|
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 - KB
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 57
26
« on: January 25, 2018, 17:02 »
Perhaps so; I'm going to re-submit these new renders and find out. The rejection reason given: Frame Rate / Shutter Speed -- Clip exhibits issues related to frame rate or shutter speed.Maybe it had something to do with shutter speed. I think I was using 180-degree, so the shutter speed would have been 1/125. Maybe they don't like 1/125 shutter speed rendered at 29.97? Perhaps I should always shoot at a fixed shutter speed of 1/60 when I intend to render at 29.97. I've never really understood that. 
27
« on: January 25, 2018, 13:42 »
Thank you very much! I'll give that a try (though it seems too easy; should be more difficult than that  ).
28
« on: January 25, 2018, 12:28 »
I've been submitting stock videos for a long time now, but when it comes to slow motion clips -- I admit it, I'm never really sure what I'm doing. So, my source clip was shot at 59.94 fps. I put the clip into an After Effects project, which sets the frame rate to match the source. I then do a Time Stretch of 200%, which doubles the clip's time length. Finally, I render the clip at 29.97 fps, and the final duration matches what I expect. (That is, 10 seconds of the clip at 59.94 takes up 20 seconds on the timeline, and creates a 20-second clip at 29.97.) So does anyone know why what I'm doing is wrong, and what I should be doing?
29
« on: January 01, 2018, 00:30 »
Is it just me, or do other people look at the current results graph and think we are all giving "the middle finger" to Getty?
30
« on: November 05, 2017, 11:29 »
One of the meanings of the word amateur is:
a person inexperienced or unskilled in a particular activity
So, yes, 'amateur' can imply less quality based on that. However, based on what I've seen in stock photography and videography, as others have said, the word does not predict the level of quality at all.
31
« on: September 22, 2017, 12:43 »
Ok, thanks. At least I know 28 credit sales are still around, and I'll just assume these were what had formerly been 18 credit ones.
32
« on: September 22, 2017, 10:31 »
Almost every HD sale I've had on Fotolia / Adobe Stock has brought me 18 or (mostly) 28 credits. (I had a few just under 20, but last year). This month I've had 3 sales (yeah, I'm a big seller ), and every one has been for 24 credits.  Does anyone know what's changed? Is 24 credits the new 28, or the new 18?
33
« on: April 17, 2017, 18:24 »
I've had plenty of $4, $5, and $6 footage sales at Shutterstock before (lowest being $3.77).
Until this new pricing structure, such sales were always so-called "low res" clips. (Of course, since SS doesn't actually tell us the size of the file sold, we could never be sure what size was bought/sold.) Now, unless they create a new category for these sales, we won't know if a $4 sale was a low res clip, or a 4K clip. 
34
« on: April 13, 2017, 16:00 »
We will only be offering this package to large business customers who are guaranteeing bulk purchases of footage. It wont be shown on our public website. With this package, clients will be given the opportunity to download a large volume of footage clips at a negotiated price per clip. As with our other footage products, your earnings under this high-volume footage package will be a percentage of the purchase price of each download, with payouts between $3 and $6 per clip."
Fantastic. This is the same tactic that Getty uses. Only their BEST customers (i.e., those who buy the most files) get the steep discounts, so those who make the bulk of the purchases pay the least. I so look forward to most of my HD & 4K video sales bringing in between $3 and $6 a clip. Can't wait.
35
« on: April 13, 2017, 00:06 »
It is definitely the first time I've ever really felt paranoid that sales aren't being accurately recorded. Facts stated, no opinion: Every sale that DM and the stats page reported in Jan and Feb exactly matched the sales reported in my Jan and Feb GI sales report (with the file, sale count, and sales amount all matching). Except for one sale that was shown on my stats page graph and in DM. Opinion: So am I to believe that both DM and the stats page somehow made up this sale out of thin air?
36
« on: April 01, 2017, 11:02 »
I'm curious: Does anyone know what the agencies do when they process our files?
