|
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
51
« on: April 25, 2016, 16:41 »
Quite long depending of the number of others submissions. But be glad because not long ago, we had to send hard-drives to them directly and the whole process took months.
52
« on: March 24, 2016, 02:14 »
The $2500 limit vote is also a problem.
53
« on: March 24, 2016, 02:01 »
I think Getty's bad reputation is mostly due to iStock and not Getty itself..
You don't know much about Getty. Do you?
I'm just a contributor there since 2011.. What bad things should I know about them then?
54
« on: March 22, 2016, 02:20 »
It was really worth the wait!
This still was sold for $4850!!!
30% royalties is a pain in the ass, but after all a good income.
Macrostock is awesome, you can get big sales, but i'm a bit afraid of a refund.
Crossing fingers for getting no refund...
With the other sales, video and stills, February gets me about $2000 with Getty.
I know Getty has not the best reputation, i agree, but Getty is sometimes able to put a smile in your face! 
Best regards,
Martin
I think Getty's bad reputation is mostly due to iStock and not Getty itself..
55
« on: March 20, 2016, 06:38 »
Photo jpeg at 95%.
I do not even think on something else. And pro user buyers as well.
I could say exactly the same thing for Pro-res 422/HQ
56
« on: March 20, 2016, 06:36 »
Photo jpeg at 95%.
I do not even think on something else. And pro user buyers as well.
Problem I have is I use Final Cut Pro X and it does not offer a photo JPG codec, so I use Pro RES 422. I really don't understand why Apple does not design in that codec.
Pro-res 422 is way better.
57
« on: March 18, 2016, 07:57 »
The issue is that many allow the mp4 encoding which gives me much smaller files. But videoblocks demands an h264 encoding and it file size with that is huge. I'm using movie editor pro and still trying to figure the best codec
mp4 and h.264 are different. mp4 is a container same as .avi, .mov, .mkv, etc. and h.264 is a codec/encoder same as mjpeg, divx/xvid, photo-jpeg, pro-res. You can totally encode h.264 into a mp4 container. It is actually the recommended combination.
58
« on: March 18, 2016, 07:49 »
Is there any way to become Getty video contributor if you upload to other agencies and have iStock non-exclusive account?
No, all Getty contents are exclusive.
59
« on: February 12, 2016, 13:16 »
Pro-res 422 HQ only for 4K footage.
60
« on: February 07, 2016, 13:20 »
Those commissions are impossible in microstock. There is no point for a comparaison here, the two business models are at the opposite.
61
« on: February 06, 2016, 08:12 »
Yes, but at the same time, I have a huge number of clips that never sell.
Do they sell the clips for Getty for much cheaper on iStock or other sites?
No, Getty's contents are not on iStock, only the other way around for iStock exclusives. And it seems that they use partner sites as they call them "Partner Portal" in countries where they don't have a representative office @ whenever I have sales in Turkey, Romania, Cyprus.. Prices in Turkey are same as GI US but Romania and Cyprus are way cheaper. I don't mind about that.
62
« on: February 06, 2016, 05:10 »
Yes, but at the same time, I have a huge number of clips that never sell.
63
« on: February 06, 2016, 01:36 »
Yes, you cannot.
I only work with Getty so I don't know how it would have been at SS and P5 but indeed it is far from microstock's volume of sales.
64
« on: February 05, 2016, 15:56 »
I'm working as well with Getty Images. RR is 30% and RF is 25%. Exclusive only.
I don't think their TV use price is expensive when you compare it with a tvc total budget. If I was the client or production company, I would be very happy to use stock footages instead of hiring an all director+crew. But except for advertising and corporate, I do think that all their others prices are too expensive.
65
« on: January 31, 2016, 02:18 »
I vote as well but I can never see the results since GI's rating doesn't appear. It's funny though because the ratings I'm the most interested in are Stocksy, GI and 500px but all of them never appear.. And I do think that the $2500 limit is a problem too.
