Quote from: MotionDesign on December 15, 2023, 13:26

For animation and motion graphics i think AE is #1, easy to use, lot of plugins, lot of tutorials.
BMD Fusion is more a compositing tool (with some motion graphics capabilities)

Thanks for this answer. I think you're the only one here who answered the OP's question. Others may be confusing AE (for animation) with Premiere Pro for (standard video).

You are welcome
I've used fusion studio on and off for a couple of year, i've made some motion graphics that sell well on stock, but i prefer to use AE with plugins such as Element3d, Stardust and Plexus

Neat Video alone costs $149, while the entire Davinci Studio Version has a perpetual one time cost of $295, including the excellent noise reduction feature.

Money issues don't interest me. I'm only interested in the technical aspect. If Neat Video removes noise no worse than Davinci resolve, then I will remove noise using Neat Video.

Bottom line: having quality clips encoded with quality codecs is increasing your chances to get your clips curated and sold for big bucks to enterprise customers

I think that many authors with good income will disagree with you. Probably a lot depends on the content that is being filmed. If you are shooting something that is later used in films, then the prores codec may be a good solution. Again, it is difficult to render into this prores so that the file is no more than 4 GB.
Do you shoot in 3840x2160 or a larger format?
Nowadays, many authors upload their videos to subscription stock agencies, and the prores codec is not required there.
There is also such a program as Topaz Video Enhance AI. If someone needs it, then you can make high-quality 4K from HD and remove any noise and artifacts. I think that Netflix knows how to use this program.

In any case, I don�t have the content that you probably have. Therefore, for me, loading many gigabytes onto stocks is a waste of time.

Now cameras shoot at 400Mb/s (4:2:2 10 bit ALL-Intra) (H.264/MPEG-4 AVC, LPCM). I am sure that this quality is enough for everyone who wants to make high-quality color correction. You can upload video directly from the camera to stock. This video takes up less space than prores.
 

I have one more thought. Perhaps some customers buy prores not because they need 10 bit and 4:2:2, but because it fits into their production process. These people can only work with prores. This prores is good because it does not require a lot of resources to work with it. But to work with h.264 or h.265 you need powerful computers. I think this is the answer.

In any case, I don�t have the content that you probably have. Therefore, for me, loading many gigabytes onto stocks is a waste of time.

Back in 2016 when I started video, it was recommended to me to use the old Quicktime PhotoJPEG codec for stock video. I trained and learned from some of the top video sellers at the time. But when PhotoJpeg was no longer available a few years later, that was the dilemma that faced many of us. Prores or h264. Smaller files for convenience or even larger files for quality. I ended up going to Prores, much to the encouragement of some top contributors.  I also compared the 2 codecs at 100% - and especially in difficult areas such as skies - there was a huge difference in quality.

And yes, it can depend on what type of video you shoot. I have many establishing shots, that when they sell, I usually receive high commissions. Thats where the real money is, and definitely worth the larger files.

You need to talk to more top sellers, and you will be surprised at the money that can be made even now on SS. There is a thread here somewhere were people showed some of their top commissions. $800 I think was the highest by Pace, I believe.

Anyway, once again, it all depends on what you shoot and what type of buyer you are targeting.

PS. There may be some 'snobbish' value attached to using prores. I had a friend who had his own production company and he always insisted on prores. And that may also apply to some buyers as well. But if that is what some buyers want, then its up to us to provide what they want - not the other way around.

I care about preserving my 10 bits.

The shutterstock website does not show how many bits your video contains. The video can be in prores, but contain 8 bits for example.
Are you rendering in prores 422 or in 422(HQ) ?

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 17, 2023, 17:48

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 17, 2023, 09:47

I care about preserving my 10 bits.

The shutterstock website does not show how many bits your video contains. The video can be in prores, but contain 8 bits for example.
Are you rendering in prores 422 or in 422(HQ) ?

The sales team curating those big bucks clips knows the codec quality. It would help if you had understood that, after so many explanations 

Below are my settings: I use the ProRes 422 LT, a codec able to preserve my native 10 bits and bitrate, without making the files too big.

Of course, shutterstock can watch your video and find out its characteristics. Do you think that buyers give shutterstock the task of finding them a 10-bit video? To me this sounds naive.
In my opinion, your video is simply suitable for buyers in terms of plot, color correction, and perhaps also because your video is in the prores codec (some people are immediately comfortable working with prores).
I seriously doubt that buyers generally figure out such an issue as video bit depth.

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 17, 2023, 09:47

One more thing: I don't necessarily care about ProRes, I care about preserving my 10 bits. I am not aware of any other 10 bits codecs supported by all main agencies (SS, AS, P5 and IS). When things will change, I will gladly switch, since I don't like my dependency on a $60/month, subscription based Adobe Encoder.

It is not clear why Adobe programs cannot export 10-bit video to H.264. Modern cameras shoot 10 bits in H.264 and even in an mp4 container.
When I export video to the H.264 codec in Media Encoder, I get 8-bit video.

I could export 10 bits H.265 directly from Davinci Resolve, instead of using Media Encoder to export 10 bits ProRes, but H.265 is not accepted by all agencies.

