Author Topic: Made over 25.000 videos only by slide photos (Read 31866 times)

kunilanskap · « **on:** January 30, 2016, 02:15 »

http://www.shutterstock.com/video/gallery/Gregory-Gerber-150613/

??

Stkflvr · « **Reply #1 on:** January 30, 2016, 03:15 »

Unbelievable...
.
.
.
.
. review system

kunilanskap · « **Reply #2 on:** January 30, 2016, 03:19 »

Quote from: Stkflvr on January 30, 2016, 03:15

Unbelievable...
.
.
.
.
. review system

Just crazy, I'm doing 3D (motion graphics) videos, Only have 500 videos over 2 years work on it.

But this guy, I have no idea. Maybe He has more sales than me . lol

sharpshot · « **Reply #3 on:** January 30, 2016, 04:01 »

Used to be able to see sales on Pond5 but I can't see them now, so don't know if this is worth the effort. Maybe this is why video queues have gone up if people are using their stills portfolio? I wonder if the sites could do a bit of code to do this with all our stills, panning left and right, zooming in and out?

Cider Apple · « **Reply #4 on:** January 30, 2016, 04:36 »

How on earth did these pass the review??? Most people who buy clips know how to edit so after they bought them they must then have realized it's only a still. It's like fraud. I don't like this at all, hope the agencies wise up to it...

sharpshot · « **Reply #5 on:** January 30, 2016, 04:46 »

Quote from: Cider Apple on January 30, 2016, 04:36

How on earth did these pass the review??? Most people who buy clips know how to edit so after they bought them they must then have realized it's only a still. It's like fraud. I don't like this at all, hope the agencies wise up to it...

Its a standard video technique that's been used for years, the Ken Burns effect. I've sold a few, nothing wrong with it as its obvious to buyers from the preview. I'm just not sure that its worth the effort for contributors when a proper video pan takes seconds to do.

ACS · « **Reply #6 on:** January 30, 2016, 04:50 »

I wonder why he didn't make them 4K in the first place?!

Photographs looks professional but videos not!

This may work for some specific type of photographs and it is almost indistinguishable when it's done properly but this is just simple pan & zoom effect. Angle of light, perspective, depth of field doesn't change and I don't think that many video customer would pay for it 100 times more price.

Cider Apple · « **Reply #7 on:** January 30, 2016, 04:56 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 30, 2016, 04:46

Quote from: Cider Apple on January 30, 2016, 04:36
How on earth did these pass the review??? Most people who buy clips know how to edit so after they bought them they must then have realized it's only a still. It's like fraud. I don't like this at all, hope the agencies wise up to it...
Its a standard video technique that's been used for years, the Ken Burns effect. I've sold a few, nothing wrong with it as its obvious to buyers from the preview. I'm just not sure that its worth the effort for contributors when a proper video pan takes seconds to do.

I know the ken burns effect. I use it a lot myself for projects outside of stock, but I think selling it as footage is a bad isea because the customers buying footage are to the most part expecting moving images (and not just one image)

Dodie · « **Reply #8 on:** January 30, 2016, 05:06 »

Quote from: kunilanskap on January 30, 2016, 03:19

Quote from: Stkflvr on January 30, 2016, 03:15
Unbelievable...
.
.
.
.
. review system

Just crazy, I'm doing 3D (motion graphics) videos, Only have 500 videos over 2 years work on it.

But this guy, I have no idea. Maybe He has more sales than me . lol

Could be. I just searched for "food intro" and most of the clips on the search result are from this port.
Well, if we talk review, I just saw 600 illustrations (not vector) of a marijuana leaf on white in 600 colors, all in one chunk, this is no worse IMO

sharpshot · « **Reply #9 on:** January 30, 2016, 05:38 »

Quote from: Cider Apple on January 30, 2016, 04:56

Quote from: sharpshot on January 30, 2016, 04:46
Quote from: Cider Apple on January 30, 2016, 04:36
How on earth did these pass the review??? Most people who buy clips know how to edit so after they bought them they must then have realized it's only a still. It's like fraud. I don't like this at all, hope the agencies wise up to it...
Its a standard video technique that's been used for years, the Ken Burns effect. I've sold a few, nothing wrong with it as its obvious to buyers from the preview. I'm just not sure that its worth the effort for contributors when a proper video pan takes seconds to do.
I know the ken burns effect. I use it a lot myself for projects outside of stock, but I think selling it as footage is a bad isea because the customers buying footage are to the most part expecting moving images (and not just one image)

Buyers can clearly see from the preview that its a pan of a still image, these are used sometimes, so I don't see what the problem is. I'm just not sure its worth the effort making them when the demand for them is probably quite low.

jarih · « **Reply #10 on:** January 30, 2016, 10:02 »

Quote from: ACS on January 30, 2016, 04:50

I wonder why he didn't make them 4K in the first place?!

Limitations of the original image, resolution size!