66
« on: January 29, 2016, 03:10 »
It's been 5 years now that I shoot stock footage and the only thing that I learned about nature footage is that it doesn't sell at all. But I don't sell on microstock so I guess buyers interested in nature have limited budget.
67
« on: December 11, 2015, 12:07 »
Besides GI I'm also under contract with GI Korea so the same company as gettyimagesbank.com, and as for footage, they don't have any online interface to check sales and royalties. It's all done by e-mail with a monthly report and I guess photo division is the same. I didn't know gettyimagesbank.com actually but it seems it is the istock of GI korea but still managed by the same company so...
68
« on: December 11, 2015, 03:14 »
Log in is only for customer I think. What do you want to know?
69
« on: December 04, 2015, 14:27 »
I upload both 4k H.264 and HD PhotoJPEG.
Customers regularly download the original HD PhotoJPEG, instead of the downsized 4k->HD H.264 version.
So the question is do they prefer the Photojpeg or are the searches biased to the HD? It would be nice to know the answer.
Codec preference is another issue altogether. So assuming all other things equal, the 4K / HD issue is still a bit of a pain in the neck.
On the left hand side of Shutterstock's video search results clearly have a resolution "filter". By clicking on HD, it automatically ignores all 4K clips despite the fact that there are downscaled HD versions available. The "filter" applies to the original resolution that the content was uploaded as. So all our 4K footage gets omitted from searches with the HD filter on. This is counter-intuitive as HD versions of original 4K content does exist for sale, the client just doesn't see it.
But do clients really filter out 4K files when they search for something? I bought footages there recently and my only concern was to find content I was looking for and avoid SD but I haven't seen any so far.
Good point I also filter out SD when searching for something in HD. The problem is that footage originally uploaded at 4K is also filtered out...
Test it for yourself and see.
Oh, that's not what I meant. I didn't bother to do an advanced search, I just went on SS homepage, selected Footage and typed what I was looking for. Then, results came out and you can clearly see a caption with "SD", "HD" or "4K" at the bottom of each video and I just ignored SD when i started to check previews. And I guess, that's what people usually do... But I can be wrong. So in final, my client bought two footages, one HD and one 4K but we bought the HD resized version.
70
« on: December 04, 2015, 14:18 »
On GI, HD and 4K are on the same price and to be honest I like it that way, so I'm sure clients get the optimal quality.
I'm not sure if I should take your comment seriously.
Just because a camera these days may be 4K capable, doesn't mean that it provides "optimal quality" for a buyer who indeed needs 4K footage.
HD cameras have greatly improved in the last couple of years so, yes, they are quite cheap and produce decent quality.
Have you been shooting RAW HD or 4K? Once I saw the difference between RAW recorded footage and compressed footage which 99.9% of the prosumer (DSLR etc.) cameras produce - there are still worlds of difference in terms of color and clarity.
The substantial costs for high end 4K gear cannot be reflected by the insulting footage prices of iStock, not to mention the fact that they price 4K and HD the same.
So I cannot agree that HD and 4K should be offered at the same price as production costs vary heavily.
95% of my work is time lapse shot in RAW 6K 14bits. HD was already $xxxx on GI, how much more do you want them to sell 4K then?.. I agree with that and when a client is willing to pay that price I'd rather see him/her get 4K instead of HD.
Pardon me for not being clear enough: This is not aimed at you but 4K timelapse clips can be shot in RAW at a decent quality starting at $400 or less.
Obviously I didn't include such an example as "high end gear".
I was trying to refer to genuine 4K real time footage shot for example on a RED system. Needless to say that you can easily add two more 0s to that price.
I'm not familiar with the GI footage pricing structure - only with iStock's where I enjoyed selling footage until they changed it to commissions below the double digits.
Adding insult to injury and selling 4K (NOT time lapse) at the same price is delusional. Sure, the buyers will be happy in terms of the money they can save but the question is how many contributors can sustain a business model while delivering top notch content for $8 royalties per sale?
