

No doubt the C200 is a GREAT camera, but two major drawbacks: price and size (and stills).

The C100 doesn't have 4k so that's not really an option today, especially not for that price.

The C200 is a camera for a planned shoot, a commercial that takes a couple of days. A team. Actors. All great.

Hiking in the forest or walking through Rome as a one-person-production. Not as great anymore. 

The GH5 (and GH4) can produce ALMOST the same level of quality under good conditions. Small, convenient, much cheaper.

Yes, built-in ND filters are awesome, but you can get a quality variable ND.
[/quote]

No doubt if you are hiking around the extra weight is a burden, so big cam not an option. I have a Gh4 with metabones and also another micro four thirds camera dji x5 for drone. I'm really not happy with either camera and don't think I would buy another micro four thirds sensor camera. Even dji is getting into super 35 for drones. The images from micro four thirds is more video like, less natural if that makes sense and colors are always not what I was hoping for. Perhaps I'm not getting the most from those cameras with settings. I prefer the look of a canon 5d2 over the gh4, haven't tried gh5. I think its just the limitations of the sensor. A cellphone can probably take a nice video, but it looks very crunchy and video like. So yeah, I would still take a c100 over the Panasonic just for the way the file looks and all the bonuses that come with a video only camera if you are shooting a lot of video. If you are shooting a lot of stills then get a stills camera. There is no perfect stills and video combination. I remember watching a review of gh4 against c100 after I already bought the gh4 a few years ago, they were comparing sharpness and boasting about gh4, but too my eye the c100 image just looked way more pleasing to the eye. I had a lot of shoots with gh4 where I just couldn't get color right. The image straight out camera of a c200 is way different than any of my other cameras. It might even be tough to match them up to blend in a timeline. As far as 4k goes, I'm not selling much, but I hear you on future proofing.

Quote from: Visual on November 23, 2017, 20:58
hi everyone.
i have canon 6d and some nice lenses: 17-40L, 35L, 50L, 100macro, 200L
i am in photography business for a long period (10 years)....and start video recently. Now when i learn a lot about video recording and processing i thinking about to start to do stock video seriously.
so, my question is about camera. Is it better to upgrade to 5dIV and use all lenses i have, or to buy panasonic gh5. What is better camera for stock footage business.

thansk

If you are thinking Canon? check out the C series cameras if you are serious about doing video. I wished I had done that from the start rather than trying to turn my primarily stills camera into a video camera. Here's why: If you shoot outdoors, having built in neutral density filters is worth the price of admission alone. I cant tell you how many good shots I've missed becasue I had to fiddle with changing filters. Not too mention making people wait while you try to find your 1.2 ND. You change filters a lot being limited to 180 degree shutter speeds. Being able to shoot wide open in bright light at a push of button is great also. Onboard decent xlr audio 2 channels, rather than having to always sync with external recorder. I bought a c200 recently and absolutely love this camera, after a few months of using this I would never go back to 5ds, gh?. All my canon glass works with c200, dual pixel touchscreen auto focus opens up a lot of opportunity for the one man show, the focus tracks well. 15 stops dynamic range, the super 35 sensor images looks great. Ability to record 4k 60p RAW in camera is nice too if you want to wrangle with all that data in post. Color science is great, first canon camera that didn't push to magenta, skin tones are nice right out of camera. Good low light performance. Rent one of the c series cameras and see how your shooting goes compared to dslrs, they are a pleasure to work with. The video only cameras are set up to make your life easier while shooting, the only thing I miss about dslrs is the lighter weight. Even the pivoting view finder is a nice change and keeps you from having to get into awkward postions to see when on tripod. If budget is biggest concern check out c100.

Here is some sample footage, this is c200 mp4 setting pretty much ungraded footage. This is the aftermath of hurricane Irma on St John where I currently live. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q3oRkFMt2Qs&feature=youtu.be

Quote from: BaldricksTrousers on March 21, 2017, 17:05
In January I have a big block on the bar chart for "royalty free stills" and for February there is nothing at all under this heading. Anybody know what it is? Are other people missing it?

I have this same issue except this block shows exactly 10% of what I made in January, they left off a zero. Missing about a 1/3 of my normal income, hope its a glitch.

Quote from: Shooter on August 29, 2016, 00:46
I have a Canon 5Dsr for stills and Canon C100 MII for video. So this camera is still playing catch up.

I gave up trying to make a DSLR into a real video camera for documentary films -- just too many add-ons and limitations.

And I use my Sony A6300 for 4K but I really don't like the way 4k looks. Maybe for nature stuff but just too clean for me.

The cinematic dynamic range of the C100 MII is what works for me. And the 5Dsr is freaky beautiful at 100 iso, 8622 x 5692 res on my iMac 5K monitor.