YadaYadaYada · « **Reply #11 on:** January 30, 2016, 12:48 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 30, 2016, 05:38

Quote from: Cider Apple on January 30, 2016, 04:56
Quote from: sharpshot on January 30, 2016, 04:46
Quote from: Cider Apple on January 30, 2016, 04:36
How on earth did these pass the review??? Most people who buy clips know how to edit so after they bought them they must then have realized it's only a still. It's like fraud. I don't like this at all, hope the agencies wise up to it...
Its a standard video technique that's been used for years, the Ken Burns effect. I've sold a few, nothing wrong with it as its obvious to buyers from the preview. I'm just not sure that its worth the effort for contributors when a proper video pan takes seconds to do.
I know the ken burns effect. I use it a lot myself for projects outside of stock, but I think selling it as footage is a bad isea because the customers buying footage are to the most part expecting moving images (and not just one image)
Buyers can clearly see from the preview that its a pan of a still image, these are used sometimes, so I don't see what the problem is. I'm just not sure its worth the effort making them when the demand for them is probably quite low.

Nice work but my question is the same. Do they sell?

andy_arden · « **Reply #12 on:** January 30, 2016, 13:18 »

The effect is ok just for some type of photos not for all like he has in the portfolio...but heck if it works why not? If he uploaded them then there are buyers who need it. I am going to try some shots for myself and see if they sell. Good idea

kunilanskap · « **Reply #13 on:** January 31, 2016, 03:23 »

Quote from: Dodie on January 30, 2016, 05:06

Quote from: kunilanskap on January 30, 2016, 03:19
Quote from: Stkflvr on January 30, 2016, 03:15
Unbelievable...
.
.
.
.
. review system

Just crazy, I'm doing 3D (motion graphics) videos, Only have 500 videos over 2 years work on it.

But this guy, I have no idea. Maybe He has more sales than me . lol
Could be. I just searched for "food intro" and most of the clips on the search result are from this port.
Well, if we talk review, I just saw 600 illustrations (not vector) of a marijuana leaf on white in 600 colors, all in one chunk, this is no worse IMO

Yeah, because when I searched kind a food video, his videos is on popular section. When the first time I saw his video I think "It's good video, with panning technique" then I jump to his port and see all his videos with the same "technique" and I realize that this is just fu**ing still images lol

cobalt · « **Reply #14 on:** January 31, 2016, 04:54 »

I think this is a useful idea, not every customer is a pro and even a pro might grab one of these if it is the right image and zoom for them. Saves time, why not?

I'll try it with a few pictures, I have thousamds of images, why not?

hatman12 · « **Reply #15 on:** January 31, 2016, 05:17 »

Well I think this is an excellent idea, and good luck to the guy. At least he's shown some genuine creativity, and unlike the 'spam image' accounts which have thousands of duplicates, this guy has made a real effort.

I might try some myself. Any ideas what software to use? And I think straight to 4K would be best.

Chichikov · « **Reply #16 on:** January 31, 2016, 05:41 »

Quote from: sharpshot on January 30, 2016, 04:46

Quote from: Cider Apple on January 30, 2016, 04:36
How on earth did these pass the review??? Most people who buy clips know how to edit so after they bought them they must then have realized it's only a still. It's like fraud. I don't like this at all, hope the agencies wise up to it...
[…]I'm just not sure that its worth the effort for contributors when a proper video pan takes seconds to do.

Are you (we) sure that the author of the "videos" is the author of the photos too?

60D · « **Reply #17 on:** January 31, 2016, 06:13 »

Quote from: Chichikov on January 31, 2016, 05:41

Are you (we) sure that the author of the "videos" is the author of the photos too?

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-150613p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/video/gallery/Gregory-Gerber-150613/

sharpshot · « **Reply #18 on:** January 31, 2016, 07:00 »

Quote from: hatman12 on January 31, 2016, 05:17

Well I think this is an excellent idea, and good luck to the guy. At least he's shown some genuine creativity, and unlike the 'spam image' accounts which have thousands of duplicates, this guy has made a real effort.

I might try some myself. Any ideas what software to use? And I think straight to 4K would be best.

I use VirtualDub to do these but the few I tried didn't sell much. I think its much better to do some real video while you are doing stills. A real video pan has a bit of motion blur that makes it look smooth, if you use the right shutter speed. Most pans from stills look wrong and I haven't found a way to add the movement blur to make them look more like real video.

Justanotherphotographer · « **Reply #19 on:** January 31, 2016, 08:47 »

I suspect they will sell more as prices drop for video and more and more people get sub packages. Like with vectors. Basic rubbish makes the best returns because the marginal cost for the customer is zero (people don't use all their downloads) so even it saves the buyer 1 minute of their time they are going to buy.

