|
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 - increasingdifficulty
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 74
51
« on: January 22, 2020, 09:17 »
Any solutions? Should I delete the software and reinstall it?
Yes, but don't reinstall it. It's clear that it doesn't work the way you need it to, and my advice is once again to use REAL professional software if you want professional results.  Download a trial of After Effects and see if that works.
52
« on: January 20, 2020, 11:55 »
Mate I've been exporting frame rates for years.
make sure you are keeping the original frame rate or you will get frame blending So was that another bug then? Just curious, as frame blending usually doesn't magically appear unless you're pressing the wrong buttons (or the right buttons if you WANT frame blending of course). Could be interlaced video issues, but that hasn't been relevant in 10 years... Anyway, today, in After Effects 2020, frames aren't duplicated or blended unless you want them to. 3rd party software meaning video convertors and not editing software like Premiere or FCPX etc. Well, that's not what 3rd party software means...
53
« on: January 20, 2020, 09:10 »
Though the frame rate was 23.something fps (can't recall exactly) and I converted that to 24fps. The reason I did that is because the camera's frame rate is not in the list of SS' accepted frame rates.
23.976? That is accepted by all agencies, and used in many professional productions. You might have seen "23.98" in that list, which is just a lazy way of writing 23.976. You don't have to convert anything.
54
« on: January 20, 2020, 08:57 »
If the clip runs smoothly on your computer then it should be OK. Years ago any renders I did using After Effects I would get a glitchy one frame duplication that made the clip twitch. You could go through the clip and make sure each frame is OK?
I would just say be careful when down converting from 4Kto HD using 3rd party software. There are different sizes in 4K so you may get letterboxing on the HD clip (black bars on the top and bottom). Also make sure you are keeping the original frame rate or you will get frame blending or it could look choppy when playing back.
Are you on a PC or MAC?
None of these issues are, well, issues, if you know what you're doing. All software is "3rd party software" unless you use the camera manufacturer's own, which no one does (well, Blackmagic users might).  If you want to change the frame rate in After Effects, just choose "Interpret Footage" and set it to whatever you want. If you don't want to change it, just create a new comp from the clip and the original settings are kept. You don't get frame blending unless you tell AE to blend frames. And you don't get duplicate frames unless you drop a clip with a different frame rate into an already created comp with another frame rate. Or if you change the speed. To the OP: Your old computer can render 4k footage just fine - it just takes longer! Work with proxies if you're having playback problems. My opinion is that you should use good commercial software if you want to get consistent results. That means After Effects, Premiere, Final Cut, or DaVinci Resolve. My opinion only.
55
« on: January 15, 2020, 10:10 »
what are they doing?
They are selling your 4k clips more than 20% lower than the price you set.
56
« on: January 15, 2020, 01:52 »
Like I said, it's worth more to have lots of free advertising being produced than going after the licenses of the advertisers.
The reason behind verifying would of course be that they thought that a significant part of the users did not have a license. Enforcing it would then force part of that theoretically large number of producers to focus on something else. More likely would be offering free licenses to content producers, something they are already doing!
Of course, they COULD enforce it, especially at places like Pond5, where sellers must upload official identification. Evidently, they do not think it's worth it.
57
« on: January 15, 2020, 01:29 »
It would be highly beneficial
...and 1,000 times more beneficial to have hundreds of thousands of templates produced to keep the ecosystem dominant. So, no, they won't do it.
58
« on: January 10, 2020, 08:40 »
What am I missing?
Well, I think the obvious thing is that you're not using a real camera to film with... But if you must use your phone, find an app (like Filmic Pro) that lets you change the bitrate first of all. The standard bitrates are set to conserve space for personal videos, not for professional quality. And due to the tiny sensor, noise will be an issue in anything but perfect conditions. You might also get rejections for the "strobe" effect, which will occur in bright conditions with lots of movement due to the fast shutter speed (that should ideally always be 1/48-1/60 unless you're doing slow motion). Since you can't change the aperture, this will be a problem.
59
« on: December 22, 2019, 10:14 »
No worries!
By the way, I now see that the D800 is not a 4k camera, which unfortunately complicates things a bit regarding choice...
I don't have experience with any of your cameras, so it's hard to tell if the iPhone 11 might actually look better than the D800 regarding video, but it's not impossible. I don't know, you will have to test them side by side and judge for yourself. As far as I know, you cannot change the aperture on the iPhone, which means you will HAVE to use shutter speeds that don't look professional (same with the GoPro actually). It might still work.
The bitrate becomes very important, and the default settings on phones are generally too low for real use. There are, however, apps that will let you choose a higher bitrate (such as Filmic Pro, and others) on the iPhone, to retain more quality.
