MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Show Posts

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 - derby

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8
1
Software / After effects VS Davinci resolve - fusion
« on: November 22, 2022, 08:21 »
Hi all,
It's more than a year that I'm working on animation for stock, going from something very simple like animated text banner ("happy new year" and things like this...) to more demanding jobs. nothing that could be compared to professional experts, but animations with some more complicated effects like particles or fractal noise.

I'm happy with After effects, as it seems to me an incredible machine to create quite anything you have in mind, but AE it's also expensive, and I'm looking for some good cheaper alternative.
I'm start testing Davinci resolve that has the Fusion section that seems really good, but I can't understand if I can recreate in Davinci fusion all the possibilities that I have in AE. For example, a simple text animation with light effect seems much more challenging to do than in AE. But probably it depends on my newbie status with Davinci.

Is there some here that can give me opinion about the two software? I'm not talking in general difference, that are obvious and I can see by myself; I'm asking specific opinion for creation of animated clip for stock: the speed of workflow, the plugin available for both, and the flexibility of both software.

Thanks for your opinions!

2
Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe Stock Free Collection: Video Nominations
« on: November 22, 2022, 04:40 »
Also, if you remember this program from the photo, then the photo was taken more and there were at least 3 rounds, if not more.

As always, you still don't bother to read anything, you don't know how this works, and of course, for this reason, your opinions have value near to zero for anyone.

It never happen (and never told by Adobe) that there should be multiple rounds.
Adobe offers to buy some selected of your photos/clips for ONE TIME FOR ONE YEAR.

This was for the photo, and this is for clips.
After one year some or all photos and clips could be choosen again for another year.

ONE TIME OFFER. NO MULTIPLE MONTHLY BUYOUT.

If you still don't understand this I don't know what are you doing here, probably just to put confusion and misleading posts

3
Shutterstock.com / Re: What a cool SS, how well he sells
« on: November 22, 2022, 04:17 »
Nice morning today :)

4
Shutterstock.com / Re: What a cool SS, how well he sells
« on: November 18, 2022, 05:41 »
Got a 3000$ sale yesterday

Wow that's a great amount, congrats!
Really hard to imagine who would like to pay SS about 10.000 to have non exclusive clip, it's so high amount that it could be used for original production instead! Was your clip about an extremely rare subject?

5
Shutterstock.com / Re: Working together to lead the way with AI
« on: November 15, 2022, 10:04 »
Take the example of the images of business people featuring the near perfectly copied DT watermark the Ai was outputting. Imagine that DT licensed your icon to use as a watermark only on their site. The AI would be perfectly reproducing your copyrighted material; it would be (by you definition) new info, but it is also identical to your copyright work.

I am not sure which part of what I said isnt how it works. I tried to make it clear that the AI is outputting what you call new info.

For what I can understand the point is that you're always referring to an existing image; AI doesn't need a "reference" image.

Let's try an example:
If I ask AI to give me an image described as:
"Section of planet earth, american continent, view from moon with defocused background of starry sky in dark space"

What AI need to know to create the image is
1-what is planet earth
2-what is american continent
3-what is starry sky space
4-what is defocused

Were AI get the first three points it's easy, these are clear and common knowledge with millions of images to let it know.

But what is "defocused"?
How can AI understand the concept of "defocused" and apply this to the requested image?
AI has been trained with thousand of defocused images with hundreds of different depth of field and effects. And it decide now to apply to the "starry space in background"

Does it means that this come from existing images? Of course yes, but not in the sense that some similar images was referred to the new one.

Maybe AI has learned depth of field from
"Cup of coffee on the table"
"macro close up of flower"
and so on...
But it doesn't need to have a defocused starry dark space as a reference.

So, had you collaborate to this science fictional image with your coffee cup and flower close up?
Probably Yes
Is there any minimal link between planet earth from the moon and coffe cup on a table? Of course no, not in the sense you're talking about.

If I understand well  ;D
because it's not so easy and it's not so clear  ;D

6
Shutterstock.com / Re: Working together to lead the way with AI
« on: November 15, 2022, 06:57 »
One of the ways AI is trained is, for example, by blurring a photo in a way that involves some randomisation then doing its best to recreate the original image (which is never exactly the same as some randomisation has occurred in the blur). It does this for lots of images with the same keywords and looks for the points of similarity that make up the defining characteristics of the objects.

So it is trying its best to copy the subset of images. Even if it had one image to go on, the result wouldnt be identical as it is making its best guess.

I'm not an expert but I read something about how AI machine learn, and it's slighlty different from what you describe (if I understand well your words, sorry, I'm not native english...)

The concept is that AI, following your example, learn what is and how to produce a nice depth of field.
When it knows it, it can reproduce this in any image: so it's not exactly the production of an new image based on original one.
The concept is that you can ask a nice depth of field for any subject, not only the subjects that was in training images. So it's not a question of pixels randomization that can give you a different image from an original one. The point is that now AI can blur the image to produce nice DOF for quite any subject you ask.
It's not trying to do a "copy" with some difference. It's mostly like trying to reproduce an event.