Because I didn't think they take them straight as we deliver them (though I could be wrong). I was under the impression that they convert them to something, but I have no idea what. Maybe different agencies do different things.
37
« on: March 31, 2017, 10:43 »
Your 4K camera should be recording at a minimum of 40Mb/s, so if you're rendering a 30 second clip at 100Mb, then you're losing masses of data. I don't disagree with anything SSF said, but I just want to make it clear to people who might not realize: 40Mb/s means the clip is capturing 40 mega bits per second. A 30-second clip occupying 100MB is 100 mega bytes. 40Mb/s for 30 seconds is 1200 megabits, or 150 megabytes. Which means if the final file is 100 megabytes, about 1/3 of the data is gone. That's still a huge amount of data, but perhaps not as much as some might have thought from reading the above.
38
« on: March 29, 2017, 10:05 »
I think most of them prefer Photo JPEG. They only want H.264 if that's direct from your camera... which is going to be a lot more than 100MB.
Yeah, I've always uploaded in Photo JPEG. H.264 seems like a terrible codec for resale. My 4K clips hardly sell at all, and they're around 1 - 1.5GB in size for a 20-second clip. Definitely not worth it, yet I continue to shoot & upload in it, anyway.
39
« on: March 24, 2017, 23:45 »
No, that's just what they told us.
That doesn't make it true, like grandfathering us in at our next level, or it will ne er be possible to exclude exclusive files from search, or mirroring all editorial to Getty - a very limited and in my case at least random selection has been mirrored, and instead of calling it editorial, they're calling it 'unreleased creative' or some such meaningless title, meaning people looking for editorial almost certainly bypass that collection. Still, at only 20% for these sales, which are someimes very low anyway, that's not necessarily totally bad news, just another broken promise.
So you're saying they changed the minimum for subs? Where did you see that?
It's de facto, e.g. from the figures quoted above by KB. Many people have reported subs sales lower than iS's stated minimum.
It's been discussed in the feb earnings thread.
You are correct. There are a lot of pages in that thread, and it took a lot of time before I finally found the post with the explanation. I don't know why they want to hide this, but whatever. Then it took even longer for me to try to get the data together in a format to actually verify what they were saying, but verify it I did. So the bottom line for me is, my sub RPD is higher than I thought (about where it had been before these changes), but the number of sub sales is lower (and has been declining steadily now for over half a year). But it's true, there were very few sub sales in the lower reaches, and none under 19c. So thanks for letting me know.
40
« on: March 24, 2017, 16:09 »
The lowest you could get paid is 19c for subs. I wonder why my Feb report has the following 'iStock Subscription' sale entries then?
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.14
0.15
0.15
I guess "minimum" means, "the lowest you can get ... except when it's lower". Or, maybe all those sales were reported incorrectly?
But what's this? My Jan statement has these sub sales listed:
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.15
I guess those were all a mistake, too.
Are you exclusive? If yes, have you read the forums?
Yes. No. Why should I bother? If 19c is the minimum (I mistakenly thought it was 16c, so there are more that should be listed above), it's the minimum. Apparently there are exceptions; I don't care what they are. It means there IS no minimum in reality.
19c is the lowest for exclusives.
OH!!
41
« on: March 24, 2017, 16:04 »
The lowest you could get paid is 19c for subs. I wonder why my Feb report has the following 'iStock Subscription' sale entries then?
0.03
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.14
0.15
0.15
I guess "minimum" means, "the lowest you can get ... except when it's lower". Or, maybe all those sales were reported incorrectly?
But what's this? My Jan statement has these sub sales listed:
0.03
0.06
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.07
0.08
0.15
I guess those were all a mistake, too.
Are you exclusive? If yes, have you read the forums?
Yes. No. Why should I bother? If 19c is the minimum (I mistakenly thought it was 16c, so there are more that should be listed above), it's the minimum. Apparently there are exceptions; I don't care what they are. It means there IS no minimum in reality.