The GoPro 7 might be a good choice for shots with movement, even if the bitrate is on the low side on that camera too, which will result in ugly blocking in complicated scenes.
No crystal clear answer here I'm afraid... If the D800 had 4k it would be, but not now. For timelapses, the D800 is an excellent choice.
60
« on: December 22, 2019, 05:07 »
Oh my, that's a big question!
Here's my take on it.
Let's start with YouTube and vlogging: "The money is infinitely better on YouTube" is only true for very, very few people. For most, I would say it's much worse.
Filming stock footage (B-roll) and a (successful) vlog (A-roll + B-roll) are two VERY, VERY different things. With a vlog, you're selling yourself, your personality, along with a big story. With stock footage, you're selling a very small story, or no story at all, to be used by someone else in their big story as a small component.
A successful vlog likely means working 24/7 for a year before seeing any meaningful income, and that's only if you're very good and a bit lucky. You have to constantly produce good content, AT LEAST weekly. That's making a mini movie every week. It's not easy.
Vlogging, however, can mean less focus on the technical details, since a perfectly successul vlog can be made with a shaky cellphone, IF the story is good, and your personality is interesting to people.
When you film stock footage, your goal is to film something that the buyer (which could be a vlogger) can't film themselves, usually meaning higher technical quality and interesting locations.
---
There is no shortage of things to film in Australia and New Zealand. It's endless. Cityscapes, deserts, people, ANYTHING can be interesting and commercially successful. Maybe the aftermath of the recent fires? A timelapse of the Sydney skyline? A koala resting in a tree? Roadkill (plenty of that in Australia)? Business people walking to work in the CBD?
Anything.
---
If you're ONLY going to vlog, simple cameras will be enough, but if you want to seriously sell stock footage, I would try to get the highest quality possible (tripod + D800 will do that).
Simple guidelines for (stock) video that are a bit different from still photography:
Everything manual - white balance, shutter speed, aperture, ISO.
Pick a frame rate! It does not matter that much, but MY preference is 23,976 fps (or 24p) since it's universal. Your shutter speed should then ideally be set to 1/50 (or 1/48 if possible, which it usually isn't).
That means that the shutter speed, ideally, will be fixed, and exposure is controlled by aperture and ISO. You will quickly notice that this makes it impossible to film during bright days, and if you don't have an ND filter, you will HAVE to use a faster shutter. It's not the end of the world, but it looks less professional.
If you're filming for a vlog only, on the other hand, you can worry less about the settings and more about the story. If the story is interesting, not many will care that your camera was set to AUTO everything with fast shutter speeds and changing exposure.
Again, filming for stock and a vlog can be two VERY different things.
---
Anyway, as for subject matter to search for, see any of the above! "Cinematic settings for my D800 for example" will give you a bunch of people telling you about shutter speeds, low contrast settings, etc.
The best thing is to start filming a lot before you go, to make many of the mistakes you will make before it really matters.
61
« on: November 30, 2019, 13:56 »
mmm So thats $4-5K per month? That would be assuming that you resell your 1000 clips every month, but I feel Im assuming wrong. Can you clarify this for me?
Well, I said LESS than 1,000 clips so not quite that much. But the average $4-5 per clip per month is just that - the average, which means some clips may earn $0, and others $100. To me, this is the most useful metric when comparing, and whatever costs you may have is up to you to add. For someone living in NYC, a clip worth $10k might cost a short walk, while it would be a lot more expensive for someone living in Zadar. You should know that the $4-5/clip/month is a HIGH number, and most people don't make nearly that much. And you probably won't either the first 1-2 years. That is because I: Don't upload a thousand similars, only 1-3 of the best clips of a subject/location. Spend A LOT of time on the metadata - which should be different for each site. You HAVE to know and use each search engine to your advantage. Have some unique clips that generally can't be filmed - they are "Photoshopped" (but in After Effects). Have CONTROL over my clips - do not go exclusive or use services like BlackBox if you want to maximize earnings. Most people are very lazy when it comes to the "boring" side of stock, which is the metadata, SEO, editing, adapting to new markets, etc., anything except for actually filming. That means they probably lose thousands of dollars. Some people just upload directly from their memory cards, write a few lazy descriptions (often very bad) that they copy/paste to 30 clips, upload 50 slightly different variations of the same clip and then complain when they have 5 sales from 20,000 clips... --- Also, if you really want to sell a lot of clips, you need subjects that are likely to sell over and over, and over, and over again. If you only have very specific clips, of an animal few normal people even know exists, you will probably only see 1-2 lifetime sales. On the other hand, a roaring lion is universally known and needed all the time. This is also connected to tagging. If you have a clip of an alpaca that people only find if they specifically search for "alpaca", you might see a few sales. But if people also find that clip when they search for "travel in South America", you will sell a lot more.