I'm not even selling my HD stuff that low.
Yes I totally agree with you. Base HD clips on iStock, SS or whatever are too cheap. I think if HD would be at the same price as 4K (for example SS market price) so $199, nobody would complain about 4K being at same price as HD.
71
« on: December 04, 2015, 03:46 »
I upload both 4k H.264 and HD PhotoJPEG.
Customers regularly download the original HD PhotoJPEG, instead of the downsized 4k->HD H.264 version.
So the question is do they prefer the Photojpeg or are the searches biased to the HD? It would be nice to know the answer.
Codec preference is another issue altogether. So assuming all other things equal, the 4K / HD issue is still a bit of a pain in the neck.
On the left hand side of Shutterstock's video search results clearly have a resolution "filter". By clicking on HD, it automatically ignores all 4K clips despite the fact that there are downscaled HD versions available. The "filter" applies to the original resolution that the content was uploaded as. So all our 4K footage gets omitted from searches with the HD filter on. This is counter-intuitive as HD versions of original 4K content does exist for sale, the client just doesn't see it.
But do clients really filter out 4K files when they search for something? I bought footages there recently and my only concern was to find content I was looking for and avoid SD but I haven't seen any so far.
72
« on: December 04, 2015, 03:37 »
On GI, HD and 4K are on the same price and to be honest I like it that way, so I'm sure clients get the optimal quality.
I'm not sure if I should take your comment seriously.
Just because a camera these days may be 4K capable, doesn't mean that it provides "optimal quality" for a buyer who indeed needs 4K footage.
HD cameras have greatly improved in the last couple of years so, yes, they are quite cheap and produce decent quality.
Have you been shooting RAW HD or 4K? Once I saw the difference between RAW recorded footage and compressed footage which 99.9% of the prosumer (DSLR etc.) cameras produce - there are still worlds of difference in terms of color and clarity.
The substantial costs for high end 4K gear cannot be reflected by the insulting footage prices of iStock, not to mention the fact that they price 4K and HD the same.
So I cannot agree that HD and 4K should be offered at the same price as production costs vary heavily.
95% of my work is time lapse shot in RAW 6K 14bits. HD was already $xxxx on GI, how much more do you want them to sell 4K then?.. I agree with that and when a client is willing to pay that price I'd rather see him/her get 4K instead of HD.
73
« on: December 03, 2015, 13:27 »
We still don't have any rating for GI, Stocksy, 500px or even self-hosted.. Even if voters are much fewer, I think it still would be interesting to see ratings at least..
74
« on: December 03, 2015, 13:16 »
On GI, HD and 4K are on the same price and to be honest I like it that way, so I'm sure clients get the optimal quality.
75
« on: December 01, 2015, 16:35 »
I didn't say that PJPEG is good, but by its nature, it is a proper workable, editable codec. I don't like it too and I don't know why you consider it the only alternative here. I use exclusively Pro-res 422 HQ or 4444 and working with GI, it is the only format they currently accept for 4k footage. I guess every agency should accept Pro-res right? As for h.264, I agree that if you set "each frame" in the settings it becomes intra-frame but by doing that you loose so much of the h.264 capabilities and you are still sticked with the heavy decoding process of the codec. h.264 excels at low bitrate, inter-frame compression. Put the settings at his max and you end up with a file which needs heavy decoding process and that is not what an workable, editable codec should be. I actually don't think my computer can play a maxed-out each frame keyframe 4k h.264 video properly. Also, h.264 is not even a codec but a format of video coding so depending on the codec you use, you will end up with different videos in terms of qualilty, colors, etc. Even on this list dated from 2007 : http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=95939 , there were already 68 differents codecs that can compress video file in h.264 format but each of them will produce different result. A reviewer cannot check for each file the keyframe frequency (btw I don't even think it is possible) and with which codec the video has been encoded, etc...
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