42
« on: March 24, 2017, 15:59 »
The lowest you could get paid is 19c for subs. I wonder why my Feb report has the following 'iStock Subscription' sale entries then? 0.03 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.14 0.15 0.15 I guess "minimum" means, "the lowest you can get ... except when it's lower". Or, maybe all those sales were reported incorrectly? But what's this? My Jan statement has these sub sales listed: 0.03 0.06 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.07 0.08 0.15 I guess those were all a mistake, too.
43
« on: March 15, 2017, 10:19 »
I used to have to issue 1099 forms to people I hired.
I seem to recall they have to be sent by Jan 31 of every year if the person made more than $600 for the year. There are exceptions whereby you do not have to send the 1099 but I do not remember what they are.
Exactly! They were supposed to go out by 1/31. That's why this is so ridiculous. If they are not sending 1099s they should just say so, so the rest of us can move on with our lives.
If they pay via Paypal, that's one of the exceptions. (I agree they should say so, but there are others who also don't send 1099s that don't mention it.) I believe Paypal is supposed to issue a 1099-K, but only if you've received more than $20K and had more than 200 transactions. Don't quote me, however. 
44
« on: March 03, 2017, 00:15 »
I didn't think there was enough detail in the email to make a determination one way or the other.
I do appreciate that they will let us opt out. If it turns out that discounts are even worse than current ones (or more frequent), at least I can opt out if I chose.
45
« on: February 24, 2017, 11:47 »
I have never uploaded to istock, just curious to know how footage is doing there
Footage sales were middling when I deactivated my files as far as DL count goes. But they lowered their prices and commissions down to where indie contributors receive only $6-8 for HD and 4K sales, and that is truly unacceptable.
46
« on: February 20, 2017, 11:41 »
If there is anyone here on this forum that can access the new getty forums could you please post this print screen to let istock what is happening. I made a screenshot because their support team seems to NOT understand what we are writing to them and keeps on replying with the same email.
thanks for your help
Hello!
I had the same problem. The situation is like this:
1) You are a video contributor (even if you do not have many videos - I don't know your situation)
2) Video contributors were sent in the past invitation to ESP. That is why you did not received one this month.
3) Your ESP account needs activation. That is why you get that error.
4) You received in the past (1-2 years ago) ESP account activation e-mail but you did not activate.
5) If you find that e-mail it contains the link needed to activate. That is all. Otherwise you need to wait for their response.
6). You need to copy & paste the link in the e-mail, not click on it. 7). For me at least, that activated my account and I had access to ESP. For a few days. Then suddenly again it stated my account was not setup for ESP, and there doesn't seem to be anything I can do about that. 
47
« on: February 19, 2017, 11:09 »
Anyone receive iStock or Pond5 yet? I'm never sure if a form might be buried under a pile of paperwork or if it simply hasn't arrived. Or are they downloadable somewhere?
I received both in the mail a few weeks ago (iStock marked as Getty, of course). I don't know if they're downloadable or not.
48
« on: February 18, 2017, 10:54 »
Shutterstock has the most annoying thumbnails system ever, with the post review thumbnail change.
I'd say Fotolia has, since they don't let you set the thumbnail (unless they do on the Adobe platform -- I've never tried that). I haven't done any studies; I just set a thumbnail that I feel best represents the clip and leave it at that.
49
« on: February 13, 2017, 23:46 »
It's been down since Thursday mid-day. I emailed them on Thursday, got a reply on Friday saying they're aware of the problem and are working on it. Guess they're still working on it, because I just tried it and it's still down.
50
« on: February 09, 2017, 19:59 »
Logged in using the Forgot password option. Now it says:
We're sorry.
Your account is not currently set up for ESP access.
Is this supposed to be normal? I'm getting tired of this mess.
Did you get an ESP invite for video a few years back? Some people who did have reported seeing that error message, despite (or perhaps because) of never having UL'd any clips via ESP. If so, you need to find that email (!) and copy and paste the link given there.
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 ... 57
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
