|
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 - spike
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 26
176
« on: March 13, 2017, 10:20 »
Same. Also duplicated each file three times 
177
« on: March 03, 2017, 02:54 »
Dunno, I like them.
Super easy upload, good royalty rates, and they're my third best agency, bringing in around 10% of my monthly income.
178
« on: February 28, 2017, 05:20 »
So it's not so much quality or quantity, it's something that we can't affect. Luck and search engines.
Luck is not independent of quantity.
It's also not independent of quantity. What's your point?
Well, you said it's something that we can't affect: luck and search engines.
But it's not true because quantity affects luck, so we can affect luck by uploading more.
Yeah; I misread your post, thought you were talking about quality.
179
« on: February 28, 2017, 04:04 »
So it's not so much quality or quantity, it's something that we can't affect. Luck and search engines.
Luck is not independent of quantity.
It's also not independent of quantity. What's your point?
180
« on: February 27, 2017, 03:18 »
In addition, I have seen (and I'll bet we've all seen) some of our top-selling images on one site fall flat on another. I don't know why that should be, but it is. Search engine variation / pure luck (if a buyer is present as you upload the pic, it'll get downloaded, boosted because of it in the search results, downloaded again due to this boost - positive feedback makes the first immediate download snowball the pic into a bestseller) So it's not so much quality or quantity, it's something that we can't affect. Luck and search engines. But people need to have a feeling of control so they tell a story to themselves.
181
« on: February 23, 2017, 02:10 »
When do we get to see our Dec 2016 earnings from subs and PP? And where?
182
« on: February 20, 2017, 15:42 »
Dead for me as well.
183
« on: February 19, 2017, 20:32 »
...
My rpd is higher (0,70-0,75 $), but i sell high quality images.
...
For example, I have high quality images (but small portfolio) ...
Humble.
185
« on: February 18, 2017, 16:05 »
I just noticed that I can download any RM file on Arcangel in full size, free. You just click the download button. Is that normal?
186
« on: February 17, 2017, 01:23 »
I mean that you can supply "quantity" to micro and "quality" to macro
187
« on: February 17, 2017, 00:31 »
Why not both? Just not on the same outlets.
188
« on: February 16, 2017, 16:36 »
Yes, it takes about as long as it takes to export the tiffs, quite naturally.
Like I mentioned before, the point is to export directly to a .mov file (for example ProRes 422 (HQ), thereby skipping the image sequence export.
Then you work with the ProRes movie file. You will go crazy if you try stabilizing, grading, cutting etc. directly on the RAW images.
Can't export ProRes 422 HQ since I'm not on a mac. I'll try with Davinci resolve.
189
« on: February 16, 2017, 15:50 »
Davinci resolve also reads associated xmp files?
190
« on: February 16, 2017, 14:08 »
It takes around 20 minutes to export it as a 4k mov, so only 3 minutes longer than the preview  Strange.
191
« on: February 16, 2017, 14:05 »
Obviously rendering RAW files is much more demanding than TIFF, so it depends on your PC capabilities, especially the amount of RAM (and the amount dedicated to AE).
I have a powerful PC with 32 GB of RAM and previewing a timelapse of 15 seconds in RAW takes less than30 seconds.
I really would like to extend to 64 GB
i7 4970K, 16gb ram, gtx 760. And it took me 17 minutes to preview a 5 second timelapse clip (with position and scale keyframed). I don't know what config I should have to reduce that time from 17 minutes to less than 30 seconds. Especially since there isn't much of a difference between haswell and skylake/kaby lake regarding performance. How many cores do you have on your processor? Which graphics card? Also I'd like to add that each of the raw files has its own .xmp, because I processed the sequence in lrtimelapse first.
192
« on: February 16, 2017, 13:42 »
I've just tried that workflow, but noticed that scrubbing through the timeline and other adjustment take waaaay longer compared to a tiff or jpg export. So I'm not really sure if it's faster. Just previewing a 5 second clip takes more than 5 minutes* to render all the frames (at "quarter" quality).
*Edit: actually 17 minutes
193
« on: February 16, 2017, 01:50 »
OK. My brain hurts.
So does anybody really have an idea what percentage we get???
I emailed them two days ago and asked specifically what their commission was. They (Duncan) would not tell me. We had a back and forth until I gave up. They definitely don't want to be transparent.
That's also a nice signal.
194
« on: February 15, 2017, 16:55 »
Oh yes. On some hyperlapses I can spend two full days. It's extremely time consuming (especially if you were a bit lazy when taking the pictures)...
But here's a tip: Skip the tiff images step and work with RAW in After Effects. Saves time and space.
Can I "develop" them in AE like in LR by using camera raw or something similar? I edit most of them heavily, so I'm wondering if I can get those adjustments in AE as well.
195
« on: February 15, 2017, 16:33 »
15 minutes to render a 30 second clip on a $4K machine? I think you were ripped off!
Try importing images (16 bit tiff) for a 30 second 25fps hyperlapse clip --> 750 images. Now stabilize position, rotation, add warp stabilizer once, twice, deflicker footage, add pixel motion blur. If you can get it to render below 15 minutes, you're a magician. It's more like 1h15min. And that's just the render time. 1080p is more than 4x faster in these circumstances.
196
« on: February 14, 2017, 13:13 »
Price will gradually go down to attract other segments of buyers (like bloggers), but it is still way too soon now
Why would bloggers ever need 4k content? I get a bunch od 240p sales from those customers lol
197
« on: February 14, 2017, 11:47 »
Sales disappeared here as well.
198
« on: February 14, 2017, 11:38 »
It's not about the camera but the work/time put into the footages. In my opinion ft or ss should allow certain freedom to adjust the prices. I started to shoot time lapse videos so I appreciated the effort in the shooting/production. The efforts needed for different subjects vary so wildly thus I like P5 when people can set the prices accordingly.
Some timelapses could be priced 39$ for 4k because they're low quality material. Full of flicker, uninteresting scene, "jerky movement" (not using ND filters in daylight), bad exposure (not using "holy grail" ramping in transitions) etc. And some should be priced 399$ because they're well produced. So a blanket statement like "timelapses should be priced x$" is wrong. The same goes for any type of footage.
199
« on: February 13, 2017, 19:46 »
Same
Pages: 1 ... 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 13 ... 26
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