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 17, 2023, 19:11

Below are my settings: I use the ProRes 422 LT, a codec able to preserve my native 10 bits and bitrate, without making the files too big.

Why do you think that the finished file will have a bit depth of 10? Can you see somewhere what the bit depth of prores is?

There are many ways to analyze it. Most video editors have built-in tools to check the clip structure.

If you want, you can also so use 3rd party apps like MediaInfo (for example) to check the bit depth.

Sure. Here you go.
A ProRes clip imported back in DaVinci Resolve and checked with the Inspector shows this:

I think it's not the Inspector that shows this information.

It doesn't matter what you think.
What matters is the reality: the Inspector is showing the bit-depth info.
Again, you are denying the reality even when it screams in your face.

I also checked MedInfo. You are right that the ProRes clips have no bit depth displayed. I didn't realize it until now, since I only used it to double-check my input videos, for their native color space.
MediaInfo shows the 10 bit-depth for the native H265 clip, and for the intermediary uncompressed clip, but not for the final 10-bit ProRes. This is probably because ProRes 4:2:2 is a native 10-bit codec.

But Davinci Resolve properly displays this information, which is not debatable.

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 29, 2023, 10:45

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 29, 2023, 08:18

I think it's not the Inspector that shows this information.

It doesn't matter what you think.
What matters is the reality: the Inspector is showing the bit-depth info.
Again, you are denying the reality even when it screams in your face.

I also checked MedInfo. You are right that the ProRes clips have no bit depth displayed. I didn't realize it until now, since I only used it to double check my input videos, for their native color space.
MediaInfo is showing the 10 bit-depth for the native H265 clip, for the intermediary uncompressed clip, but not for the final 10 bit ProRes. This is weird, indeed.

But Davinci Resolve is properly displaying this information, and this is not debatable.

I also have Davinci Resolve. And in my version of the program Inspector does not show the video bit depth.
So, we only know that only Davinci Resolve can show the video bit depth in prores. We don't know of any other programs. We don�t know whether the shutterstock site uses Davinci Resolve to determine bit depth.

You may have the free version of DaVinci Resolve which is not supporting 10 bits files

As I told you before I am using the paid Studio version.
Do your homework.

PS:
https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000389.shtml
"ProRes is a 10-bit native codec, it can be used with either 8- or 10-bit sources and 8-bit sources (such as DVCProHD) would need to be upsampled to a 10-bit file"

You may have the free version of DaVinci Resolve which is not supporting 10 bits files

I also looked at the paid Studio version.
I don't have the free version of DaVinci Resolve.

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 29, 2023, 11:58

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 29, 2023, 10:45

This is probably because ProRes 4:2:2 is a native 10-bit codec.
https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000389.shtml

"While ProRes is a 10-bit native codec, it can be used with either 8- or 10-bit sources and 8-bit sources"

Modern cameras can also shoot 10 bits in 4:2:0.

Sure. So when anyone sees a ProRes clip, they can safely bet that it's a 10-bit clip, even if they don't have Davinci Resolve or other tools to check it.

It's a lie! I can recode any video from any crap phone into prores 422.

The de facto bit depth of the video will be 8. Whatever Davinci Resolve shows. 

Many people, after reading this topic, will begin to render any of their videos from their phones in prores and upload them to stock agencies. 

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 29, 2023, 12:01

Quote from: stoker2014 on December 29, 2023, 11:58

Quote from: Zero Talent on December 29, 2023, 10:45

This is probably because ProRes 4:2:2 is a native 10-bit codec.
https://www.loc.gov/preservation/digital/formats/fdd/fdd000389.shtml

"While ProRes is a 10-bit native codec, it can be used with either 8- or 10-bit sources and 8-bit sources"

Modern cameras can also shoot 10 bits in 4:2:0.

Sure. So when anyone sees a ProRes clip, they can safely bet that it's a 10-bit clip, even if they don't have Davinci Resolve or other tools to check it.

It's a lie! I can recode any video from any crap phone into prores 422.

The de facto bit depth of the video will be 8. Whatever Davinci Resolve shows. 

Many people, after reading this topic, will begin to render any of their videos from their phones in prores and upload them to stock agencies. 

I agree, but it's not a lie. It's a fact.

What you describe is cheating.

The fact of the matter is that Davinci Resolve will show 10 bits, because the ProRes files are 10 bits (minimum), even if you cheated and invented 2 (or more) bits out of thin air, by falsely encoding an 8-bit file with a 10 or 12-bit codec.

The same goes for any other codecs. You can encode an 8-bit clip and sell it as a 10-bit H.265, for example. MediaInfo will show 10-bit, Davinci will show 10-bit, and your client will have no way to know upfront, that someone is selling fake 10-bit clips.

Congrats, you fooled someone! 

So, it doesn't have anything to do with ProRes, but with your integrity.

The only way to discover this cheat is when the buyer is trying to edit the clip, only to realize it has ugly sudden transitions and banding specific to 8-bit clips. They may very well return the clip and ask for their money back.

And, btw, my S22 Ultra can make native 10-bit clips in Pro mode.