62
« on: November 29, 2019, 14:54 »
So what I would like to ask you then is how many clips you have on your portfolio? And how many downloads you had the last month, lets say, for not only wildlife footage? I dont want to be annoying though, so feel free to skip this if you prefer.
Without going into too much detail, I have less than 1,000 clips, quite a bit less on most of the sites where I never uploaded my "beginner" shots that weren't too great. I get around $4-5 per clip, per month, from that portfolio from all income sources combined. A bit more than 50% of my clips are related to nature (wildlife, landscapes, nature close-ups etc.). The sales coming from nature footage are also around that number (40-60%). I have pretty much no people footage. I make a good living from stock (in any country), but most of my income comes from other assets, and my stock footage income alone wouldn't be enough to live comfortably where I live right now, although it would certainly be more than enough in cheap countries. Some months of the year I dedicate to travel/filming/uploading footage, and some months to other stuff like 3D animation and music. If I were to focus 100% of my time on stock footage only, I'm certain I would be able to live well from that. --- You seem to know what you're doing, and I'm sure you'll end up with better clips than I have. Most of my wildlife shots are quite easy shots, as I've never spent weeks in hides or anything like that. I wish I had more cool scenes, but that takes a lot of time and dedication of course. And I don't have any RED cameras, C100s or Arri Alexas in my hiking backpack. As you say, to sell to BBC, you would probably have to have certain equipment, but I agree that even they buy stock footage for their films, at least of the surroundings (like aerials with certain weather conditions the film teams weren't lucky to get). --- Make the most of your time. I assume that 90%+ will be waiting time, so capture time lapses, close-ups of insects, leaves, aerials of the surroundings, etc. --- I would really love to be able to film harpy eagles! That is really, really cool!
63
« on: November 28, 2019, 14:17 »
Its a pristine undisturbed place to see a loooot of wildlife
This truly sounds great! Of course, what you're asking is the classic impossible-to-answer "how many clips do I need to make this?" question... It's fun to discuss, but in the end, numbers from other people will mean absolutely nothing. Someone with a 1,000 wildlife clips might sell 0 per month, and another with 50 good ones (as in USABLE) might sell 50. Anyway, because I love wildlife, and it sounds like a great opportunity, I think you should do it, but I'm not making any promises regarding $$$... Here are some of my recent stats, just for fun: Pond5 Oct sales: 18. Wildlife: 7. Percentage of sales that were of wildlife: 39%. Percentage of wildlife clips in my portfolio: around 25%. Same stats for November: only 1 out of 18 sales was related to animals. --- At another site, 4 out of 24 sales in November were wildlife sales (16.7%), with a portfolio consisting of less than 15% wildlife. --- If you add in nature and landscapes, the numbers go WAY up of course, so I encourage you to not only use your telephoto lenses. --- Also keep in mind that a clip of a great white shark will probably sell 1,000+ times more than a viscacha... Try to capture interesting behaviour, like hunting, fighting and mating, and the chances of selling go up 10-100 times. --- For the people wondering where wildlife shots are used outside of documentaries - lots of places! Anything related to the environment (or rather, the destruction of) always use wildlife shots, and there are a lot of those projects being produced every week. Also, standard business/corporate videos use videos of powerful animals. --- This turned into a long post, so this is the end. I wish you the best of luck!
64
« on: November 18, 2019, 13:36 »
I've just realized the HD downsampled versions of 4K clips are offered with very small file sizes Shutterstock.
A 10second clip is 8 Megabytes. That's around 6mbit/s bitrate.
Where do you see that? I see from around 25-80 mbit/sec depending on the content. 100 mbit for HD is good, but in reality, NEAR perfect quality can be obtained with 100 mbit for 4k, which most smaller cameras film with (GH4/GH5 100/150 mbit) and that 4k quality is quite pristine. No, not as good as a ProRes capture of course, but very good.
65
« on: November 18, 2019, 08:47 »
You're probably overthinking this one. I agree. We see lost sales because the clip isn't 4k, because it's not ProRes or better, because it's not 23.98 or 24 but I've never had anyone ever ask for C4k over UHD or the other way around.
Do you mean that buyers have contacted you, asking for ProRes, 4k, and/or 23.98p and you didn't have it, and therefore they didn't buy? Or do you THINK you lost sales? --- The last three months I've sold around 50 clips on Pond5. 94% were HD. 6% 4k. 36% of the HD sales had 4k (ProRes) versions available. 64% were HD native. --- From this small sample I can just assume that MOST buyers don't care about 4k, at least not enough to spend more $$$. They also MIGHT not care that much about getting ProRes since the h264 downconverted versions worked fine. Of course, very small sample, and I don't have time to go back further right now, but right now it seems HD h264 is still fine for most, with a few "advanced" buyers wanting 4k. The download time alone for, say, 30 ProRes HQ 4k clips would be a couple of hours, which may or may not be too slow for some customers. --- Just a bit of guesswork here... Anyone with conflicting data?
66
« on: November 16, 2019, 09:48 »
Is it logical to shoot in 4096x2160 in 24p then? Or can i just export it in 23,976?
For the buyer, 23.976 or 24 matters exactly zero (0), since a clip without audio can be played at 23.976, 24, or even 25 without any noticable difference. It is 1 click (OK, maybe 2 or 3) in any software. If you provide 23.976, and their project is 24, it means they will play your clip 0.1% faster. This is how it's done every day in Europe (and the rest of the PAL world) with 24p movies. They all play back at 25p (4% faster).
67
« on: November 15, 2019, 11:21 »
There is also a possibility that default app takes multiple exposures behind the curtain and combining them for optimal results.
Yes, that is exactly what it does. Very interesting, would be fun to try myself. The resulting 8-bit image could indeed retain more usable information than the RAW file, but what would be REALLY cool is if the phone could output a 16-bit TIFF from the multiple exposures! Can it do that? Anyway, for still subjects this could work great, but as always, for fast moving subjects you would run into trouble. Try doing "computational photography" of a bird flying across the frame...
68
« on: October 29, 2019, 09:32 »
If someone can explain to me why any of 55 nearly identical similars of a doppler radar station with blown out highlights that anyone could replicate in an hour with better quality would be worth $200 I'm all ears! I find that most people with huge portfolios (20-30k) complaining about 0 sales actually only have around 1,000 different clips, and maybe 100-200 usable...
69
« on: October 28, 2019, 09:36 »
everyone else is just a cog in their machine that they'll squeeze as hard as they can for every last penny.
And here I thought that my 70-80% cut on multiple daily sales (100% if I drive affiliate traffic) was pretty OK. But I would be very interested to hear about other sites you can recommend that pay more!
70
« on: October 28, 2019, 08:35 »
...so, I assume you were either kicked out or not invited to the party?
71
« on: October 21, 2019, 09:27 »
Crushpixel (46 sales with 2000 images since they opened in Feb 2019)
https://www.crushpixel.com/?ref=4249
So, roughly 2 per month for 2,000 images... Doesn't seem like it would be worth the wear and tear on my keyboard to open a new tab for the site.
72
« on: September 06, 2019, 02:44 »
someone selling photos is not likely to get much of a bonus anyway (maybe $10?), even if you sell quite a few images. I guess my prediction was pretty good. Am I complaining? You betcha bottom dollar, its 90% plus reduction in income.
Your argument about getting a $1000 bonus is a non sequitor as they have not increased the bonus at all
Or, looking at it from a more logical point of view, you should be happy you got $1,500+ or so from other contributors who sold much more than you...
73
« on: September 06, 2019, 02:37 »
If you run the numbers... you'll see that the average contributor makes exactly $650 a month in item earnings!
...assuming the pool was the same, but roughly yes! That is actually quite encouraging. My bonus went down a bit, but not bad. Making assumptions about other people's earnings based on one's own usually isn't too useful...
74
« on: September 03, 2019, 03:50 »
Yeah, they said they 'may' invite you to join the member library in the future, so they're keeping some of your footage in your account (rather than deleting them when the marketplace closes) so that if they do invite you (and you decide to join) you don't have to upload them again. Nowhere did they say that your content is going to automatically enter the subscription service when the marketplace is deleted. At present, both of those need to happen for your content to join the member library... and neither of them has happened. Might be worth reading it again yourself!
"If you do not wish to join the Partner Program, please email..."
This sentence then sounds strange, don't you think so?
No, it means they can delete all of your clips right away and give your spot in the queue to someone else.
75
« on: August 25, 2019, 23:28 »
Or for instance, you could argue that my port or models is of low quality, I certainly tend to do, but seeing my minimap almost completely blank in North America still makes me wonder, is it really me or the fact they do have a field in their database where it says that I'm from a certain country that will take away 30% from US sales.
Well, it has been shown that buyers from the US will first and foremost buy products from the US, if they can. Also, people images from Eastern Europe don't look American, just like Nordic people images don't look Spanish, etc., and Americans are not that likely to need landscape images of non-famous locations around the world. So, perfectly reasonable and logical explanations why a person with images from a European country (that clearly look European) will not sell as many images to the US.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 74
|
Sponsors
Microstock Poll Results
Sponsors
|
Show Posts