Right, that is a really nice setup for both stills and video. I noticed a big difference when watching comparison's between GH4 and C100 in how pleasing the image looked coming from the C100. I even like my 5d2 image quality above my GH4 with the same canon lenses. It's a bit sterile looking. The only problem with C100 is size and stabilizing it. I shoot from moving boats, the air, lot's of motion. All my cameras are collecting dust right now except My DJI X5 MFT with osmo. It's just a heck of a lot of fun to be mobile with one hand. The image quality isn't fantastic, but good enough for what I am doing, the gimbal technology is amazing. Half the stuff being used now is for internet, so quality is kind of going out the window a bit. I get it if you're shooting documentary's for tv. As far as stock goes, shooting in 4k might give your clips a longer shelf life if 4k ever becomes the standard.

Quote from: jodijacobson on August 28, 2016, 21:57

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on August 28, 2016, 20:48

Quote from: cdwheatley on August 28, 2016, 20:45
Well, if you're a stills only guy shooting Canon, why not 5DS R?

Yes, even more confusion in the product line-up.

Was told by Canon there is much more noise in the 5DS R then the 5d1V

That may be true, but the 5dsr is 50mp with no filter over the sensor, so I'm guessing better detail? You would have to selectively control noise manually if it is an issue. It's a tradeoff. If I was shooting landscapes for print I would take this camera over the new one.

Well, if you're a stills only guy shooting Canon, why not 5DS R?

Quote from: increasingdifficulty on August 28, 2016, 19:32

Quote from: noodle on August 28, 2016, 19:05
What is the $1200 alternative you comparing to?

One is the GH4 (soon to be GH5 taking it even further), and obviously just comparing the 4k and filming capabilities. I know the 5D is a superior stills camera (which is why I now carry BOTH the 5D mk III + GH4) but the mk IV still lacks in the video department which means getting a GH5 + the old trusty 5D mk III is the wiser choice.

My photography life means walking in the jungle for hours carrying everything I need on my back. Sliders, stabilizers, tripods... Would've LOVED to have just one camera that could handle it all.

Too many drawbacks makes the 5D a hassle for video compared to the GH4:

Inefficient codec (4-5 times the file size with no improvement in quality)
Crop factor of 1.76 but you can still only put full-frame lenses on it = no good use for my 16-35... Can't put a 10 mm APS-C lens on it...
No svivel screen... This is a major drawback, why, just why?
No electronic view finder - makes things really hard out in the sun, especially in combination with the fixed screen...
Still the old memory cards = no chance of Magic Lantern making 4k RAW work.
No zebras, no focus peaking, etc. etc. the list is too long unfortunately.

The obvious advantage of the 5D mk II and III is the full-frame glory when filming, and now it's gone with the 4k...

I know it's a stills camera but it could have been the ULTIMATE camera. I would've thrown out the GH4 in a heartbeat if the 5D mk IV had shown it could replace it for video. But now this means not buying the mark IV and I know I'm not the only one skipping it for these reasons...

Couldn't agree more. I think I would have been sold with 4K full frame and focus peeking.

Quote from: Sean Locke Photography on August 24, 2016, 16:24

Quote from: cdwheatley on August 22, 2016, 22:35
Adobe premiere pro cc is a good option. The basic default color editor is similar to camera raw,

I wish it were.  Not a simple "click to white balance" to be found, like in ACR.

There is a little eye dropper right in white balance section of the panel. Find some tutorials on youtube about the new Lumetri panel, interesting what you can do in there. I believe they've added some new stuff. Check out HSL secondary in the panel for highlighting a specific color and changing it to your liking. Comes in handy if you've corrected white balance and faces are still a bit red. I used to use AE for everything, but about a year ago I started making short promo vids and needed Premiere. I will never go back to AE unless it's for something complicated. The coolest thing is it doesn't crush the computer, not sure how they managed that?  If you need to go to AE you can do it right from within premiere. Lumetri panel has almost everything you need to do basic color correcting. You can open up many panels for the same clip as well and do masks and tracking, blur logos..etc.

I've had sales reported for every day this past week.

Adobe premiere pro cc is a good option. The basic default color editor is similar to camera raw, or lightroom. Lumetri color offers a lot of the same basic features that can also be automated. The best part about it is it doesn't bog down the computer so much and rendering is super fast. It's really nice to be working in 4k and viewing in realtime at full resolution with effects applied. I've never used FCP so can't comment on that. Editing video can be a complete time suck depending on your workflow.

We use WHCC for the bulk of our prints, they've taken great care of us over the years. They stopped charging us for shipping a few years ago and we ship everything over sea, this is a huge expense. We also use Bay Photo for odd sizes, or certain products WHCC doesn't have. Both great companies. Bay Photo kills us on shipping though.

Quote from: ShadySue on July 09, 2016, 09:20

Quote from: cdwheatley on July 08, 2016, 23:28
The only new money I see on istock these days comes in the form of signature+ subs at $2.50

How do you know that's new money rather than previous credit buyers having switched to subs?
In particular, why would the £2.50 subs be new money rather than the 75c or 34c subs?

Here are some actual numbers. Only 8 images that are not sig+ made my top 100 for subs earnings.