This is what I understood

7
Shutterstock.com / Re: Working together to lead the way with AI
« on: November 15, 2022, 05:01 »
what would a fair deal look like? what compensation would be appropriate for an artist who contributed 1 (or 100+) images to a training set of millions?

That's an interesting question.
Agency will probably pay small fee for quantity, but to be fair the correct way to pay should be a new license terms that give the right to use the image for "teaching".

Let's say... you're giving away not only your image but your knowledge to create that image, and this will be forever; like a teacher in the school.

We know that AI could create infinite number of new images based on this knowledge.
It doesn't matter if an image is sold in a single moment, because every single image created, even if refused by the buyer, will populate and will remain available forever in agency database.

As for this I think that a fair compensation should be near the price of an extended license for every single image used. This will cover every future sale.
Of course, this will never happen  ;D

8
Shutterstock.com / Re: Working together to lead the way with AI
« on: November 15, 2022, 04:51 »
Find your photo particles in the customers hand composite.
Now tell me you trust SS to let you know your photo was used and pay you.

It doesn't work this way.
Images are used to train AI to recreate an image of a hand.
There is no single pixel of your photo in the new AI generated one.
You have to be payed for training AI, not because you're giving pixels of your image

9
Shutterstock.com / Re: What a cool SS, how well he sells
« on: November 10, 2022, 10:00 »
I have a 30% down this year in SS but to be honest I can't say that the things are going so bad, some medium sales happens day by day

10
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS continues to deteriorate
« on: November 09, 2022, 15:56 »
You started with first posts in the forum crying against Adobe cause they didn't appreciate so much your great clips and nominate only few for the free section.
And this is what it's for. What does it have to do with a separate program for a stable monthly income. I must have had more videos nominated than you, so you're jealous.
From you in the subject only flood.

Jealous of you, that understand nothing  ;D 
Adobe doesn't give a monthly stable amount, it's one time offer but you still don't understand nothing  ;D


Thanks for enjoy, bye

11
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS continues to deteriorate
« on: November 09, 2022, 15:43 »
I have no complaints about other agencies

Really.
You started with first posts in the forum crying against Adobe cause they didn't appreciate so much your great clips and nominate only few for the free section.

trolling trolling trolling....

12
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS continues to deteriorate
« on: November 09, 2022, 13:24 »
Let me remind you in what topic you write here: "SS continues to deteriorate." If you are satisfied with the income from the SS, then what are you doing in this thread? Create your own theme, like what a cool SS, how well he sells.
Oh come on please, stop your personal show  ;D You're a master in confusion, I've never said I'm happy with SS, this year I'm down 30% in earnings. But it's not a disaster, and I follow the thread to listen real opinion, not your conspiracy nonsense claim, or absurde suggestions like "write email, and the day after you will see big sales"  ;D

About the trolls: we all know who is a troll here.
And, you know, only the forum master can kick off a user from a discussion, not you for sure

13
Shutterstock.com / Re: SS continues to deteriorate
« on: November 09, 2022, 09:10 »
or the search algorithms there work in such a way that the SS manually decides which authors to promote and which ones to push.
It's completely nonsense.
You really think that SS should PAY a group of well skilled people that works looking and MANUALLY adjust the search position  :o ;D ;D ;D
I would love to work in that department.

Ah... I can see you next message: "I didn't mean that there is people that do this job, I meant that there is a system that promote some authors more than others!!"

Of course there is. It's completely fair to have this; they HAVE to push the better content, the most quality, and the top selling.
 
IT'S ABSOLUTELY NORMAL: at starting time each one of us has the same possibilities to climb; then, the rest is given by results.

So, you answer by your own: your content is NOT enough good, in quality or sales number, to be rewarded by the search system.

SS, like any other agency, has a business: they have to sell images and clips. Nothing else
And what reason would SS have to do this?
SS couldn't care less whether a video is bought from contributor A or contributor B.

Exactly. They couldn't care less about you or me, they just want to sell the best


14
General Stock Discussion / Re: New beta engine at Midjourney
« on: November 06, 2022, 17:07 »
Stock footage. I dont know about the engine, but there is something to shoot for stocks.
Stock footage???
 ;D ;D ;D ;D You're the best... in forum new entry you're at the top level of confusion and misunderstanding.

You don't know about the engine (!) but you think there is something to shoot  ;D ;D ;D

Something to shoot in AI produced image... that's great  :o

17
Shutterstock.com / Re: Not Editorial use?
« on: November 02, 2022, 09:38 »
Not worry about it.  End usage is the buyers problem.

I appreciate that it's the buyer's problem, but surely if it's being used for commercial purposes, then I should be paid appropriately for that?

Price for commercial use is the same as editorial one

18
Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe Stock Free Collection: Video Nominations
« on: October 31, 2022, 12:24 »
If that's true? Anonymous can make up anything he wants. He's in Indonesia and 0.0053 Indian Rupee to a pound. 6 figures doesn't include the 2 to the right of the decimal point.