Chichikov · « **Reply #20 on:** January 31, 2016, 09:01 »

Quote from: 60D on January 31, 2016, 06:13

Quote from: Chichikov on January 31, 2016, 05:41
Are you (we) sure that the author of the "videos" is the author of the photos too?

http://www.shutterstock.com/gallery-150613p1.html
http://www.shutterstock.com/video/gallery/Gregory-Gerber-150613/

KB · « **Reply #21 on:** January 31, 2016, 12:22 »

Quote from: hatman12 on January 31, 2016, 05:17

Well I think this is an excellent idea, and good luck to the guy. At least he's shown some genuine creativity, and unlike the 'spam image' accounts which have thousands of duplicates, this guy has made a real effort.

I might try some myself. Any ideas what software to use? And I think straight to 4K would be best.

I did this a few times, but gave up. They didn't sell very well, and iStock (which amazingly actually contributed to my video sales back then) rejected them with "We do not accept image scans".

They are extremely easy to create with AE, and if I could think of it myself, it doesn't really show genuine creativity.

PeterChigmaroff · « **Reply #22 on:** January 31, 2016, 12:26 »

Ken Burns is the official technique name.

sharpshot · « **Reply #23 on:** January 31, 2016, 13:15 »

Taking it to another level, but still looks worse than real video to me.
https://youtu.be/p4UvdzUWGiY

mirkic · « **Reply #24 on:** January 31, 2016, 20:23 »

Hey all! I hope you guys are doing great... as always, reading and lurking and not to much talking

Anyways, when I was "inbetween" my cameras, I had only 7mpx canon point and shoot and I had to do something so while I was waiting for my new camera to arrive, I've taken some photos with post photoshop/layers/cloning/aftereffects in mind. And I can tell you that you can make "almost" everything move in those images. I remember starting a photo with my son walking with his sister, starting to manipulate it, and the best thing is to take another image while nobody is in the frame so you save yourself a half an hour of cloning. And then, you can make any part of any object/subject move in the image... not really suitable for real time but for some crazy one million frames slow motion, it can be more than believable. If done right. I never finished that image. But I managed to upload some on Istock five years ago. Had several sales since but if one would pursue only that type of work, I think there is money to be made. It's a whole new approach to "moving images" and old/new technique. Here is something that you can do with 2d image and cloning

And some are just simple snapshots of lights with streaks and glow added. 15 minutes of work, with rendering time

This is my kitchen light, streaks and glow added. With change of exposure.
http://www.istockphoto.com/video/abstract-flickering-light-gm113817883-14259201?st=4e67742

This is mine shaving foam from shot from above, just spin, motion blur and slow in and out.
http://www.istockphoto.com/video/spray-bottle-on-a-tiled-floor-spinning-gm113818039-14362297?st=073a130

Now in this one, the original photo is at the end of video, I cloned all the cracks and just slowly show them through the video.
http://www.istockphoto.com/video/crack-appearing-in-the-ground-gm114144274-14373255?st=073a130
http://www.istockphoto.com/video/cracks-slowly-appearing-in-marble-floor-gm113818026-14343784?st=073a130

Another light, in my hallway. Added wobbling effect, green light and shake...
http://www.istockphoto.com/video/spooky-greenish-light-gm113811766-14174565?st=073a130
http://www.istockphoto.com/video/spooky-wobbling-light-gm113811765-14174561?st=073a130

Elevator ceiling. Added strobe light and movement... that light was always flickering in that elevator so it gave me an idea.
http://www.istockphoto.com/video/industrial-game-like-ceiling-rotation-with-strobe-gm113811764-14174560?st=bf91cc7

Here, I shoot a light in my bathroom through my wife's (the plastic thing you roll in your hair to make it curly... can't recall the name) and added movement and flickr
http://www.istockphoto.com/video/abstract-blue-light-with-rays-gm113818038-14362256?st=4e67742

And the only one that I really put effort in, this nature tilt with sunlight and some strange things flying around... You can still see some bad photoshopping on hay stacks

) I animated almost everything here. Trees, branches, blur. And I got 4 sales

http://www.istockphoto.com/video/powerful-nature-background-tilt-gm113808935-13973328?st=073a130

Anyways, after several weeks, my camera arrived and I never did any of those again. Today, when I see this guy doing all those simple movements, and with the knowledge, technology and experience I got in these five years, who knows, maybe I give it another shot

I think he must be selling something cause he wouldn't be doing that much clips if there's no money out of it. And he already got the keywords ready from photos

Sorry for the long post. Back to lurking.

MicrostockGroup Sponsors

Author Topic: Made over 25.000 videos only by slide photos (Read 31866 times)

kunilanskap

Stkflvr

kunilanskap

sharpshot

Cider Apple

sharpshot

ACS

Cider Apple

Dodie

sharpshot

jarih

YadaYadaYada

andy_arden

kunilanskap

cobalt

hatman12

Chichikov

60D

sharpshot

Justanotherphotographer

Chichikov

KB

PeterChigmaroff

sharpshot

mirkic

Related Topics

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors