|
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 - op
1
« on: March 30, 2017, 01:05 »
4K represents 50% of my sales already and of course it is more future proof than HD but we can also see that the "technology bump" in the video department could be else where in the future. Youtube already handles HFR (high frame rate 50/60~120fps) which provide more fluidity and is already part of the 8K specs. Another part of the 8K specs is HDR (high dynamic range) that Netflix uses on their productions. So the next step in video standard may be a bigger step in specs than just resolution bump that will give a good reason for people to make the switch.
2
« on: February 24, 2017, 03:36 »
3
« on: February 04, 2017, 23:51 »
http://www.microstockgroup.com/general-stock-discussion/video-pricing/msg438640/#msg438640
Yes, I read that thread. He doesn't specify what "respectable levels" means there. Now they're priced at $200, but is that what he meant back then in 2015?
Anyway, do you still think it's nice to sell 5 clips per week when you have 39,000 in your portfolio? Even if they were $1,000 each I still think that's pretty bad. If I had 39,000 clips and they kept my current average I'd be looking at property in the Bahamas, Monaco and Malibu right now.
A more reasonable number would be at least 1% of your portfolio per month, or let's say even 0.5%. It's a long way up to 195...
Every portfolios are different.. He does event/editorial and based on his quality output, when on location during let's say a snow storm, he can make hundreds of videos in one or few days. Just go around and shoot everything where you see a lot of snow and people struggling basically. He also said that he shot most of those when he was student so that's the proof that that was not too demanding to even reach xx,xxx videos. If he can make a living and he's satisfied with the money he's earning then there is no problem at all. And I'm pretty sure he can do thousands of footage a year when I would only do few hundred.
4
« on: February 04, 2017, 14:33 »
5
« on: February 04, 2017, 07:50 »
This person has a similar approach:
https://www.pond5.com/artist/patuwe97
Over 22,000 clips, HD at $299 or $300.
A few hundred photos at $429.
I discovered their portfolio a few years ago and it was much smaller back then and the pricing was similar as now. If they have motivation to grow their port like this, I assume that this approach must be working, at least to some extent.
Definitely food for thought for all the people who think that a Peanut Vending Machine like Videohive/Envato is the pinnacle of stock video industry.
Well, the beauty of high-priced portfolios like this is that you can see how much they sell at P5. And we're talking 1-5 sales per week.
To me, that is just incredibly BAD for a portfolio of 22,000. The prices are too high.
Is $8-25 too low? Yes. But $199-429 for HD or photos is also too high to maximize revenue today.
They're shooting themselves in the foot with those prices. I think around $49 to maybe $99 is what you should be aiming for with high quality clips if you want to maximize revenue.
Who can say something is too cheap or too expensive if it sells.. Those are also for specific use and even if there were priced for nothing, they would maybe not sell more. Actually there was a topic on this forum and if I remember well, it was actually this guy who created it and asked what was the value of his portfolio and what prices he should sell. He was selling for cheap and we advised him to at least give a try to raise his prices. He did try for few months and not only his sales didn't fall, it actually grew.
6
« on: February 02, 2017, 23:32 »
He was actually on this forum before. I think he was a student.
7
« on: January 20, 2017, 01:19 »
Thanks for all the responses! I am tempted with the A7R mostly because it could satisfy all my stills desires too - otherwise it would be a straight decision for the GH5, that what makes the decision so difficult.
I couldnt find a clear comparison regarding filming under low light conditions, maybe not enough Models of the GH5 are out there yet. Any ideas? Can it somehow compare to the Sony a7S (not R ii)?
a7SII is the best low light camera on the market... Nothing comes close. You cannot compare it with a 4/3 sensor... GH4 was unusable past iso800, i guess GH5's limit is iso1600, for the a7SII it would be like iso51200 or iso102400
8
« on: January 15, 2017, 02:46 »
I just sold 2 footages at full price today.. I don't see any discounted prices.
9
« on: December 29, 2016, 00:35 »
Alamy doesn't have press mandated photographers all around the world.. BBC is the same so they need a media partner for their coverage. It is not about iStock or creative Getty contributors but full time press mandated photographers.. If Getty were treating them so badly, why do they still work for them yet? In the same time, I know nothing about work ethics of AP, Reuters or AFP..
French medias are as sensitive as BBC regarding brand promotion but they do the same for AFP.
10
« on: December 28, 2016, 13:55 »
I don't see what it's shocking here.. It's news stuff. Apart Getty's editorial division, all the other companies (AP, Reuters and AFP) that cover the world's events are direct competition to BBC on the news side.. And I can tell you that BBC get some pretty good deals from GI too..
11
« on: December 25, 2016, 01:52 »
We just have to look at what happened to the photo market to see what kind of future is cooking for video.
13
« on: December 21, 2016, 12:44 »
$4559.39 with 22 sales on Getty. I still dream of day like this... 
Very nice!
But does it mean that all 22 sales were made that day, or it was Getty monthly payday?
Yes, on the same day as the topic 
14
« on: December 19, 2016, 12:33 »
$4559.39 with 22 sales on Getty. I still dream of day like this...
15
« on: December 10, 2016, 22:19 »
Getty btw hardly ever sell 4K and thats strange considering the kind of buyers they have.
My results are quite different.. This year on Getty, I sold more 4K than any other sizes.. 1080p is a close second though.
16
« on: November 29, 2016, 01:55 »
Thanks for the comments - it's good to know things are moving in the right direction. I'll respond to each.
increasingdifficulty: I had a couple more sales before Sept at VH, which is probably why the numbers are bit off there. Very interesting to hear about P5 and how it functions. I guess I'll just have to hang around and keep uploading. As a video editor I know P5 is often a first port of call for productions I work on, which I guess is why I expected more. But your explanation makes sense.
Luka: I followed your instructions... sadly no hidden sales at 123RF.
AliJaber: The three sales I had from P5 varied a lot, hence the low RPD. I don't know why. I'll stick with iStock for a while longer and hope they become more contributor friendly.
Irina: It's all new material, I wish I did have a Red Weapon, that would be very nice. I hadn't heard about Stocksubmitter, so I'll give it a go, it looks ideal for me. You can see my portfolio over here: https://www.shutterstock.com/video/gallery/WrightMediaUK-3201023
Interesting post and great portfolio. What kind of footage are you selling the most? City shots/aerial or food? Thanks
17
« on: November 01, 2016, 01:47 »
What does ESP mean in this context?
It is an upload platform. Before it was only video and now all getty switched to it. I've been using it for like 1 year and a half and it's been very good. I would say similar but a bit better than pond5's platform.
18
« on: October 14, 2016, 06:29 »
As for myself, my vote never counted... I must have voted 4 or 5 months and nothing so I gave up.. :/
19
« on: October 14, 2016, 06:11 »
It's gone down (exclusives) 11 points since the last time I looked, which was admittedly a few days ago. Actually, the indy rating has dropped quite a few points as well.
But I don't even have a port on iStock, I'm directly under contract with GI so I vote under GettyImages only. And it should have raised the rating..
20
« on: October 14, 2016, 04:55 »
I voted right after my previous post and until now still no change..
21
« on: October 13, 2016, 14:50 »
I checked for few days after and nothing changed.. I tried for few months and then gave up. Will try again and see.
22
« on: October 12, 2016, 23:33 »
I don't report anything because I noticed that my vote don't show up in the poll... Same number of vote and same rating before or after I vote... >_>
24
« on: September 22, 2016, 08:28 »
A full frame would be nice.. Pentax did it this year, why not them 
Wouldn't really be a micro 4/3 then. I personally like the MFT format and see the GH5 being a mega seller. They could develop a full frame system but lots of those out there already. I'd rather see the MFT line fully developed than adding yet another FF to the mix.
When I look at the MTF format, it doesn't make me dream at all. I have always been a full frame user and cannot think one instant about going smaller.. And I would love to go bigger to medium formats..
I like using different sized sensors. The smaller lenses with MFT mean I can walk around all day with 3 prime lenses in a small camera bag. I seem to be using it more often than my full frame camera. The difference in quality isn't a problem, anyone that can't use a MFT camera for stock doesn't know what they're doing.
Sony A7 series e-mount prime lenses are very compact too. And the quality difference is huge for me although I shoot only landscape/cityscape and plenty of low light.
Still bigger and heavier than MFT lenses and the difference in quality is more of an issue for photographers than buyers. I have a Sony A7 and a Panasonic G7. Having seen one of my photos from a compact camera, with a sensor much smaller than MFT, used for a poster, I don't see a problem.
I wasn't speaking about resolution but low light sensitivity and dynamic range. High iso and landscape photographers would find MFT very limited compared to full frame.
My ISO never goes above 800, had no problems with the newer MFT cameras. I haven't tried the metabones speed booster but the reviews look interesting. The dynamic range with RAW is OK and I use mine for landscapes. A graduated ND filter or a bit of HDR gets around dynamic range problems. There's some great low light and landscape lenses for the MFT cameras.
Obviously the full frame sensor has its advantages but I don't think the differences are as big as they were a few years ago and the Panasonic cameras are great for 4K video.
I shoot up to iso 3200/6400 @ 20sec expo when I shoot stars and same iso(s) in video for events when I'm not allowed to use lights. It does happen way too often but with the sony a7sII it comes out very clean.
25
« on: September 22, 2016, 08:17 »
SS has a 4GB limit on footage and last year it was 2,5GB. In 4K Pro-res 422 HQ, that's just few seconds. When I checked VB at their opening they would only host mjpeg/h.264 files, you could upload pro-res but they would re-encode it. I just checked again and they really improve with a 25GB limit and almost all codecs accepted. I should have not mentioned Pond5 since they always were good.
To rectify my point of vue, I am a 10bit supporter and all my footage are pro-res 422 HQ since 2012 but I encountered a lot of frustration when stock companies back then didn't care much about it or being 8 or 10bit.
No, it's not just a few seconds, 4 GB is just under 44 seconds of 4k ProRes HQ 25p (average of 734mbit/sec bitrate) which is longer than 99% of all stock footage needs. 2.5 GB is 27 seconds. A lot has happened in four years regarding storage and bandwidth so today I don't think 4k ProRes HQ is much of a problem anymore.
VB, as you say, now happily accept ProRes HQ. Last year's requirements or numbers from 2012 aren't really relevant today...
Indeed.. I never checked back since i'm with getty. Good to know.
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