There is something called reliability in an anonymous internet forum.
Justanotherphotographer is here from years, he wrote a lot of posts and did many good comments; at the end, I don't see any reason at all not to trust him.
By the way, everyone can take his own conclusions and decide who is trustworthy and who's not

19
Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe Stock Free Collection: Video Nominations
« on: October 28, 2022, 09:17 »
Not everyone here is in the professional league

And this is a very good reason for listening to him, and to profs in general, instead listening to low earners suggestions and tips.
(... Assuming everyone would like to grow up and not to kill his own market... sometimes it seems the opposite....)

20
General - Top Sites / Re: Dall e 2 will make us all redundant?
« on: October 25, 2022, 08:55 »
I predicted too this move. I think it's necessary for agencies, unavoidable, and others will follow soon.

There will be hard legal wars, but this is the future and nothing will change it.

Now it will be very interesting to see if buyers have will and ability to use the AI feature.
I suspect that, after a first enthusiastic view, most of buyers will find how difficult is to translate in word what they have in mind (assuming that they have in mind a really specific subject)

We'll see. By the way, this step is inevitable

21
Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe Stock Free Collection: Video Nominations
« on: October 23, 2022, 07:25 »
Either way, participating in the free program will bring more existing buyers to my portfolio. And this is the main point!
And even if not, $8 for a lot of videos is a very profitable option. I agree to give Adobe half of my portfolio for $1 even.
Why don't you write Adobe your concept simply giving away your portfolio for 1$ each clip? You're so sure that this will bring you many people to look at your full port to buy more clips.
These idea seems... Let me think... It's quite near the famous "great news" we had in the past from several agencies:
"we will pay less, but you will have much more sales"
"we will pay less but you will gain a new market slice"
"we will pay less but your portfolio will gain great visibility"

Of course none of these happened to anyone.
It's like a broken record but despite this after years of experiences someone seems still to believe this.

Once again, Adobe seems to me fair and good with contributors, so I'm not talking to them. I'm talking to you. It seems you're just arrived from Mars.

Listen to me, send your port to Adobe for 1$, no one will know, but trying to convince other experienced contributors it's hard (and useless) way to go

22
Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe Stock Free Collection: Video Nominations
« on: October 22, 2022, 16:39 »
For $50 per clip I'm in. Can you pay me that much? ;)
This would be a reasonable amount for me too

23
Adobe Stock / Re: Adobe Stock Free Collection: Video Nominations
« on: October 22, 2022, 16:37 »
I don't think Adobe will attract new buyers. I treat this program as an advertisement for my portfolio, for which I am also paid money.

And it, unlike us, adobe conducts market research, and conducts appropriate policies. I trust adobe.

You think Adobe makes market research and you trust them, yet you believe they pay you money for videos to give away for free, but it doesn't attract new customers to their site, so they are just wasting their money without anything in return?   ???

This is really becoming a funny show 😂
He doesn't even read the proposal from Adobe and he think that there will be a monthly add of this buying offer...
Let's back to serious 😉

Attract new buyers with free section it's the main target for Adobe and it's absolutely obvious,

24
General - Top Sites / Re: Dall e 2 will make us all redundant?
« on: October 19, 2022, 11:29 »
As it stands, the list of agencies who have concerns over the legality of this is growing by the day and they do have a lot of legal minds who have experience in this field.

The only problem for the agencies is that they can't legally refer an image to an author: this follow the early decisions in USA about copyright on images created by AI. I suspect that this is the only reason to not accept these images.

Of course most of the thing I wrote are only my opinion, like for every one else :-)
But, once again, I suspect that the way in which AI works is much more a fact than an opinion...

25
General - Top Sites / Re: Dall e 2 will make us all redundant?
« on: October 19, 2022, 09:28 »
You're fighting a losing battle with this one I'm afraid. If you were to take parts (learnt) of X amount of songs to combine and form a new one, you'd have to pay the copyright holder of the original content

You're wrong
First of all in music there is a specific legal limit in terms of sounds and sequences in which you can claim a copyright infringment. That is quite obvious, because with only seven notes it's hard to create music without copying existing sequences.

Second, you are still thinking and telling that some parts of a copyrighted image is used inside the new image. That is simply not true.
AI create a completely new image, having an idea of how a wheel, a face, or a burger, is done.

Come on, it's called AI because it can do exactly the same operation that everyone of us do creating an image, having in mind the previous created images (created by others) with the same subject.


THERE IS AN ABSOLUTELY SERIOUS LEGAL ISSUE BECAUSE THE FEED THAT AI HAS USED TO START IS PROBABLY STOLEN, OR WITHOUT APPROPRIATE RELEASE
This is the problem, and this is very serious.

But you think that a legal problem will be the use of copyrighted creation INSIDE a new AI generated image, you're wrong.
Any AI engineer will easily demonstrate that no part of copyrighted images has been used

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 8

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle