I think people just like 'having' 4K if they can have it - not that they 'need' it.

It seems there are only small specific settings in which to use 4k too - in that some 4K content may be more 'desirable' than HD for particular applications (i.e., say a company 'buying' a 4K video to demo their 4K televisions in a store setting.

So if all you have is HD, but it is good - then yes, that would most likely still be purchased.

I can definitely relate to what you're saying about only being useful in a particular circumstances. For example, In my own experience I was temporarily using storyblocks for a project and downloaded only at HD because it's lightweight quick to edit. However, sometimes I needed to go back and download some videos at 4K so that I could zoom in on someone's face without losing detail. But this was the only reason, otherwise HD was fine.

So I'd agree that it's a 'nice to have' rather than being head and shoulders visually better than HD for most use cases.

However, I'm still trying to figure out if 4K earns more than HD because within the subscription plans they allow customers to download 4K without charging extra, and so nothing extra appears to get passed on to the contributor. At least that's my understanding.

I crunched some numbers a few times a while back, and this is what I found...

a) If you have an option to 'upsell' from HD to 4k (i.e., two different prices), then yes, many times customers will choose the 4k option meaning more $$$
b) If there are two nearly identical clips from different producers, but one has 4K, then yes, it seems more often customers will choose the 4K option

That being said...
a) If you sell a lot via Adobe, Adobe changed video licensing so 4K is the SAME revenue as HD. I believe this is a bit short sighted - because it is a bit of a 'race to the bottom' mentality - however, that's what they did. So you don't make any extra $$ for 4K than you would for HD, other than if you have a nearly identical HD clip to say a competitor that has a 4K clip, and the client is presented with both, a % will probably choose the 4K option (meaning the competitor gets that revenue)
b) Unlimited download sites don't differentiate (i.e., storyblocks, motionarray, etc, etc). So no real incentive here either, other than from time to time some clients will want a 4K version if the clip is nearly identical (meaning a competitor gets the 'sale').
c) Only sites where you can have different pricing in individual clip sales would I say there is any real addtional bonus value (in terms of revenue to the producer).

So right now...

While by default I record (with a camera/etc) in 4K (no big deal to push a button between 4K/HD)... If I am manually producing a clip (i.e., CGI), then I opt for the HD version, because there is no real (easily measurable) major benefit to have my computer system work 4x as hard to do 4K CGI/3D/etc... because those computer generated/processed/etc videos are unique, so if the client wants it, the client wants it.

In terms of 'working' with 4K clips - I agree with you - HD is much easier to work with, and personally I've never really found too much benefit to 4K unless I needed some extra high quality/zooming/cropping/etc abilities. Also - for some sites (i.e., motionarray) - I found the clip sizes WAAAAAAAAAAAAAY to big (ridiculously big in some cases) - where a 15 second clip was like 1 GIGABYTE - making it almost useless. (Because I would have to downsample the clip to be able to work with it effectively). I definitely preferred storyblocks where I could get 2-10MB HD clips to edit with.

So bottom line, I'd say:

a) If you can record in 4K vs HD, and it is no real extra effort to you to process the videos - go for it. I would say there is 'marginal' benefit for you in terms of sales, in that if you have a nearly identical clip to a competitor - a % will opt for the 4K version meaning some x-tra revenue for you.
b) HOWEVER... if you are doing say computer generated stuff (CGI/3D/etc), or extra post-processing to your clips - then there (right now) is no real point to spending all those xtra computing resources to produce 4K content - unless you can find a marketplace that sells 4K clips well for you.

1. Yes, it was this year - here's the "good news" from Adobe - I guess January 24th/2024
https://blog.adobe.com/en/publish/2024/01/24/adobe-stock-now-offers-4kvideo-hd-prices-every-subscription

Looking back a few years ago - it was nice getting a $60 or say $80 video sale. But that does not seem to happen as often any more, as most of the videos are now subscriptions - and are (as low as it seems) $2.80/clip - either 4k or HD.

2. Re: Pond5 - yes, not quite sure how things are calculated there. Several years ago - if I priced my clip at "x" $, it stayed at "x" $. But now it is all over the map, doesn't quite make sense. Sometimes I do get 'larger' sales, but it depends. Weird/strange thing is this year (so far) was much lower than I expected (looking @ historical sales numbers). Not sure if somehow when I uploaded a new batch of videos that affected things - but - just seemed the timing was the same. I expected more sales with a large batch upload that I had been doing, and instead - seemed to drop significantly so wasn't too happy about that. Some sales though (after about 7-8 months) now seem to be coming back, which is good.

3. For CGI - yes - I think most of it would be unique. CGI/Rendering is not 'as easy' to do as some people think, plus you can get some cool special FX with things like Blender3D, etc. The "ai" stuff is still based off of theft (you lol get 'watermarks'), and in general - seems to be a combination of simple effects (i.e., blurring) - with some basic 3D projection mapping + the 'blending'. In other words - hit or miss whether you get a 'decent' looking "ai" video.

4. If you enjoy doing CGI - I'd say continue to do it. But figure out how to become more efficient/effective at producing clips, because yes - it doesn't seem that there is as strong a (stock footage) financial incentive to do so any more.

Logically they must earn more than HD because they reach more buyers, both those who want HD and those who want 4K.

I remember synthetick, is this the same lady who used to post on the old istockvideo forums back in the day?

I was planing to invest into 8K, but after it was clear that even 4k isent yet the standart in TV and online yet, it would be a total overkill, and slowing down the editing and file storage for nothing. Makes you wonder if we ever go to an 8K standard ever.

I was planing to invest into 8K, but after it was clear that even 4k isent yet the standart in TV and online yet, it would be a total overkill, and slowing down the editing and file storage for nothing. Makes you wonder if we ever go to an 8K standard ever.

Are you investing in equipment to produce 8K for CGI stock video or footage shot with a camera? Either way I would definitely wait until the market decides if or when it becomes standard. And even then who knows how the microstock landscape will pan out in the future.

i feel this might have been discussed elsewhere but does anyone have a good sense of how frame rates affect sales?  if someone is working on a 24 fps video will they only purchase those or do 30/60, etc. also work cause they'll just convert them.  i saw some advice somewhere to shoot in the highest frame rate you can so buyers can slow footage down to whatever they need but wondering if i should also do some stuff in 24 for that market.  sorry to hijack the thread.